Stephen King on US gun contols.

[Sammi79]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jan/25/stephen-king-gun-control-essay-amazon-nra

Anyone read this yet?

I am going to buy it, I will post a brief description here if it is any good.

Regards,
Sam.

[edit] Well i might buy it once amazon/kindle sort their act out and let me here in the UK buy it.

[GoldenRivet]

Purchased a brand new AR-15 last weekend.

It hasn't committed a violent crime yet

I'm keeping a close eye on it though mr. King

[Onkel Neal]

It's ok to write the guide on how to conduct a schoolroom shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_(Stephen_King_novel)) (Rage), and to sell an essay on gun control? :nope:

[Crécy]

It's ok to write the guide on how to conduct a schoolroom shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_(Stephen_King_novel)) (Rage), and to sell an essay on gun control? :nope:

Fiction is fiction.

[em2nought]

I'd think Stephen King would be more afraid of minivans. :D

[Oberon]

Guns don't kill people, Stephen King kills people.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Fiction is fiction.

:yep:

He is still wading into dangerous waters. He's allowed to though, it's a free country.

[Skybird]

Heck, he definitely has a penetrating kill shot fired when saying the whole debate is about anything than the Second Amendment. My thoughts exactly. That is just a pretence. He says its about an attitude of holding to it no matter the collateral damage. I say it is also about lobbying for the US weapon manufacturer's profits: which saw a 30% rise last year.

It's also about fetishism. Want to tackle it? Send the bigger part of the population into psychotherapy.

Takes more than combat gear to make a man,
takes more than a rifle or a gun...

Or this (LINK) (http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_if.htm).

[Sammi79]

:yep:

He is still wading into dangerous waters. He's allowed to though, it's a free country.

I never played it actually. :woot:Ba dum Pssshhh!

seriously though, has anyone actually read it?

@Neal - Please lock the thread if its only function is causing offense and accept my apologies. I only asked as I cannot yet read it myself. I will ask elsewhere, and will only add that the proceeds of the sales of Mr. Kings essay will go to a US charity supporting victims of gun violence.

[edit] actually never mind I have managed to find it on kindle UK. Not sure why it was so hard to find.

[Sailor Steve]

Did you think any comments would be all positive? You haven't caused offence. People have to say what they think. It's what the internet is for. It's also what GT is for.

I haven't read it either, and I won't pay money to read anything by that hack, no matter where the proceeds go.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Did you think any comments would be all positive? You haven't caused offence. People have to say what they think. It's what the internet is for. It's also what GT is for.

:sign_yeah:

[Oberon]

Or this (LINK) (http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_if.htm).

:yep: Always tried to live my life by that, not an easy task, but it's a good poem, was brought up with it.

[MH]

Heck, he definitely has a penetrating kill shot fired when saying the whole debate is about anything than the Second Amendment.

:yep:

[TFatseas]

Purchased a brand new AR-15 last weekend.

It hasn't committed a violent crime yet

I'm keeping a close eye on it though mr. King

Yeah, I'm still waiting for mine to jump out of the safe to commit some immoral acts. So far I've been dissapointed.

"All proceeds will be donated to the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence."

Where is a barf smiley when you need one?

[Skybird]

:yep: Always tried to live my life by that, not an easy task, but it's a good poem, was brought up with it.
One of my all time favourites. :yep:

[Platapus]

Could you please make the point why anyone would care what a fiction author's opinion is on gun control?

I am sure the guy who picks up my trash has an opinion on it too. :up:

[MH]

Could you please make the point why anyone would care what a fiction author's opinion is on gun control?

I am sure the guy who picks up my trash has an opinion on it too. :up:

Ooooo then you are most likely the batman.:haha:

[Platapus]

It is kinda like asking me what my opinion is on neurosurgery techniques.

Yeah, I probably have an opinion on it, but why would anyone care?:haha:

[Cybermat47]

Agree with him or not, he sure has balls.

[Cybermat47]

It's ok to write the guide on how to conduct a schoolroom shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_(Stephen_King_novel)) (Rage), and to sell an essay on gun control? :nope:

Yeah, but in fairness he does regret writing Rage, and he let it fall out of print out of fear that it could cause more shootings.

[Sammi79]

Could you please make the point why anyone would care what a fiction author's opinion is on gun control?

I am sure the guy who picks up my trash has an opinion on it too. :up:

Gladly. I would say that the fact he is a fiction writer is irrelevant to the topic at hand compared to the fact he is born and bred American citizen and a proud owner of several guns, and that he is not personally profiting from this venture.

But then why would anyone place any value at all on opinions about a work they won't even read? :doh:

Why indeed would anyone care about anyone else opinion? :hmmm:

[Sammi79]

Yeah, but in fairness he does regret writing Rage, and he let it fall out of print out of fear that it could cause more shootings.

Actually he pulled it voluntarily against the wishes of several publishers. At least that's what he says.

[Platapus]

Why indeed would anyone care about anyone else opinion? :hmmm:

That's the thing about the worth of opinions. When you put in your two cents, people will only give you a penny for your thoughts. :D

[Sammi79]

That's the thing about the worth of opinions. When you put in your two cents, people will only give you a penny for your thoughts. :D

:haha: Very droll.

Its quite good really, just unfortunate that everyone except its target audience will read it.

[Onkel Neal]

Who is the target audience? (And I object to the term "target" in this instance.) ((just kidding!)).

[Rilder]

Could you please make the point why anyone would care what a fiction author's opinion is on gun control?

I am sure the guy who picks up my trash has an opinion on it too. :up:

Wait, you have to have a specific qualification to have a positive opinion on gun control?

Can we make anti-gun-control spokesmen require a license too? I'm really sick of hearing about nutjobs threatening to start a rebellion and murder a bunch of people if the "GURVERNMURNT TRIES TO TERK OUR GURNS" :O:

[TFatseas]

Who is the target audience? (And I object to the term "target" in this instance.) ((just kidding!)).

I find it funny that the book is supposed to "provoke rational discussion" yet all the proceeds go to the largest anti-2A lobby in America.

Yeah, ok.

[Sailor Steve]

Wait, you have to have a specific qualification to have a positive opinion on gun control?
No, but if you're a famous person you tend to expect people to take your opinion more seriously than others. Platapus merely pointed out that Mr. King's opinion is not nearly as special as Mr. King seems to think it is.

Can we make anti-gun-control spokesmen require a license too? I'm really sick of hearing about nutjobs threatening to start a rebellion and murder a bunch of people if the "GURVERNMURNT TRIES TO TERK OUR GURNS" :O:
Have you heard a lot of that here? Maybe others are sick of hearing demeaning, dismissive "Guns are all evil and I'm tired of hearing you say otherwise!" :sunny:

[spydar1959]

First off,yes I own guns. Been around them my whole life. Was in the Army. They gave me an M-16 and trained me to hunt and kill other human beings. Have I done that? No. It is up to the individual. Magizine size or rate off fire? Makes no differance. Look at anyone who does speed shooting with a single action revolver. And if I can't have them, why are all these goverment offices buying them up? Half a million rounds and magizines for Social Security is a bit odd, don't you think? Read what the founding fathers wrote about the second amenment. It was not about your idividual rights, but as a nation as a whole. If the goverment gets out off hand, you knock them down and start over. That is why they put all those safety mechanisms in the constitution. And if you think by getting rid of these weapons or clips is going to make people play nice together, have you got a lot to learn. And according to the FBI, the weapon of choice in most violent crimes last year was a baseball bat. Have not seen them go after them yet.

[August]

Fiction is fiction.

Fiction can become reality pretty quickly.

[August]

I find it funny that the book is supposed to "provoke rational discussion" yet all the proceeds go to the largest anti-2A lobby in America.

Yeah, ok.

"Provoke rational discussion" is liberalspeak for "we want to take away your right to own guns a incrementally".

Order they'll be taken:

Assault Weapons (semi-autos)
Saturday night specials (handguns)
Sniper Rifles (anything that can mount a scope)
Trench Sweepers (shotguns)

[Cybermat47]

I myself think that assault rifles should be banned, but not hunting rifles, handguns or shotguns.

[August]

I myself think that assault rifles should be banned, but not hunting rifles, handguns or shotguns.

They were banned in 1986. What you have been programmed to call an "assault weapon" is really just a civilian semi-automatic rifle of medium caliber that bears a resemblance to an assault weapon.

When it's the turn of hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns, and it will be you can bet on it, they won't be called that. They'll be called scary names like "High Powered Sniper Rifles and "Saturday Night Special" to scare uninformed people such as yourself into supporting their power grab.

Make no mistake. The politicians pushing for these bans don't give a hoot about protecting school children. This is all about power over the people.

To them I have one thing to say:

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsterling/pwpimages/molon%20labe.jpg

[Cybermat47]

Make no mistake. The politicians pushing for these bans don't give a hoot about protecting school children. This is all about power over the people.


They might actually care, but they could just be doing it the wrong way out of fear or plain ignorance.

I personally think that gun control is a good thing, but the American people should decide what happens to them. :sunny:

[Stealhead]

They might actually care, but they could just be doing it the wrong way out of fear or plain ignorance.

I personally think that gun control is a good thing, but the American people should decide what happens to them. :sunny:

Gun control is a good thing without it you will not hit your intended target.Reasonable gun control is not a bad thing trouble is
the ideas running around right now are not reasonable.

You are correct politicians care about staying in power therefore what ever they feel will keep them in power they will start to "care" about.

[Cybermat47]

^^^

True. Politicians are an annoying bunch at best.

[Stealhead]

^^^

True. Politicians are an annoying bunch at best.

Not if you are a lobbyist.One of the most annoying people I ever met was a guy in the Air Force whose goal was to get into OCS(officer candidate school) get a commission then do a stint
as an officer after that he wanted to become a lobbyist.(Officers in the US military all have at least a bachelor's degree many have a Masters).

I hoped that this person would accidentally walk in back of a jet engine at full power he never did sadly.Instead I would rig up a bucket inside his locker so that the door would be closed when you opened it thanks to a rigging of para cord it would dump its contents on whom ever opened the door.Having the intelligence level of a the typical lobbyist he fell for this many times i set this trap for him two or three times each month.Sometimes I also smeared axle grease on the lockers handle that way his hands got dirty hed soon get a washing.

[Sammi79]

I think it is safe to say politicians and their relationship to lobbyists are a significant part of the problem. In a last ditch attempt to garner some rational responses to the essay itself however, I am sure you are aware Mr. King is not a politician or lobbyist. Of course everyone is entitled to express their opinion, about Mr King himself, his views, his work as a fiction writer or indeed any of his individual works, about me, about my posts in this forum etc but this is not why I started this thread.

Since we are off topic I might as well add I have only ever enjoyed 1 book out of several I have read by Mr. King. It is called 'Eyes of the Dragon' and is a sort of Gothic fairytale. His horror writing style never particularly appealed to me, and I have not and very likely will not read 'Rage'. As far as I can tell from a brief days research his political views are definitely leftward leaning but I think you are mistaken to assume he is very far from the middle. Anyway he addresses those points in the essay and he is not advocating the banning of keeping handguns, shotguns, sports or hunting rifles or concealed carry with relevant licenses etc.

@August re the implication that all liberally minded people think guns are evil etc... As Leonard Cohen wrote, 'I'm startled by the beauty of our weapons.'

This is a forum based around warfare. Not to mention a very specific and brutal part of an exceptionally brutal war. Correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone here has a deep appreciation for military prowess and the engineering genius and aesthetic of weapons. Weapons in general, but not excluding guns. I would love nothing better than to blast a few targets with an L86 LSW which I think is a good looking (probably on my own here) and exceptional weapon, but I don't think I should be allowed one just because 'I' know I'll be safe. I know, it doesn't matter what I think - what does matter to me is what you think about the article and the essay described therein. I would be very grateful if anyone who is American and a gun owner/enthusiast as is Mr. King would oblige me. Rather than attacking Mr. King, attack his arguments laid out in his essay. Think of it like this: It's open season on his essay! bring the best firepower you can get! Rational debate is not doublespeak for government conspiring tyranny, or liberals stealing liberty, it is discussion. You all have strong views, I'm sure you won't be damaged in any way, or heaven forbid suffer any permanent change of viewpoint. What are you afraid of?

If as Sailor Steve said, 'I won't pay to read anything by that hack.' (That I can understand entirely) I would happily purchase it for you (at a £ a pop I can afford a tenner) if that is acceptable you can PM me with an email address. You will need a Kindle or Application to view it obviously, and as a gift you will be able to exchange it for gift vouchers of some sort according to Amazon. I leave that to you to sort out what you can get for a $.

I'll check back in later if anyone wants to take me up on that. One time only, first come first served.

If you truly have no interest in discussing the topic, with me or with Mr King, feel free to ignore this thread, in fact I humbly request you do so. No replies, the thread dies. Fair enough?

[MH]

They were banned in 1986. What you have been programmed to call an "assault weapon" is really just a civilian semi-automatic rifle of medium caliber that bears a resemblance to an assault weapon.

]

So what is assasult rifle- browning 0.5?
so called Civilian guns are exactly same with little iwork around.

[Tribesman]

"Provoke rational discussion" is liberalspeak for "we want to take away your right to own guns a incrementally".

:doh:

[HundertzehnGustav]

"Dey slowley wunt ta teek ur gunz away". is redneckspeak for "Provoke rational discussion":hmm2:

[Platapus]

:haha: Very droll.



I had a light breakfast. Drolls and Coffee.

[Penguin]

Some liberalwrite :88) I can pretty much agree with: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment)
It's all in the comma.
Like said before, I wish Team conservative would fight with the same energy for the rest of the Bill Of Rights than they do for the 2nd Amendment.

[...]the guide on how to conduct a schoolroom shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_(Stephen_King_novel)) (Rage)

'Rage' is a school massacre guide in the same way like 'It' is a guide to become a killer clown... :know:

[Oberon]

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/2/12/129104803479235651.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

:doh:
Anything to add, or just trolling again?

[Sailor Steve]

Some liberalwrite :88) I can pretty much agree with: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment)
It's all in the comma.
That is a great article! Thanks for the link.

Like said before, I wish Team conservative would fight with the same energy for the rest of the Bill Of Rights than they do for the 2nd Amendment.
Boths sides have agendas, and it's all politics, with a lot of emotionalism and sensationalism added in.

[Sammi79]

I had a light breakfast. Drolls and Coffee.

I'd make a joke out of that if I were a bit quicker.

But that's just not how I droll.

Wah wah waaaaaahh

[August]

'Rage' is a school massacre guide in the same way like 'It' is a guide to become a killer clown... :know:

Maybe but the author himself was concerned enough about it to withdraw the book from publication. Mainly due to the following incidents:



Jeffrey Lyne Cox, a senior at San Gabriel High School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Gabriel_High_School) in San Gabriel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Gabriel,_California), California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California), took a semi-automatic rifle to school on April 26, 1988 and held a humanities class of about 60 students hostage for over 30 minutes before being tackled and disarmed by another student. A friend of Cox told the press that Cox had been inspired by the Kuwait Airways Flight 422 hijacking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Kuwait_Bombing#Kuwait_Airways_Flight_422) and by the novel Rage,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_%28Stephen_King_novel%29#cite_note-Press-Courier-2) which Cox had read over and over again and with which he strongly identified.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_%28Stephen_King_novel%29#cite_note-LA_Times-3)



Dustin L. Pierce, a senior at Jackson County High School in McKee, Kentucky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKee,_Kentucky), armed himself with a shotgun and two handguns and took a history classroom hostage in a nine-hour standoff with police on September 18, 1989 that ended without injury. Police found a copy of Rage among the possessions in Pierce's bedroom, leading to speculation that he had been inspired to carry out the plot of the novel.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_%28Stephen_King_novel%29#cite_note-NY_Times-4)



Barry Loukaitis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Loukaitis), a student at Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Lake,_Washington), walked from his house to the school on February 2, 1996, and entered his algebra classroom during fifth period. He opened fire at students, killing two and wounding another. He then fatally shot his algebra teacher, Leona Caires, in the chest. As his classmates began to panic, Loukaitis reportedly said, "This sure beats algebra, doesn't it?" — a line erroneously believed to be taken from Rage. (No such line appears in King’s story. The closest is when Charlie Decker quips, "This sure beats panty raids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panty_raid).") Hearing the gunshots, gym coach Jon Lane entered the classroom. Loukaitis was holding his classmates hostage and planned to use one hostage so he could safely exit the school. Lane volunteered as the hostage, and Loukaitis was keeping Lane at gunpoint with his rifle. Lane then grabbed the weapon from Loukaitis and wrestled him to the ground, then assisted the evacuation of students.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_%28Stephen_King_novel%29#cite_note-5)



In December 1996 Michael Carneal shot three fellow students at a prayer meeting West Paduch. He had a copy of the book within the Richard Bachman omnibus in his locker. This was the incident that moved King to allow the book to go out of print.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_%28Stephen_King_novel%29#cite_note-6)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_%28Stephen_King_novel%29

Words and thoughts have power. I don't know why people so often refuse to believe that.

[Sammi79]

@August,

When was the first mass shooting spree in the US?

Life may imitate fiction, certainly.

but fiction is shaped by life in the beginning.

btw your bullet points 2&3 are speculative, and as such add nothing to the argument.

You want to read the essay, I'm sure you could tear a few holes in it :up:

[Stealhead]

So what is assasult rifle- browning 0.5?
so called Civilian guns are exactly same with little iwork around.

What is a Browning 0.5? Never heard of this.I have heard of Browning .50 BMG a .50 caliber round used in the Browning M2 .50 caliber machinegun.

I have also heard of the Barrett M82/M107 a sniper rifle that fires .50 bmg rounds.The civilian versions are bolt actions.

[Stealhead]

@August,

When was the first mass shooting spree in the US?

Life may imitate fiction, certainly.

but fiction is shaped by life in the beginning.

btw your bullet points 2&3 are speculative, and as such add nothing to the argument.

You want to read the essay, I'm sure you could tear a few holes in it :up:

Leung Ying was one of the first in the US way back in 1928 he used a .25-30 lever-action rifle and hatchet. i say that we ban all Chinese people from the US in light of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leung_Ying

The first school killing spree perpetrator was Andrew Kehoe in 1926 he used bombs to kill 44.This this many choose to ignore becuase he did not use firearms to kill though it is the higest death killing spree at a school.:hmmm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Kehoe

[August]

@August,

When was the first mass shooting spree in the US?

Life may imitate fiction, certainly.

but fiction is shaped by life in the beginning.

Well what you consider the first mass shooting spree and what I might may be two different events so if you have a point to make go ahead and make it without the homework assignments if you please.

btw your bullet points 2&3 are speculative, and as such add nothing to the argument.

They're not my bullet points, they're in the wiki article I quoted. Apparently someone else thinks they do indeed add something to the argument or they wouldn't be there. Are you asking me whether I agree with the premise that books like Rage or violent video games can inspire a killer? Yes I most certainly do. Words and violent imagery have far more power than society realizes.

You want to read the essay, I'm sure you could tear a few holes in it :up:

I think i'll pass. I've been listening to the anti-RKBA arguments for almost a half a century now and in all that time their message has not changed one bit. "Guns are bad and you don't need them". (insert shrug smiley) Certainly a novelist is not going to come out with some new earth shaking argument that's going to change my mind.

Our constitution says that the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. You can't claim that you are not infringing upon something and then turn around and restrict or ban it. The courts may let them get away with it but that doesn't mean that's not exactly what they're doing.

And while i'm at it, our rights don't have to pass anyone "needs test".

Adherents to that argument should realize that if the Bill of Rights, created to be an inviolate injunction against government oppression of those rights in particular, can be ignored just because someone thinks we don't "need" them then they risk having that standard applied to the rest of our rights as well. We don't "need" to play violent video games or watch violent movies, or read books like Steven Kings Rage or maybe read about things that embarrass the ruling party. We also don't "need" the right to privacy if we have nothing to hide and the right against self incrimination if we're not guilty of something. We don't even "need" the right to free religion if God doesn't really exist.

See the problem with applying "need" to human rights?

The people organizing the anti-gun efforts in my country have been preparing for this attack on the 2nd Amendment long before the world heard of Adam Lanza. Indeed they were already calling for an AW ban when we all thought he used pistols.

They have been ramping up for this push for over a year (publicly) with almost daily op ed pieces and special news reports on why gun control was no longer on the table for either party and how it's been X years since the Clinton Assault Weapons ban was allowed to expire. I don't know how many you see over there but here they were quite regular increasing in frequency all through the summer and fall election season.

I firmly believe we'd be having this "debate" even if Lanza and that other nut hadn't committed their crimes. The Democrats reelection virtually guaranteed it. They know that once their economic chickens come home to roost they'll be a dirty word in most voters minds next election (unless the Republicans continue to step on their male appendages) so they need to strike while the iron is hottest.

What irritates me is they even freely admit that these new laws would not have stopped Lanza nor would it stop another Lanza in the future. What they aren't saying is that it will advance the bar for future "national discussions" on how far we're going to let them get away with crapping on the constitution next time one of these nuts they won't try and stop goes on another rampage.

While they are making this admittedly false argument they also dismiss and ridicule the idea of putting armed policemen in our schools or improving physical security with some stronger doors and locks which arguably would have stopped Lanza.

Oh that costs money they say but how much do you think they'll spend forcing an assault weapons and magazine ban compliance against several million people who don't think they have a right to do it? I'll bet it'll be a lot more expensive than the cost of some stouter doors and a cop on site. We have them in half the schools in the nation already, it's not like it's every school we're talking about but that according to the president is a non starter in this national "discussion" on public safety as is any real mental health care reform.

[Tribesman]

Anything to add, or just trolling again?
Yes Steve I shall add the obvious as you missed it.
It was a response to a nonsense statement which contained a pathetic attempt at an insult by August
So ":doh:" is entirely sufficient as a succinct response to the line it quoted.



The main problem with Augusts simplistic no restrictions at all arguement is of course that it means felons and nuts shall not be infringed in their access to guns, after all you cannot have restrictions if you cannot have restrictions:smug:

[ETR3(SS)]

There's a lot of hoopla about banning "assault weapons" from democrats and the anti-gun lobby. But you know what they are ominously quiet about? Repealing the Patriot Act and doing away with all of its violations of our rights. Think about that.

[Sailor Steve]

Yes Steve I shall add the obvious as you missed it.
It was a response to a nonsense statement which contained a pathetic attempt at an insult by August
So ":doh:" is entirely sufficient as a succinct response to the line it quoted.
It was not an acceptable response. Maybe the comment is stupid to you. If that's the case you counter it with a better argument. You show why it's stupid. You don't just piss on people. That is trolling, pure and simple. You know this.


The main problem with Augusts simplistic no restrictions at all arguement is of course that it means felons and nuts shall not be infringed in their access to guns, after all you cannot have restrictions if you cannot have restrictions:smug:
In the case of Stephen King's statements it looks like August was spot on. That's exactly what he means.

[Tribesman]

It was not an acceptable response. Maybe the comment is stupid to you. If that's the case you counter it with a better argument. You show why it's stupid
Well I won't ask you again to try and find any serious effort ever to ban all guns anywhere.
We can cut straight to the bottom line.
Name any country at anytime in history that has attempted to ban all shotguns.
BTW was...Dey slowley wunt ta teek ur gunz away". is redneckspeak for "Provoke rational discussion" more acceptable?
It illustrates the nonsense just as well as the emoticon does.

In the case of Stephen King's statements it looks like August was spot on.
Really?
So a gunowner saying some restrictions on firearms are reasonable and that people who cannot accept that simple fact are cowering in fearful paranoia translates as "we are going to take all your guns"?
Doesn't that illustrate the fearful paranoia mentioned rather that trash Kings effort?

[Sailor Steve]

Well I won't ask you again to try and find any serious effort ever to ban all guns anywhere.
Good.

We can cut straight to the bottom line.
Dodge, duck and weave all you want. The bottom line is this: You troll people, you get banned. Period.

BTW was...Dey slowley wunt ta teek ur gunz away". is redneckspeak for "Provoke rational discussion" more acceptable?
It illustrates the nonsense just as well as the emoticon does.
Yes it is, and yes it does. At least he put a little effort into it. He also doesn't make a habit of mocking people the way you do.


Really?
So a gunowner saying some restrictions on firearms are reasonable and that people who cannot accept that simple fact are cowering in fearful paranoia translates as "we are going to take all your guns"?
Doesn't that illustrate the fearful paranoia mentioned rather that trash Kings effort?
No, and it doesn't matter. You're diverting the discussion away from your bad behaviour, and it won't work. If you want to discuss, discuss, don't troll.

Are you clear on this yet?

[Cybermat47]

What's really ironic about all of his is that the pro-gun and anti-gun people all want the same thing: No more school shootings. They're all arguing about the way to stop that from happening.

Life is cruel.

[Tribesman]

Dodge, duck and weave all you want. The bottom line is this: You troll people, you get banned. Period.

Deal with what was written not with what you want to think was written.

Yes it is, and yes it does. At least he put a little effort into it. He also doesn't make a habit of mocking people the way you do.

So more words is not neccasarily good.
I "mock" what was written not the person and a picture paints a thosuand words
So which is better to write? "that is silly notion" is it not as good as "that is a really really silly notion that even at a stretch makes no sense"?

No, and it doesn't matter.
Of course it matters. and the answer is arguably "yes".

You're diverting the discussion away from your bad behaviour, and it won't work. If you want to discuss, discuss, don't troll.


No, the discussion is exactly where it was, it is you who is trying to divert it because you don't think ":doh:" means what it means.

So come along Steve cut to the chase. Go to the bottom line or reverse it and go beyond the top line as far as you want.
If the basis of the arguement make no sense either at the top or at the bottom then the whole arguement makes no sense and is a :doh: moment.
Feel free to chose your own top line as far up the weapons chain as you like.

[Platapus]

... our rights don't have to pass anyone "needs test".




That's the cogent point. A right does not need justification.

Of course do we really have any rights?

If the government believes it has the authority to change it, then it is not a right but a government granted privilege.

If the Founding Dudes intended it as such, they were capable of entitling that addition piece of paper, the "Bill of Privileges" .

So when it is right for a right to not be a right? :D

[Ducimus]

The Bill of Rights (not bill of needs) is supposed to be inviolate. The second amendment is ultimately what guarantees the rest. Lessen, cheapen, or infringe upon it, and the door is open for steady erosion on the rest of our rights. You could argue our rights are already on the road to slow erosion.

The purpose of second amendment were woven into our national fabric before the Bill of Rights was even drafted with the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I believe The United States is unique among nations in this regard, in our national history, and the engrained culture of our people as a result of our history, so I wouldn't expect people from Australia, England, or Ireland to understand it.

EDIT:
Great video here:
Fear and Oath-ing in D.C. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV44uHlXnx8)

[HundertzehnGustav]

[dey wunt to teek ur gunz aweh is redneckspeak for serious discussion on gun control]
Yes it is, and yes it does. At least he put a little effort into it. He also doesn't make a habit of mocking people the way you do.


Just turned around the image to offer a different perspective.
the perspective of an euro liberal socialist pig.

as such, also mocking myself a bit.
Playing with the mirror, not intending to diss anybody.

I will soon be armed.
the Bow shall be my weapon of Choice, silent and difficult to master.:)
and with good care and some spares, much more independent and less complicated than high tecgh guns.

[Stealhead]

The Bill of Rights (not bill of needs) is supposed to be inviolate. The second amendment is ultimately what guarantees the rest. Lessen, cheapen, or infringe upon it, and the door is open for steady erosion on the rest of our rights. You could argue our rights are already on the road to slow erosion.

The purpose of second amendment were woven into our national fabric before the Bill of Rights was even drafted with the Declaration of Independence.



I believe The United States is unique among nations in this regard, in our national history, and the engrained culture of our people as a result of our history, so I wouldn't expect people from Australia, England, or Ireland to understand it.

EDIT:
Great video here:
Fear and Oath-ing in D.C. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV44uHlXnx8)


I agree with the right to bear arms however if that right keeps the government in check then how come we have the Patriot Act which largely violates many of our rights?
People have lots of guns here yes but rarely do they if you threaten this right I'll stop you with my right to bear arms.

It seems to me that no matter what laws or documents a nations has they can be trampled upon and under the correct guise no one will try to stop it.

The trick in an armed nation is to slowly take other right away and then by that point you have control over most anyone who might try and resist.

To me your video only proves my views people in the US have the right to bear arms yet that fact did not stop that law and many others that clearly violate the Constitution from being passed.Perhaps your take is that they hid the true meaning of the law but they did not because the effect of the law was clear only a pointless statement made that means nothing in particular.Also all the members of Congress knew as well yet they passed it so that clearly shows that they have no fear of the armed citizens rising up against them if the truth was learned.

[Tribesman]

The Bill of Rights (not bill of needs) is supposed to be inviolate. The second amendment is ultimately what guarantees the rest. Lessen, cheapen, or infringe upon it, and the door is open for steady erosion on the rest of our rights. You could argue our rights are already on the road to slow erosion.


As the unifringed right has never existed how can it be eroded?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
Is that why blacks and non free white men were not allowed guns?

Lets get right down to basics.
Should a convicted violent felon be allowed to buy a nuke?


@HundertzehnGustav
Just turned around the image to offer a different perspective.


Indeed, and by that measure the only actual trolling in this topic was the original post which you altered.

[Sailor Steve]

Deal with what was written not with what you want to think was written.
Here is what was written:
:doh:
No arguments, no debate, just an insult. That's trolling. No more.

So more words is not neccasarily good.
I "mock" what was written not the person and a picture paints a thosuand words
So which is better to write? "that is silly notion" is it not as good as "that is a really really silly notion that even at a stretch makes no sense"?
No, it's not better. Those are also not honest debate. You put up arguments and you justify them. You don't just talk about how something is silly.

Of course it matters. and the answer is arguably "yes".
Then debate the subject or not, but don't post insults just to do it.

So come along Steve cut to the chase. Go to the bottom line or reverse it and go beyond the top line as far as you want.
If the basis of the arguement make no sense either at the top or at the bottom then the whole arguement makes no sense and is a :doh: moment.
Feel free to chose your own top line as far up the weapons chain as you like.
If you can't debate the subject honestly, then don't comment at all. The bottom line here is that you are closer to the edge than you have ever been.

You have been warned.

[Tribesman]

Here is what was written:

Yes:yep:

No arguments, no debate, just an insult. That's trolling. No more.

Is D'oh an insult?
Why have you got an insult on the top row of the smilies?
The arguement is that the comment was so obviously preposterous and that D'oh is sufficient to indicate that.

No, it's not better. Those are also not honest debate
So are you saying the initial post which I quoted cannot have been honest debate?
After all Hundertz only followed the vein of the original line so if his line is not honest debate then the original line is not honest debate either.


If you can't debate the subject honestly, then don't comment at all.
Honest debate?
Look at the comment. It got an honest response.
Think about it
History provides untold tin pot dictators, police states and genocidal superpowers to use as examples.
Has any one of those crazy regimes followed Augusts "logical" progression to his conclusion?
As the answer is obviously no then the whole arguement is pure fallacy to even suggest that the US will follow a slippery slope which even the most vile regimes in the world have not trodden.
When the arguement put forward is so illogical then there is no need for a detailed answer in a debate as the ridiculousness of the stated position is self evident.
No matter which way you follow the "logic" in that post it still makes no sense.

[Stealhead]

This getting to be like WWI.

Millions of words marching forward to die and no noteworthy gain.

[Tribesman]

This getting to be like WWI.

Thats because Schlieffen made no sense:03:

[Takeda Shingen]

This getting to be like WWI.

Millions of words marching forward to die and no noteworthy gain.

Just now getting to be like that? This six-week multi-thread topic has jumped the shark so many times that the Fonz has developed vertigo.

[Sailor Steve]

Is D'oh an insult?
It depends on how it's used. You used it to insult someone rather than debate them.

Why have you got an insult on the top row of the smilies?
So people can make fun of themselves, not others.

The arguement is that the comment was so obviously preposterous and that D'oh is sufficient to indicate that.
No. You show that it was preposterous and why, or you don't comment at all.

So are you saying the initial post which I quoted cannot have been honest debate?
You aimed that directly at August's quote. Disagree if you like, but no more insults.

Honest debate?
Look at the comment. It got an honest response.
Whether the comment was valid or not, it was posted honestly. You posted just to insult. Never again.

Think about it
No, you think about it. This isn't about guns or police states. This is about your behaviour on these forums.

I've ignored your futher attempt to try to justify yourself, since that's all it is. I'll say it one last time: If you have a disagreement, then state it and justify it. Do not post insulting smilies or names ("Skybull"). Either you debate honestly or keep quiet.

This is the last warning.

[Ducimus]

The trick in an armed nation is to slowly take other right away and then by that point you have control over most anyone who might try and resist.

Which is what this latest assault on the second amendment is all about. People like Fienstien were WAITING for the next incident. The proposed assault weapon ban was written a long time ago. The people involved were not about to "let a good tragedy go to waste". Like circling vultures waitig for the next dead carcass, they waited with their legislature already formulated and ready to go.


To me your video only proves my views people in the US have the right to bear arms yet that fact did not stop that law and many others that clearly violate the Constitution from being passed.Perhaps your take is that they hid the true meaning of the law but they did not because the effect of the law was clear only a pointless statement made that means nothing in particular.Also all the members of Congress knew as well yet they passed it so that clearly shows that they have no fear of the armed citizens rising up against them if the truth was learned.

To me that video illustrates one reason why the second amendment is just as relevant and important today, as it was in past history. The problem as i see it is three fold.

1.) Our people have grown complacent or disenfranchised (count me among the latter).

2.) In todays society, within the last 10 to 15 years, i think too many people have become unwilling to take personal responsibility. Whatever it is, its always somebody else's job, or somebody else's fault.

2.) As a result of above points 1 and 2 ; in the years following 911 our government has gotten to big for it's britches.

[Tribesman]

It depends on how it's used. You used it to insult someone rather than debate them.
No I used it to indicate that the arguement being put forward was rubbish.

So people can make fun of themselves, not others.

So I can expect to no longer see people quoting a post followed with :roll: for example, which is a quite common occurance from all directions isn't it.

I've ignored your futher attempt to try to justify yourself, since that's all it is.
You wanted an explaination, you got an explaination.
If you don't want one then don't ask for it.

You posted just to insult.
So you keep saying, repeat it as much as you like, I know why I posted it and I have told you why I posted it.

[Stealhead]

Which is what this latest assault on the second amendment is all about. People like Fienstien were WAITING for the next incident. The proposed assault weapon ban was written a long time ago. The people involved were not about to "let a good tragedy go to waste". Like circling vultures waitig for the next dead carcass, they waited with their legislature already formulated and ready to go.



To me that video illustrates one reason why the second amendment is just as relevant and important today, as it was in past history. The problem as i see it is three fold.

1.) Our people have grown complacent or disenfranchised (count me among the latter).

2.) In todays society, within the last 10 to 15 years, I think too many people have become unwilling to take personal responsibility. Whatever it is, its always somebody else's job, or somebody else's fault.

2.) As a result of above points 1 and 2 ; in the years following 911 our government has gotten to big for it's britches.



So you seem to be saying that the second amendment is still important(in keeping the government in check) yet many people are complacent and will not take personal responsibility if this is the case then no one even if they have a firearm is going to do anything to challenge things.

In what way are/where you disenfranchised specifically?

[Armistead]

The average 911 national response time for a home robbery is 30 minutes.
Some say I don't need an AR to defend myself, well, tell that to all the cops that now carry assault weapons because they were being outgunned by criminals....Sure, if a criminal breaks in, I could pull my pistol, but it will be secondary to my AR.

[Stealhead]

The average 911 national response time for a home robbery is 30 minutes.
Some say I don't need an AR to defend myself, well, tell that to all the cops that now carry assault weapons because they were being outgunned by criminals....Sure, if a criminal breaks in, I could pull my pistol, but it will be secondary to my AR.

Again self defense is one thing.What I am saying is that many claim that the 2nd Amendment helps keep the government in check yet the government has done many things over the years long before our times and still does and very clearly the fact the fact that some citizens are armed had no effect on their actions.

So in all reality the government does not care if you have a 2nd Amendment or not they will do what they want to when they want to do it and unless you have one hell of a huge army you will not stop them.In all reality only handfuls of people here and there would actually really fight and of course die.I am not trying to talk smack about anyone on this forum but I know that the vast majority of people that own guns if they became banned would do as they where told simple truth do you really think the guy that plays around with his bump fire stock equipped AK47 or AR15
is willing to die or go to prison to keep it? Hell no he'll take buy back money and buy himself an ATV or something.

[Ducimus]

So you seem to be saying that the second amendment is still important yet many people are complacent and will not take personal responsibility if this is the case then no one even if they have a firearm is going to do anything to challenge things.

In what way are/where you disenfranchised specifically?


Second Amendment will always be important. As for complacency, two give a couple general examples

- McDonalds made me fat. Really? How about you eat fewer Big Macs. Nope, not the fat slobs fault. Its McDonalds.

- more to the point, It's the police's job to protect me. Umm sure, maybe if they get there in time. However, according to the supreme cout they have no duty to protect, and odds are by the time they show up, it will be too late. There are people who seriously think calling the cops will save them. It won't.


Now, how people are, in reference to standing up or laying down, will vary depending on where they live. San Francisco? Los Angeles, New York City? Given the political demographics of these areas, they will probably roll over and take whatever the government says without challenge. Conversely, if you go to somewhere not along the west coast or the North Eastern portion of the US, you'll find people who will tell the government to get stuffed. Case in point, in Utah, every sheriff in the state except one signed this letter:

https://news.washeriff.net/open-letter-to-president-barack-obama/

As for my disenfranchisement. I never bothered to vote to support either party because I think they're all puppets. They are full of crap, and they'll say or do anything to get into office and keep it. They want the power, and the prestige, and they aren't after the peoples best interests. So i never bothered to participate in that dog and pony show. I figured why bother? The result is the same either way. I figured, the real power in our government isn't in the voting booth, but the trail of money. Follow the money, you'll find the real power in our government.

That said this AWB issue has changed my views somewhat. I used to be more of a centrist that probably leaned to the left. However, i now find that while on many views i'm still the centrist, i lean A LOT more to the right. Particuarly where rights on concerned. I also find that ideas that once struck me as thoughts of crackpot right wing nutjobs, while still hard to swallow, i now find plausible.

Since this crap started i've Joined and donated money to the NRA. (cause like i said, in our government, money is power). I've written both my senators and my representative. Not that i think it was necessary (Utah is pro gun), but because my sense of urgency demanded that i do something. The erosion of our rights must stop. Now. Everyone has a button, or a line you do not cross, and the mine is when it hits my home directly, and my ability to defend it. I love my wife, my home, and the life were building together. In my opinion, HOME is the only thing worth fighting for, and i will do whatever it takes to defend them.

As things go, there is the Soap Box, the Ballot box, and lastly the Cartridge box. We are nowhere near the cartridge box yet, but the idea of it getting to point is no longer inconceivable to me.

[Armistead]

Again self defense is one thing.What I am saying is that many claim that the 2nd Amendment helps keep the government in check yet the government has done many things over the years long before our times and still does and very clearly the fact the fact that some citizens are armed had no effect on their actions.So in all reality the government does not care if you have a 2n Amendment or not they will do what they want to when they want to do it and unless you have one hell of a huge army you will not stop them.


For the most part I agree, but history has also taught us a disarmed populance can fall prey to a radical government or Dictator. We may think that would never happen in the US, but we never can know for sure, so many feel an armed public is a tool that keeps our government in check.

There have been many cases of people fighting back against the govt, of course these are deemed criminals. We had a family here that refused to turn their land over to the govt claiming eminent domain, land that had been theirs for generations. They lost most of their savings trying to fight it in court, but lost. The entire family armed themselves and made it clear they would fight to the death to keep their land. Our city later decided it would build the road for the new shopping center where first proposed. Sure, something like this seldom works, if the city really wanted it, they would've took it, but this stirred up enough roar that they bowed out.

Heck, there were numerous people enraged enough at bankers getting rich when the economy failed, many stating they should be shot for making millions off the people, the reason most CEO's have numerous body guards.

I don't propose violence, but the people have in the past had to take up arms to defend themselves against out of control govt, it's how our nation was born.

The bigger concern is do you want your right to protect yourself or do you want to rely on government.

[Armistead]

Ducimus makes good points. We must remember police don't stop most crimes, they respond to it.

[Cybermat47]

And according to the FBI, the weapon of choice in most violent crimes last year was a baseball bat. Have not seen them go after them yet.

That's because the main purpose of a baseball bat is to propel a ball.
The main purpose of a gun is to kill people.

[Cybermat47]

In my opinion, HOME is the only thing worth fighting for, and i will do whatever it takes to defend them.

As things go, there is the Soap Box, the Ballot box, and lastly the Cartridge box. We are nowhere near the cartridge box yet, but the idea of it getting to point is no longer inconceivable to me.

Forgive me for my confusion, but you're saying that banning semi-automatic rifles, which would still leave you with the right to bear arms, pistols and hunting rifles, is a threat to your home and family? And your last sentence sounds like you're suggesting that you'll kill the guys who come to confiscate your guns, or try to kill President Obama.

Wouldn't the better thing be to just hand your gun over, and if there are attempts to ban hunting rifles and pistols, have a massive petition, or march on Washington to protest (not to kill anyone), because only if they were trying to ban guns outright would it be an attack on your rights.

EDIT: And if losing your semi-auto is such an issue, why not try the above now?

[August]

That's because the main purpose of a baseball bat is to propel a ball.
The main purpose of a gun is to kill people.

No, the main use of any item is what it is actually mainly used for. Most guns are never used to kill anyone so killing can hardly be their "main purpose".

[Cybermat47]

No, the main use of any item is what it is actually mainly used for. Most guns are never used to kill anyone so killing can hardly be their "main purpose".

The biggest buyers of guns in the world are military forces, who use them either for killing or training to kill.

[August]

The biggest buyers of guns in the world are military forces, who use them either for killing or training to kill.

There's a few holes in that idea. First off the biggest group of buyers is not necessarily most buyers and second "training to kill" is not killing and finally most military weapons are never used to kill anyone.

That's like saying that because the Air Force are the biggest buyers of Aircraft then the main purpose of Aircraft must be used for killing or training to kill.

[Cybermat47]

There's a few holes in that idea. First off the biggest group of buyers is not necessarily most buyers and second "training to kill" is not killing and finally most military weapons are never used to kill anyone.

OK, you got me there :)

That's like saying that because the Air Force are the biggest buyers of Aircraft then the main purpose of Aircraft must be used for killing or training to kill.

The air forces aren't the biggest buyers of planes, and the first plane wasn't built to kill someone.

[August]

The air forces aren't the biggest buyers of planes,

Oh really, who has more planes than air forces?

and the first plane wasn't built to kill someone.

Maybe not but it was almost immediately marketed to the military by Wilbur and Orville Wright so the airplanes military uses must have been in their mind while they were developing it.

In fact the first airplane passenger fatality ever was Lt. Thomas Selfridge of the US Army who had been sent out to evaluate the airplane for use by the Army. This happened in 1908. Wilbur was injured but survived the crash.

With a decade the aircraft after that was being used by several nations to kill people and very efficiently so whether it was designed for the purpose or not it was what it became most useful for.

[Cybermat47]

^^^^

Can't argue with that :)

Still, I reckon that while banning semi-autos would make America a safer place, the better thing to do first would be to improve mental health care.

[Takeda Shingen]

No, the main use of any item is what it is actually mainly used for. Most guns are never used to kill anyone so killing can hardly be their "main purpose".

That's such a disingenous statement. Yes, a fork can be used as a weapon, but people buy forks so that they can be used to as a utensil to eat. A gun is a weapon; and a weapon is a tool designed to inflict bodily harm on someone or something else. What are the non-violent applications of firearms? Furthermore, the entire argument regarding the Second Amendment is predicated on the idea that the Constitution grants you the right to use these weapons to protect yourself from various persons that would wish you harm, whether it be theft of property, violent crime or removal of rights and privileges. You can't cite that and then go and try to distance the firearm from violence. It's why you have it.

[ETR3(SS)]

Order they'll be taken:

Assault Weapons (semi-autos)
Saturday night specials (handguns)
Sniper Rifles (anything that can mount a scope)
Trench Sweepers (shotguns)

Forgive me for my confusion, but you're saying that banning semi-automatic rifles, which would still leave you with the right to bear arms, pistols and hunting rifles, is a threat to your home and family? And your last sentence sounds like you're suggesting that you'll kill the guys who come to confiscate your guns, or try to kill President Obama.

Wouldn't the better thing be to just hand your gun over, and if there are attempts to ban hunting rifles and pistols, have a massive petition, or march on Washington to protest (not to kill anyone), because only if they were trying to ban guns outright would it be an attack on your rights.

EDIT: And if losing your semi-auto is such an issue, why not try the above now?Not trying to answer for Ducimus here, but look at the Quote from August here. There are legitimately politicians in this country that don't want private citizens to own any firearm at all and are just waiting for the chance to make that happen. And the best thing wouldn't be just to hand my guns over for that very reason. That's why this is such a hot issue right now. That's why people are making a lot of noise over this, this is our petition.

Now about our rights being attacked (this applies to all of them not just the 2A). They won't just take it completely away at the outset. Our rights will be eroded over time. Look at the Patriot Act and the 4th, 5th, 6th amendments.

[Tribesman]

Not trying to answer for Ducimus here, but look at the Quote from August here. There are legitimately politicians in this country that don't want private citizens to own any firearm at all and are just waiting for the chance to make that happen.
You set yourself up for a fail there.
Name one politician who has said no farmer can legally own a shotgun.
The quote from august defies all logic

[ETR3(SS)]

You set yourself up for a fail there.
Name one politician who has said no farmer can legally own a shotgun.
The quote from august defies all logicPublicly? They won't. But that doesn't mean that there aren't some who feel that way. As for the quote from August, that's my mistake. I was referencing the part about assault weapons (semi-autos) etc.

[Tribesman]

Publicly? They won't. But that doesn't mean that there aren't some who feel that way.
Are there though?
There are many thousands of elected politicians of different levels in your country, politicians are well known for spouting their mouth off and for jumping on bandwagons. Surely somone must be able to find a credible example to back up the oft repeated claim.
Even Feinstein with her silly idea makes a point of huge categories of exemptions

[Ducimus]

Forgive me for my confusion, but you're saying that banning semi-automatic rifles, which would still leave you with the right to bear arms, pistols and hunting rifles, is a threat to your home and family?

In a word, yes. First, you have to understand, the right to keep and bear arms, (aka second amendment of the bill of rights of the US constitution) is NOT about target shooting and hunting. Written in our Declaration of Independence you will find this:

- "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The second amendment itself:
- "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."

You can debate semantics if you want, but to me and many other people the intention is clear as day. The second amendment is the last line of defense against tyranny. No where is target shooting or hunting mentioned.

And your last sentence sounds like you're suggesting that you'll kill the guys who come to confiscate your guns, or try to kill President Obama.

What was inconceivable to me, is the thought of a tyrannical government here in America. As American's we grow up with the belief that "those things do not happen here". Tyranny taking root here, is still a hard pill to swallow. However, we have started down a slippery slope and now i can no longer deny to myself that tyranny here, is indeed plausible. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV44uHlXnx8)

Wouldn't the better thing be to just hand your gun over,

You may as well ask me to surrender my rights, roll over and die.


and if there are attempts to ban hunting rifles and pistols, have a massive petition, or march on Washington to protest (not to kill anyone)

What do you think is happening all over the country? (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=23787655)

because only if they were trying to ban guns outright would it be an attack on your rights.

Your incorrect there sir.


Not trying to answer for Ducimus here, but look at the Quote from August here. There are legitimately politicians in this country that don't want private citizens to own any firearm at all and are just waiting for the chance to make that happen. And the best thing wouldn't be just to hand my guns over for that very reason. That's why this is such a hot issue right now. That's why people are making a lot of noise over this, this is our petition.

Now about our rights being attacked (this applies to all of them not just the 2A). They won't just take it completely away at the outset. Our rights will be eroded over time. Look at the Patriot Act and the 4th, 5th, 6th amendments.


Bingo!

[Platapus]

The main purpose of a gun is to kill people.

Specifically,the purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet down range in an accurate and controlled manner.

I would opine that, in a civilian context, the vast majority of guns are aimed at innocent pieces of paper if they are fired at all.

But such arguments are rather silly. Objects are not good or evil. A gun has no concept of.. well .. anything.

As with most (all?) criminal issues, the problem is not an object, but the person.

The first step in problem solving is to properly identify the problem.

I fear that some people have a solution already selected and are trying to make a problem fit that solution.

[August]

That's such a disingenous statement. Yes, a fork can be used as a weapon, but people buy forks so that they can be used to as a utensil to eat. A gun is a weapon; and a weapon is a tool designed to inflict bodily harm on someone or something else. What are the non-violent applications of firearms?

Olympic events, target shooting and collecting to name three.

[Takeda Shingen]

Specifically,the purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet down range in an accurate and controlled manner.

I would opine that, in a civilian context, the vast majority of guns are aimed at innocent pieces of paper if they are fired at all.

And why are the guns aimed at that paper?

I practice Shodokan Aikido, holding a 2nd dan. While the practice has numerous physical and mental benefits, the art remains a form of unarmed combat. Specifically, the school was formed as a reaction against the impracticality of traditional Aikido in defending oneself. That I do not walk down the street hip throwing people does not alter the fact that Aikido is a combative art; designed to incapacitate an opponent.

But such arguments are rather silly. Objects are not good or evil. A gun has no concept of.. well .. anything.

That's not what was said. What was said is that the application of the gun was not violent in nature.

As with most (all?) criminal issues, the problem is not an object, but the person.

The first step in problem solving is to properly identify the problem.

I fear that some people have a solution already selected and are trying to make a problem fit that solution.

So, in other words, you want the gun to protect yourself from that criminal.

Olympic events, target shooting and collecting to name three.

I did not know that you were an Olympic shooter. Also, as I asked Platapus, why are you shooting at the target? The end application is self defense, otherwise you would not be so passionate about it.

[ETR3(SS)]

Are there though?
There are many thousands of elected politicians of different levels in your country, politicians are well known for spouting their mouth off and for jumping on bandwagons. Surely somone must be able to find a credible example to back up the oft repeated claim.
Even Feinstein with her silly idea makes a point of huge categories of exemptionsThis may not hit the nail directly on the head, but it comes pretty close.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/09/iowa-lawmaker-calls-for-retroactive-gun-bans-confiscations-of-semi-automatic-weapons/

[Cybermat47]

In a word, yes. First, you have to understand, the right to keep and bear arms, (aka second amendment of the bill of rights of the US constitution) is NOT about target shooting and hunting. Written in our Declaration of Independence you will find this:

- "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The second amendment itself:
- "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."

You can debate semantics if you want, but to me and many other people the intention is clear as day. The second amendment is the last line of defense against tyranny. No where is target shooting or hunting mentioned.



What was inconceivable to me, is the thought of a tyrannical government here in America. As American's we grow up with the belief that "those things do not happen here". Tyranny taking root here, is still a hard pill to swallow. However, we have started down a slippery slope and now i can no longer deny to myself that tyranny here, is indeed plausible. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV44uHlXnx8)



You may as well ask me to surrender my rights, roll over and die.



What do you think is happening all over the country? (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=23787655)



Your incorrect there sir.








You're seeing this from an American viewpoint, while I'm seeing it from an Australian viewpoint.

Seeing as you're an American, you probably have a better idea of what's going on. Also, you seem fiercely protective of your rights and, most importantly, your family. That is a truly admirable thing.

Here's what I think should happen:


The mental health care system should be fixed up
The police should have the hunting down of illegally owned guns as a priority


Of course, that is only my opinion.

[Ducimus]

But such arguments are rather silly. Objects are not good or evil. A gun has no concept of.. well .. anything.

As with most (all?) criminal issues, the problem is not an object, but the person.


- "The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized."

- "The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

Both quotes by Lt. Col. John Dean Cooper, USMC. Who served in both WW2 and the Korean war.

[Takeda Shingen]

The police should have the hunting down of illegally owned guns as a priority

You mean like the incredibly successful way that they've been cracking down on illegal drugs? That's been one continuous money drain for decades and decades.

[Tribesman]

This may not hit the nail directly on the head, but it comes pretty close.

It doesn't come remotely close, he owns 3 different types of gun and sees no problem with ownership of those guns.
What he is calling for though goes beyond the terms of the previous AWB which of course didn't ban assault weapons despite being called an assault weapon ban.

[Cybermat47]

You mean like the incredibly successful way that they've been cracking down on illegal drugs? That's been one continuous money drain for decades and decades.

Forgive me for saying this, but your police are pretty bad. Our police already smashed the illegal Glock smuggling ring after two years at the most.

[Takeda Shingen]

Forgive me for saying this,

A typical prelude to an insulting statement.

but your police are pretty bad. Our police already smashed the illegal Glock smuggling ring after two years at the most.

And there it is.

[ETR3(SS)]

It doesn't come remotely close, he owns 3 different types of gun and sees no problem with ownership of those guns.
What he is calling for though goes beyond the terms of the previous AWB which of course didn't ban assault weapons despite being called an assault weapon ban.The guy is running his mouth off without any thought. Ok, he owns the smallest shotgun and the second smallest rifle and pistol as far as cartridge size is concerned. What he doesn't seem to realize is that an AR-15 bullet is nearly the same size as a .22 yet he goes on to say that...
"We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them," Muhlbauer said. "We can't have those running around out here. Those are not hunting weapons."

He added, "We should ban those in Iowa."

Muhlbauer, who did not list the specific weapons he wants outlawed in The Daily Times Herald interview, said he would like to see the ban implemented in a retroactive fashion.

"Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them," Muhlbauer said. "We can't have those out there. Because if they're out there they're just going to get circulated around to the wrong people. Those guns should not be in the public's hands. There are just too big of guns." .30-06 is a common hunting round and is significantly larger than his .22 does he want weapons banned that fire that as well? At best his comments are ambiguous, at worst completely uneducated on the subject.

[Ducimus]

You're seeing this from an American viewpoint, while I'm seeing it from an Australian viewpoint.


Yes I realize that. I have no expectation to change your point of view, nor of a full understanding on the subject. We are from different countries, with different laws, and different cultures.

Forgive me for saying this, but your police are pretty bad. Our police already smashed the illegal Glock smuggling ring after two years at the most.

I think there's more to this then simple police work. You'd have to look at population, number of large metro areas, various laws, number of firearms available, as well as available resources. In some areas, with budgets being cut, there are fewer law enforcement officers on duty.

[Platapus]

Also, as I asked Platapus, why are you shooting at the target?

Well, that's a legitimate question and deserves a legitimate answer.

I used to shoot in competition so I was trying to master the difficult task of disciplining my body in order to get the bullet to precisely the right location in a short period of time. Winning an award was a rare but pleasant goal.

I no longer shoot competitively, or to be more accurate, no longer in competition with others. I am in competition with myself (playing with myself?) and I try to improve my capability of controlling my body in this task.

I have never shot anyone, shot at anyone, or threatened anyone. in 30+ years of recreational shooting.

[Takeda Shingen]

Well, that's a legitimate question and deserves a legitimate answer.

I used to shoot in competition so I was trying to master the difficult task of disciplining my body in order to get the bullet to precisely the right location in a short period of time. Winning an award was a rare but pleasant goal.

I no longer shoot competitively, or to be more accurate, no longer in competition with others. I am in competition with myself (playing with myself?) and I try to improve my capability of controlling my body in this task.

I have never shot anyone, shot at anyone, or threatened anyone. in 30+ years of recreational shooting.

Okay, so you want your gun for recreational and competitive shooting. That's what we're all getting worked up about -- recreational and competitive shooting.

[Platapus]

All that I ask is that I, as a law abiding citizen, be allowed to participate in my chosen hobby and not be restricted because a small number of people are choosing to break the law (reference my sig).

[Takeda Shingen]

In that case, air-powered arms should suffice for those purposes. Therefore, there is no need for civilians to own firearms.

/thread

[Ducimus]

All that I ask is that I, as a law abiding citizen, be allowed to participate in my chosen hobby and not be restricted because a small number of people are choosing to break the law (reference my sig).

Thats another one of my issues. Nor you, nor I, nor millions of other gun owners had ANYTHING to do with Newtown. Why should we be made to suffer for it? On that note, Fienstiens original draft of her AWB was even more draconian then the one she submitted the other day. Photographing and fingerprinting everyone like we're criminals. So if people like her are to have their way, we and millions of others are to be made to suffer and be cataloged like a criminal for a crime we did not commit. That kinds pisses me off.

edit:
In that case, air-powered arms should suffice for those purposes. Therefore, there is no need for civilians to own firearms.

/thread

The second amendment called and was disinclined to acquiesce your request.

[August]

I did not know that you were an Olympic shooter.

I didn't claim to be an Olympic "shooter".

You asked for non violent applications for firearms so I gave you three. BTW it's called a "Biathlon".

[Takeda Shingen]

The second amendment called and was disinclined to acquiesce your request.

Clearly. And because the logic holds that the Second Amendment guarantees gun ownership for the right of self protection, which has been argued ad naseum for six weeks.

The 'founding dudes' included the right to bear arms for numerous purposes; pirmary among them being the right to self-defense. The gun is a weapon. A weapon exists for the purpose of killing and inflicting bodily harm on another person or thing. And so the use of that weapon is practiced in order to ensure that it can be used properly if your life or liberty are threatened. One does not buy silverware for the intention of self-defense. You buy a gun for that purpose. You do not buy it to cook ham, do your laundry or remove hard water stains. It is an item of violence, and it's ownership is used as deterrent against violence by the threat of violence.

How can you (not you specifically, Ducimus -- you're the only one who said it was a weapon) state that the owning a gun is a necessity for the self-preservation of body and right, and then dance around the fact that it is a weapon, designed and practiced for self defense? Why adamantly proclaim that the government wants to take those guns and then shy away from the same fact? If the application of firearms is Olympic and recreational shooting, then clearly this is not an issue. It's not, though, is it?

I didn't claim to be an Olympic "shooter".

You asked for non violent applications for firearms so I gave you three. BTW it's called a "Biathlon".

I'm aware of the biathlon, thank you. I wasn't aware that the IOC approved AR 15's for competition.

[August]

In that case, air-powered arms should suffice for those purposes. Therefore, there is no need for civilians to own firearms.

/thread

Refer back to the discussion about rights depending on someones definition of need.

[Takeda Shingen]

Refer back to the discussion about rights depending on someones definition of need.

Read above for lols.

[Armistead]

Clearly. And because the logic holds that the Second Amendment guarantees gun ownership for the right of self protection, which has been argued ad naseum for six weeks.

The 'founding dudes' included the right to bear arms for numerous purposes; pirmary among them being the right to self-defense. The gun is a weapon. A weapon exists for the purpose of killing and inflicting bodily harm on another person or thing. And so the use of that weapon is practiced in order to ensure that it can be used properly if your life or liberty are threatened. One does not buy silverware for the intention of self-defense. You buy a gun for that purpose. You do not buy it to cook ham, do your laundry or remove hard water stains. It is an item of violence, and it's ownership is used as deterrent against violence by the threat of violence.

How can you (not you specifically, Ducimus -- you're the only one who said it was a weapon) state that the owning a gun is a necessity for the self-preservation of body and right, and then dance around the fact that it is a weapon, designed and practiced for self defense? Why adamantly proclaim that the government wants to take those guns and then shy away from the same fact? If the application of firearms is Olympic and recreational shooting, then clearly this is not an issue. It's not, though, is it?


People learn to use weapons correctly with recreational use, target shooting, etc.. I love to skeet shoot, it's fun, but it teaches me how to aim. Very few people use their gun as a weapon, but partake of numerous recreational activities to learn how to correctly use a weapon if the case should arrive.

[Takeda Shingen]

People learn to use weapons correctly with recreational use, target shooting, etc.. I love to skeet shoot, it's fun, but it teaches me how to aim. Very few people use their gun as a weapon, but partake of numerous recreational activities to learn how to correctly use a weapon if the case should arrive.

And I don't walk around executing the nikyo on people, but that doesn't change the fact that the martial arts exist for unarmed combat. For the life of me, I can't understand why you guys are shying away from this. There's no trap here. I don't support an assault weapons ban.

[August]

I'm aware of the biathlon, thank you. I wasn't aware that the IOC approved AR 15's for competition.

Y'know for a guy who likes to slam others for trolling you sure don't hesitate to play the part yourself.

You asked for non violent uses for FIREARMS, not AR 15's and what my standing is with the IOC has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

[Takeda Shingen]

Y'know for a guy who likes to slam others for trolling you sure don't hesitate to play the part yourself.

You asked for non violent uses for FIREARMS, not AR 15's and what my standing is with the IOC has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

It has everything to do with it. Your whole argument about this thing is based on your right to defend yourself. You even chastised me for not owning a firearm; calling me a 'victim' and 'helpless'. So, when somebody says that the application of the firearm is to inflict bodily harm you dance around the issue with this whole a weapon is only a weapon if you use it as a weapon nonsense. And when confronted with this, you quote selectively and deliberately obscure the point. If anyone is trolling here, it is you, August, because you know exactly what I mean and continue to avoid it.

[August]

You even chastised me for not owning a firearm; calling me a 'victim' and 'helpless'.

Link?

So, when somebody says that the application of the firearm is to inflict bodily harm you dance around the issue with this whole a weapon is only a weapon if you use it as a weapon nonsense. And when confronted with this, you quote selectively and deliberately obscure the point. If anyone is trolling here, it is you, August, because you know exactly what I mean and continue to avoid it.

Sounds to me like you are confusing me for someone else which is understandable seeing as how you're talking to so many people at once.

The bottom line here is you asked a simple question and I gave you three simple answers. Apparently you didn't like them so you cherry pick one of the three items (is that called quoting selectively?) I listed and then continually attempt to narrow and redefine it. Won't wash.

If you got something to say then go ahead and say it and stop expecting others to do your work for you.

[Stealhead]

The most important weapon is the one in your head without that I do not care if you have a gun a sword or a phaser you are useless if you cant use the weapon in your head.Even a cherry picker can become a weapon a cumbersome one.

Anything can be a weapon but certain things like many firearms are designed to be a weapon to say otherwise is in a falsehood.Yes firearms can be used for many other purposes but many where designed as weapons first and foremost.I have no problem saying this because it is true but many firearms are not designed as a weapon.

i feel that there a some serious differences between shooting at a target and shooting game (though skeet shooting is much like hunting fowl) and actual "combat" shooting.Sure target shooting can teach the fundamentals but its not enough alone to prepare a person for a combat situation or a defensive situation.

[Takeda Shingen]

Link?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1979852&postcount=75

The nuts target me. I am weak because I do not own or carry a firearm. You did not use the two words that I quoted, and for that you have my sincere apology, but your intent was the same. I cannot remember the full details of all of your insults. You issue so very many of them. However, this one does dovetail into the discussion nicely.

Sounds to me like you are confusing me for someone else which is understandable seeing as how you're talking to so many people at once.

The bottom line here is you asked a simple question and I gave you three simple answers. Apparently you didn't like them so you cherry pick one of the three items (is that called quoting selectively?) I listed and then continually attempt to narrow and redefine it. Won't wash.

If you got something to say then go ahead and say it and stop expecting others to do your work for you.

And yet, if the issue is biathlon shooting, why is there an AR 15 in your signature? I can hold your hand through this argument all you want, but I cannot open your eyes for you, nor can I make you drop the fallacious arguments. You gave a narrow answer to my posts because you saw that acknowledging the entirety of it would lead to an obvious conclusion, and you didn't like it.

Ultimately, it's my fault for responding to it in the first place. I knew what you were trying to do, but I bit anyway. I should have let it go and continued to respond to others, saving the forum from being subjected to this silliness, but evidently I've still got a lot to learn.......

Apologies to the other members. Let's get back to it.

[Ducimus]

I'm not understanding of why firearms/guns being weapons is an issue to be skirted around or affirmed. Yes, all guns can be employed as weapons (as can kitchen knives and baseball bats). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. However, lawful defense of self and others isn't their only purpose, and even if it was their only purpose, I fail to see what the big deal is. I have every right in the world to defend myself or the ones i love, and i want the best firearm i can get for that purpose. When it comes to defense and preservation of life, i have no intention of "playing fair", and Ill take any advantage i can get.

Now aside from that, Target shooting is no less an art then Archery, and you don't hear anyone badmouth archery. Ive done both. I shot archery every day when i was in high school. I was lucky enough to live on the edge of town with a wooded area. I shot every day with a compound hunting bow, instinctive - which means no sights. (odd i know, you'de expect a recurve bow) At my peak i was able to hit something the size of a rabbit at 50 yards 5 out of 6 shots. Target shooting is very similar in the physical, mental discipline, even a sense of zen. Both are hobbies, and its an art forms unto themselves. Considering that firearms provide this AND a means of self defense, id say that its an invaluable skill in life. One that everyone should have a grasp for the basics for in my opinion.


So, aside from 3 shotguns (two for bird hunting, one for defense), here's the other weapons in my house.
http://www.ducimus.net/temp/his_and_hers.jpg
The top rifle and handgun is mine.
- The rifle is a Springfield armory M1A, and is my pride and joy. The civilian version of the M14 rifle, and is arguably one of the most versatile rifles you can own. It shoots a 7.62 X 51 NATO, or 308 caliber, and is great for deer and elk. Seen in this picture with a 20 round magazine, of which I have several if the metaphorical excrement ever hits the fan. 7.62 NATO has been turning cover into concealment for 50 plus years. And I have few 5 round mags for hunting. I also use it for target shooting and its lots of fun. The funny thing is, this rifle is A LOT more firepower then the "evil black rifles" and yet it looks almost like "grandpas deer rifle".

- Handgun is an M9A1. chambered in 9MM. Used for target shooting every weekend and is loaded for home defense when not at the range.

The bottom rifle and handgun is my Wife's. Yes, my wife's, who i am proud to say, is a practicing Doctor of Veterinary Medicine.
- Smith & Wesson M&P 15 sport.Semi automatic sporting rifle. Its perfect for my wife. Shoots a 5.55 X 45 NATO, or 223 caliber. Its lightweight, low recoil, and fits her length of pull with the adjustable stock. While your not going to be hunting deer with it, it can be used for varmints. In fact, the 223 caliber is one of the (if not the) most popular varmint hunting rounds used. In any event my wife uses it for target shooting and again if the metaphorical excrement hits the fan, and for whatever reason im not around, I have the peace of mind knowing that my wife can defend herself efficiently.

- Handgun is a PX4 Storm Compact. Also chambered in 9MM, and also used for target shooting every weekend and is also loaded for home defense when not at the range.

All these guns, including the 3 shotguns not pictured have their own purposes. And Yes, it's true, ALL are weapons, but they haven't jumped up on their own and harmed anyone. If they had, i think I would have noticed.:88)

[Takeda Shingen]

I'm not understanding of why firearms/guns being weapons is an issue to be skirted around or affirmed.

It came from Cybermat's posts here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2000451&postcount=79

And August's reply here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2000469&postcount=81

However, lawful defense of self and others isn't their only purpose, and even if it was their only purpose, I fail to see what the big deal is.

In terms of rights and pivileges, it isn't. My argument was that you can't claim the weapon for defense of person and rights and then try to disown those same properties that make the weapon desirable for defense when it does not suit the argument.

[August]

The nuts target me. I am weak because I do not own or carry a firearm. You did not use the two words that I quoted, and for that you have my sincere apology, but your intent was the same. I cannot remember the full details of all of your insults. You issue so very many of them. However, this one does dovetail into the discussion nicely.

I never used the word weak either. You do however seem quite eager to don the mantle of victimhood here so if it floats your boat do continue.

And yet, if the issue is biathlon shooting, why is there an AR 15 in your signature?Why is there some Samurai dude in your avatar? Do these things somehow mean I'm not permitted to talk about anything else?

I can hold your hand through this argument all you want, but I cannot open your eyes for you, nor can I make you drop the fallacious arguments. You gave a narrow answer to my posts because you saw that acknowledging the entirety of it would lead to an obvious conclusion, and you didn't like it.There is no forum rule that one has to address every point in a post and it's hypocritical of you to even demand it seeing as how you haven't mentioned word one about gun collecting.

Besides, I thought Platapus and Ducimus have done a fine job in answering that issue. No need for me to repeat their arguments.

Ultimately, it's my fault for responding to it in the first place. I knew what you were trying to do, but I bit anyway. I should have let it go and continued to respond to others, saving the forum from being subjected to this silliness, but evidently I've still got a lot to learn.......

Apologies to the other members. Let's get back to it.Uh huh. :roll:

[Sailor Steve]

Wouldn't the better thing be to just hand your gun over...
It is never a better thing to give in to the government just because they say so.

...and if there are attempts to ban hunting rifles and pistols, have a massive petition, or march on Washington to protest (not to kill anyone), because only if they were trying to ban guns outright would it be an attack on your rights.
And if that didn't work? We would already have given up the most effective weapons.

[Sailor Steve]

No, the main use of any item is what it is actually mainly used for. Most guns are never used to kill anyone so killing can hardly be their "main purpose".
We already know where I stand on the issue, so I feel no guilt about taking a different stance on this statement. The anti-gun people do have a point that can't be denied. While most guns are never used in that way, it really can't be denied that the sole purpose for the existence of a gun is to kill. Target shooting is for practice killing. The purpose of hunting is to kill, whether for food or for sport. Skeet shooting was created to practice bird hunting. Yes, guns are made for killing and nothing else.

On the other hand I find this a good thing.

[Armistead]

It's the same old same old with anti gun people, create more laws to deal with the illegal use of guns. In areas with strict gun laws, not a problem has been solved, gun crime, murder with guns, etc...still rise. You think they would learn criminals don't care about the law.

[August]

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."
- Edward R. Murrow

[August]

We already know where I stand on the issue, so I feel no guilt about taking a different stance on this statement. The anti-gun people do have a point that can't be denied. While most guns are never used in that way, it really can't be denied that the sole purpose for the existence of a gun is to kill. Target shooting is for practice killing. The purpose of hunting is to kill, whether for food or for sport. Skeet shooting was created to practice bird hunting. Yes, guns are made for killing and nothing else.

On the other hand I find this a good thing.

Sole purpose it is now? When this started it was "main" purpose.

But what about collecting? That's not practice for killing.

What about commemoration pieces like this one.

Made for killing?:
http://www.retting.com/b/bficararu097.jpg

This was not made with the intention of killing anyone or anything except perhaps someones wallet.

[Sailor Steve]

Sole purpose it is now? When this started it was "main" purpose.
I fixed it. :D

But what about collecting? That's not practice for killing.
No, but you're collecting killing machines that are significant to you. The guy who collects cars may or may not drive them, but they were originally built for driving, not collecting.

What about commemoration pieces like this one.
Okay, somebody makes a special gun meant to be collected and not fired. How many? One in one-hundred thousand? Making a special version just to seduce collectors and make money doesn't negate the original purpose of the machine. The point is that you can't eat your dinner with a gun, and you can't use it to drive to work. It was made with one purpose in mind.

This was not made with the intention of killing anyone or anything except perhaps someones wallet.
But the one in your sig certainly was.

As I said, I'm fine with that. I'm just honest about it.

[Cybermat47]

On the other hand I find this a good thing.

I'm going to assume that you're talking about hunting and self defence here.

[Tribesman]

The guy is running his mouth off without any thought. .
You could make a long running TV show of "politicians say the stupidest things" , but you havn't found one yet who says what you need them to say to make the claim in question true.
You would have thought that the NRA with their legions of "dedicated followers" repeating their catchphrases would have been able to find a politician of some description who had backed up their claim of what they say politicians want.
The complete lack of any evidence of it does suggest that the claim has no actual foundation doesn't it.


Ok, he owns the smallest shotgun and the second smallest rifle and pistol as far as cartridge size is concerned.
Size isn't everything:03:


What he doesn't seem to realize is that an AR-15 bullet is nearly the same size as a .22 yet he goes on to say that...
.30-06 is a common hunting round and is significantly larger than his .22 does he want weapons banned that fire that as well? At best his comments are ambiguous, at worst completely uneducated on the subject

.22 covers a wide range of ammunition of very varied capabilities, you would not say that a .22LR is the same as the 5.56 woud you? They are both .22 rounds, hell even an airgun pellet comes in a .22 version but it isn't the same is it.
As for the .30-06 thats a well established issue when it comes to self defence, nothing quite like shooting a neighbour in the house down the block after the round has gone through your burglar and your wall and their wall.

[Sammi79]

Well what you consider the first mass shooting spree and what I might may be two different events so if you have a point to make go ahead and make it without the homework assignments if you please.

August. I'm glad to see you entered the debate and that you hit the ground running. Thank you for the rest of your post it is very informative, much more articulate than 'molon labe'

However, your abrasive demeanor lends no credence to anything you say. Like you say, who cares what a novelist thinks, and heaven forbid people check their history - who cares what you think, sir? not I for one.

You want to bite me over arguments you put in my mouth?

Go do your homework August.

What arguments have I made in this thread? What questions did I ask?

I was very tempted to go through your verbose reply, and highlight every argument you project upon me or Mr King, but it would be a waste of time instead I'll just say, you're arguing with your own monologue.

/ignored

[August]

I was very tempted to go through your verbose reply, and highlight every argument you project upon me or Mr King, but it would be a waste of time instead I'll just say, you're arguing with your own monologue.

/ignored

Whatever. Not like you have a dog in this hunt anyways.

[Armistead]

We already know where I stand on the issue, so I feel no guilt about taking a different stance on this statement. The anti-gun people do have a point that can't be denied. While most guns are never used in that way, it really can't be denied that the sole purpose for the existence of a gun is to kill. Target shooting is for practice killing. The purpose of hunting is to kill, whether for food or for sport. Skeet shooting was created to practice bird hunting. Yes, guns are made for killing and nothing else.

On the other hand I find this a good thing.

I agree with the point, guns are made to kill, except guns don't kill people, no more than knives, arrows, baseball bats, etc.. 99% of people don't buy guns to kill, the legal purpose of guns is defense, sporting and hunting, the illegal purpose is murder.

Like stupid Pierce Morgan stating the fact that certain nations suicide rates went down when guns were outlawed, but someone nicely pointed out that why gun suicides went down, suicides didn't, people just turned to other means of death.

[Oberon]

First things first, Ducimus, love that M1 :yep: I do like the M14s, there's something about them that the modern rifles just don't have, perhaps it's that wooden stock.

Anyway, secondly, what do people here think is the biggest threat to the freedoms of the American people, the PATRIOT act or an Assault Rifle ban?
Not trying to put anyone into a trap or anything, just curious and I think that there will be a polarised reply depending upon political views, however I could equally be wrong.

[August]

Anyway, secondly, what do people here think is the biggest threat to the freedoms of the American people, the PATRIOT act or an Assault Rifle ban?

A good question but difficult to answer. They're both part of an ongoing government assault on our liberties.

[Ducimus]

First things first, Ducimus, love that M1 :yep: I do like the M14s, there's something about them that the modern rifles just don't have, perhaps it's that wooden stock.

I think the M1A/M14 has a "soul" so to speak. It's the last wood and steel battle rifle the US ever made. There's just something timeless about wood and steel. I'll have to take another picture of it later if you want. I took it down and put several coats of 100% pure tung oil on the stock. It has that classic look in the wood now more then ever. I also have a new flash surpressor with a bayonet lug and an M6 bayonet i just got yesterday. My intention is to bring the rifle up to its classic configuration. After that my next project will be to get a detatchable scope mount that holds zero, and a scope for deer and elk hunting. As so far im just enjoying using the Iron sights.

Oh yeah, you might like this video from the history channel. (http://www.history.com/shows/top-shot/videos/weapons-rundown-m1a#weapons-rundown-m1a) Pretty short and quick explanation of the rifle for those who aren't familiar with it.


Anyway, secondly, what do people here think is the biggest threat to the freedoms of the American people, the PATRIOT act or an Assault Rifle ban?


For me, the patriot act, taken by itself is cause for concern, but not any reason to get up in arms over (pun not intended). However, it's not just the patriot act. I look at it as a combination of things:

1. USA using Patriot Act against its own citizens (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFVQ0HZz2mc). (Hauling citizens off without any due process.)

2. National Defense Authorization Act (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV44uHlXnx8) (Ability to detain citizens indefinitely)

3. Jumping up on the crackpot for a minute, hearing various rumors on the internet about the military practicing corralling and funneling, Dept of homeland security stocking up on millions of rounds hollow point ammo, and other misc crackpottery about Obama replacing top generals with those who would be willing to fire upon American citizens - is not helping. I'm still of the opinion this is tin foil hat stuff, and theres a ton of it out on the internet, but combined with the patriot act and the NDAA, i have to wonder if there is a little truth to some of this stuff. (EDIT: Here's an example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri9ioCbqJCU)of something that makes wonder: Paranoia, or real cause for concern? )

4. And now they're going after our most effective means of self defense with the assault weapon ban.


Something's not right here.

[Sailor Steve]

I'm going to assume that you're talking about hunting and self defence here.
Pretty much. I don't advocate killing under any circumstance, other than defense.

[MH]

I think the M1A/M14 has a "soul" so to speak. It's the last wood and steel battle rifle the US ever made. There's just something timeless about wood and steel. I'll have to take another picture of it later if you want. I took it down and put several coats of 100% pure tung oil on the stock. It has that classic look in the wood now more then ever. I also have a new flash surpressor with a bayonet lug and an M6 bayonet i just got yesterday. My intention is to bring the rifle up to its classic configuration. After that my next project will be to get a detatchable scope mount that holds zero, and a scope for deer and elk hunting. As so far im just enjoying using the Iron sights.


Very nice rifle indeed.
With scope and right ammo it can be very good sniper rifle.
Sink them all...uhh kill"em all.:haha:

[Oberon]

Please do put up some more pics Ducimus, it's a timeless classic of a weapon, reminds me a lot of the Garand, versatile, reliable, good rate of fire, and its weight, although a drawback in terms of mobility, is also useful for potential close quarter combat, if you don't have the bayonet attached that is.


In terms of a creep of governmental control, I can understand now the concern which comes around gun control laws as taken along with other restrictive laws which have been passed in order to 'fight terror', unfortunately this is a slippery slope that many people foresaw back when the PATRIOT act was being put together, but hindsight is a wonderful thing as they say. It certainly is a case that we live in uncertain times, and the possibility of this fact being abused to further governmental control cannot be denied, it's not an American thing, I've been concerned about the same thing happening in this country for a while now, particularly when they tried to pass a law to snoop on emails. Fortunately enough public outrage was able to be stirred up to stop it, however with something like firearms, and their links to school shootings...that's a harder thing to rally people behind.
I'm, personally, on the fence, but leaning towards the need to do more for mental health care than the accessibility of firearms, however there is certainly a need to examine the gun culture in depth, if only for gaining additional knowledge of peoples views and how they feel that problems like school shootings should be addressed.

[Sailor Steve]

I agree with the point, guns are made to kill, except guns don't kill people, no more than knives, arrows, baseball bats, etc.. 99% of people don't buy guns to kill, the legal purpose of guns is defense, sporting and hunting, the illegal purpose is murder.
I agree, but the two of your "legal purposes" involve killing, or at the very least maiming. As for the "99%", anyone who buys a gun to hunt intends to use it for killing, just no humans. Anyone who buys a gun for defense does indeed realize he might end up using it to kill, though we all hope we won't have to.

I've never shot anybody with any gun I've owned, and as far as I know neither have any of my friends. One friend said the sound of his .45's slide racking as he came up the stairs scared off a burglar on two different occasions, but that if it hadn't he would cheerfully have shot them. Another friend lives in the valley over from us, on a couple acres of horse property. He and his wife each have their own shotguns and handguns, mainly for what he calls "Kitty problems". They get occasional visits from mountain lions. So yes, they call it defense, but if it comes to that it will involve killing, which is why they bought the guns.

What I'm saying is that rather than deny the banners' cry of "Guns are only made for killing!", embrace it. If you live in a place where big cats, bears or bad people can kill you and yours, having a device designed to kill is not a bad thing.

[MH]

What I'm saying is that rather than deny the banners' cry of "Guns are only made for killing!", embrace it. If you live in a place where big cats, bears or bad people can kill you and yours, having a device designed to kill is not a bad thing.

The thing is that anyone can own a gun regardless of circumstances and with minimal check.
The right to self defence and gun ownership is very nice on philosophical level but in practice it also bring a lot of problems.
I personally believe that for most it is the matter of owning the toys while the issue of the second amendment and freedom is just nice excuse.
(sort of know what is going on in heads of people who like guns :03:)

Driving cars comes with injuries and death .. same is with guns .
Question is if this is good enough reason for you to continue like this.......
Question is if it helps at the end of the day when every criminal knows that every citizen might be amened...does it help to fight the crime or makes them more violent.

[Sailor Steve]

The thing is that anyone can own a gun regardless of circumstances and with minimal check.
And?

The right to self defence and gun ownership is very nice on philosophical level but in practice it also bring a lot of problems.
Yes it does. So does any other right. Should we get rid of them all just because they cause problems?

I personally believe that for most it is the matter of owning the toys while the issue of the second amandment and freedom is just nice excuse.
(sort of know what is going on in heads of people who like guns :03:)
You are certainly free to believe what you want. Now ask yourself the other question. How many members here who claim to own guns also claim to have ever shot anybody? Do you honestly believe I should be deprived of the only form of home defense I can use anymore because you see problems elsewhere? Yes, there is a problem. It's not caused by the gun, or by 99% of the gun owners.

[MH]

You are certainly free to believe what you want. Now ask yourself the other question. How many members here who claim to own guns also claim to have ever shot anybody? Do you honestly believe I should be deprived of the only form of home defense I can use anymore because you see problems elsewhere? Yes, there is a problem. It's not caused by the gun, or by 99% of the gun owners.


The issue is not with people who had not shot someone.
Issue is about the people who did and why they did.
Many of them got their guns legally.I think the most crazy killers did.

You can defend your right to have fun with assault rifles and accept the damage off course.....because that what it is mostly all about.
The matter of personal freedom is also worthy but just maybe it would be reasonable thing to give in a little bit on this issue.

Im not into bashing anyone or anything here.
It is all matter of perspective.

[Ducimus]

however there is certainly a need to examine the gun culture in depth, if only for gaining additional knowledge of peoples views and how they feel that problems like school shootings should be addressed.

Regarding the "gun culture", and this is just my opinion, as i am an armchair historian at best; the reason for our affinity for guns is found in the pages of our history.

We could start with the Pilgrims. Aside from them eating dinner with the local Indians, our most common visual of them, is walking through the snowy woods with a Blunderbus. Moving onward in history, we have the American Revolution. Our country was founded, in now small part, on the force of arms. To this day, the silhouette of the Musket, or the Minuteman with his musket brings up thoughts of 1776, red coats, and the fight for freedom.

Yet further in history, we have imagery of the loan Mountain man with his Kentucky rifle. Then there's the expansion westward. Which brings up images of cowboys with six shooters, Winchester lever action rifles (IE "The gun that won the west", etc. In the civil war, i think its no coincidence that MANY of the portaits you'll find people posing with their guns for the camera.

Anyway, my point is you look at our history and you'll find iconic imagery that is woven into our national tapestry and sense of identity. From past to present, the Gun has almost always been in hand. Events in our history (particuarlly the expansion into the American West) have given rise to two traits that are highly valued in our culture, and i think you'll still find them today accross most of America. Those are

1.) Rugged individualism.
2.) Self reliance.

For us i think, the Gun isn't just a weapon, or tool, its a symbol of our freedom, independence, individualism and self reliance. The reasons for that, again, just look deeply in our history and i think you'll see it. To completely exorcise the gun from our culture? I think one would have a better chance getting a snowball through hell.

[Catfish]

^ Ah yes american history. You are perfectly right.

Imagine the indians would have had machine guns, to repel the so-called pilgims being just illegal immigrants from Europe.

Or maybe they could have built a big fence, along the east coast :O:

[Ducimus]

^ Ah yes american history. You are perfectly right.

Imagine the indians would have had machine guns, to repel the so-called pilgims being just illegal immigrants from Europe.

Or maybe they could have built a big fence, along the east coast :O:

I won't deny our treatment of the Indians was horrendous and unforgivable. You should watch this, you might enjoy it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_%28documentary%29

Hell i think all my countryman should watch that, it is eye opening. However, this is another subject, and bears little relevance to the topic at hand.

[Oberon]

My mother says a similar thing, "America was built on the gun". It is a symbol of national pride, of American history, some of the big names, Colt, Smith and Wesson, Winchester, all fine American gun manufacturers, although I do wonder as an offshoot, how many guns in American households are still American made, I hear Glock is a popular choice nowadays. I also wonder if the events that made America had taken place, say, two or three hundred years earlier (incredibly unlikely, I know) would the sword be the national symbol of American resilience?
I do believe at one point in this country, up until quite recent times, it was legal to own a sword, and also there was a requirement that every English citizen own a longbow and do regular training with it, obviously these laws have been closed off now (except possibly the longbow law, not sure about that one) and swords are seen as impractical and unwieldy in the age of the gun. However in terms of the power that the weapon holds, certainly once upon a time, the art of the sword held that level of the gun of today, and it makes you wonder that if some point if the future firearms will become obsolete, perhaps through some sort of magnetic based countermeasure that can be installed in houses, however, I presume that the second amendment is broad enough to cover the use of other arms than firearms?


EDIT: Meant to add this to the end of the original post, if one was to replace Sword with Gun in this song, I think it would still carry weight: http://www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/~zierke/martin.carthy/songs/thedominionofthesword.html

[Sailor Steve]

The issue is not with people who had not shot someone.
Issue is about the people who did and why they did.
Many of them got their guns legally.I think the most crazy killers did.
Possibly, and certainly worth looking into.

You can defend your right to have fun with assault rifles and accept the damage off course.....because that what it is mostly all about.
The matter of personal freedom is also worthy but just maybe it would be reasonable thing to give in a little bit on this issue.
Maybe. It certainly needs more honest discussion, and less rabidness from both sides. The biggest honest question from the gun side is whether it would actually do any good. The Australian and Canadian contingent will say yes, it definitely works. The Americans will say the situations are different. I'll say "I don't know". My only worry is that if it doesn't how long do we wait before changing our minds, if that's possible at all.

The other worry is that if it does work the next step will be to try to ban other guns. Or, as a friend of mine once said, "I'll give up my guns when you can absolutely 100% guarantee that you can take away all the bad guys' guns.

Im not into bashing anyone or anything here.
It is all matter of perspective.
I agree, and it needs more discussion. What it doesn't need is more vitriol and the old "I'm right and you're stupid" attitude.

[Sailor Steve]

I won't deny our treatment of the Indians was horrendous and unforgivable. You should watch this, you might enjoy it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_%28documentary%29

Hell i think all my countryman should watch that, it is eye opening. However, this is another subject, and bears little relevance to the topic at hand.
Cool! I've known about it but never wanted to spend the money. I just looked, and I can watch it for free on Amazon Prime. :rock:

[August]

Everyone likes to use the Indians to beat us over the head with but in more than a few towns around here you can find the graves of people murdered by rampaging Indians. Men, women and children of all ages.

So there is plenty of blame to go around without demonizing one side or the other.

[Ducimus]

Cool! I've known about it but never wanted to spend the money. I just looked, and I can watch it for free on Amazon Prime. :rock:


It even touch's on the LDS Church, and Utah several times, in an objective manner without any bias that i noticed.

[Takeda Shingen]

I won't deny our treatment of the Indians was horrendous and unforgivable. You should watch this, you might enjoy it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_%28documentary%29

Hell i think all my countryman should watch that, it is eye opening. However, this is another subject, and bears little relevance to the topic at hand.

Pretty much. Our treatment of the Native Americans was one of the two darkest elements of American history, African slavery being the other. It does no one justice to run from it either.

[Crécy]

Everyone likes to use the Indians to beat us over the head with but in more than a few towns around here you can find the graves of people murdered by rampaging Indians. Men, women and children of all ages.

So there is plenty of blame to go around without demonizing one side or the other.

http://i.qkme.me/3rdwyu.jpg

[Ducimus]

NYSAFE claims its first victim.

http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/LeRay-Man-Faces-Weapons-Possessions-Charges-185853881.html

You might think he's just some nutjob. Think again.
http://www.gofundme.com/1tkukc#description

That guy has several character references on that page for anyone to see. When people like this guy are turned into criminals virtually overnight, something is VERY wrong here.

[Ducimus]

Please do put up some more pics Ducimus, it's a timeless classic of a weapon, reminds me a lot of the Garand, versatile, reliable, good rate of fire, and its weight, although a drawback in terms of mobility, is also useful for potential close quarter combat, if you don't have the bayonet attached that is.


Funny you should say Garand. The History geek within might find this interesting. Old US Army training film.
U.S. RIFLE, CALIBER 7.62MM, M14 - OPERATION AND CYCLE OF FUNCTIONING (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kgnh4neVaY&lr=1)

[Oberon]

Funny you should say Garand. The History geek within might find this interesting. Old US Army training film.
U.S. RIFLE, CALIBER 7.62MM, M14 - OPERATION AND CYCLE OF FUNCTIONING (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kgnh4neVaY&lr=1)

Very impressive, thank you :up: I honestly didn't know the M14 had a full auto function on it, nor that it was intended to replace the M1, Grease Gun, BAR and the Carbine. :yep:

[Armistead]

Everyone likes to use the Indians to beat us over the head with but in more than a few towns around here you can find the graves of people murdered by rampaging Indians. Men, women and children of all ages.

So there is plenty of blame to go around without demonizing one side or the other.

Well, they were here first....Fact is we wiped most tribes out and put the rest in reservations.

[Sailor Steve]

http://i.qkme.me/3rdwyu.jpg
Which means?

[Sailor Steve]

Well, they were here first....Fact is we wiped most tribes out and put the rest in reservations.
Fact is they wiped out the very first colony, to the last man, woman, and child.

[Catfish]

^ Do you mean the first Viking colony ? That could be true .. those "Skralinge" were not as weak as the Vikings seem to have figured them ..

Regarding later european colonists aka pilgrims, wasn't it that the first settlers had almost died in the winter, because they did not have enough to eat (began too late to sow or bad harvest), and a neighbouring indian tribe helped them to survive with food ?

Is not this the reason for the celebration of thanksgiving ? :hmm2:

[Ducimus]

Very impressive, thank you :up: I honestly didn't know the M14 had a full auto function on it, nor that it was intended to replace the M1, Grease Gun, BAR and the Carbine. :yep:


A little corny, but enjoyable video.
M14 rifle full auto (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USPCT8wTAWE)

[August]

Well, they were here first....Fact is we wiped most tribes out and put the rest in reservations.

They were here before Europeans, they were not here first.

[Sailor Steve]

^ Do you mean the first Viking colony ? That could be true .. those "Skralinge" were not as weak as the Vikings seem to have figured them ..

No, but never mind. Further investigation indicates that I was wrong, and they had it coming.

[Sailor Steve]

They were here before Europeans, they were not here first.
I'll bite. Who was here before them?

[Takeda Shingen]

Fact is they wiped out the very first colony, to the last man, woman, and child.

I assume that you're talking about Jamestown. And while they did kill around 300, they did not wipe out the entire colony. And while it was completely brutal, one has to understand that the incidents in 1622 were a response to more than a decade of equally brutal practices by the English. During the 'starving time' Smith had sent raiding parties into Powhatan villages for food, where they took what they wanted and razed what was left to the ground. And even once peace had been established afterwards, the English continued to take more land, convert the Powhatan and make them vassals. And so the English waged war again and took Powhatan's own daughter hostage, converted her and married her off to an English noble. So, a tenuous peace is reached again, a new Powhatan chief comes to power and he finally says 'enough of this' after it becomes clear that the English do not want coexistence, so they do the attacking this time.

So, while it was brutal, the attacks in 1622 were a response to the numerous attacks and betrayals by the English over the course of a decade. I also think it is kind of silly that in a thread where page after page of 'I will protect what is mine' is extolled as virtue we fail to recognize a people protecting what was their's.

EDIT:

Crap, you already conceded the point while I was typing. Sorry.

[Catfish]

They were here before Europeans, they were not here first.

Right, no border is written in stone.

Theer are not only the indians living on the great plains, however the first native indians e.g. in the Colorado area emerged around 1200 before Christ:

" ... current consensus, based on terminology defined by the Pecos Classification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecos_Classification), suggests their emergence around 1200 BCE, during the archaeologically designated Basketmaker II Era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecos_Classification#Early_Basketmaker_II_Era). Beginning with the earliest explorations and excavations, researchers have believed that the Ancient Puebloans are ancestors of the modern Pueblo peoples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_people) ..."

Some terrific history there, once read a book about the settlements and trade of that area, and age.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish


P.S. I am still be interested in where Thanksgiving comes from - we have learned at school that it was as a remembrance for the indians helping the first settlers over the winter - this may be wrong though (?)

[Armistead]

The first to come to America probably arrived about 16,000 years ago across the Siberia land bridge from Asia. I don't think they found one here, but possible. However, no doubt that life is about defeating others to only be defeated by others.

[Tribesman]

NYSAFE claims its first victim.

Thats a week before the States new NYSafe laws, so he was probably one of the last "victim" of the previous laws not the first "victim" of the new ones.
According to his brother...yes they were illegal but he was only going to sell them....so he was selling things which were already illegal for a long time.
Thats what criminals do isn't it, sell things that are illegal.

[Ducimus]

Now this was interesting.
A Chinese immigrants perspective on the Second Amendment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6_vCbi0JeI

He claims he was at Tiananmen square. That's a unique, and very real perspective i would think.

[August]

Now this was interesting.
A Chinese immigrants perspective on the Second Amendment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6_vCbi0JeI

He claims he was at Tiananmen square. That's a unique, and very real perspective i would think.

That rally was in Mass and had twice as many people attend as the anti-gun rally held a week later but you wouldn't know that by reading the newspapers or watching the news up here. In fact you'd think the numbers were reversed.

[Sailor Steve]

I assume that you're talking about Jamestown.
Actually I was refering to Roanoke, founded in 1585, abandoned in 1586, re-established in 1587, vanished sometime before 1590.

I had understood that the colony had been wiped out by the Croatan tribe, and originally posted based on that. I then found out that the first expedition had destroyed a local village, and deserved what they got. A third reading, which I should have been aware of because the information has been there for four hundred years, indicates that while know one knows what actually happened, there is ample circumstantial evidence that the colonists, unable to survive on their own, actually joined the Croatans and became part of the tribe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roanoke_Colony

I love finding out new stuff.

[Oberon]

Now this was interesting.
A Chinese immigrants perspective on the Second Amendment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6_vCbi0JeI

He claims he was at Tiananmen square. That's a unique, and very real perspective i would think.

Some good points there, however if those students at Tiananmen square had have had assault rifles...I doubt they'd have done much against the tanks, but I guess it's a psychological feeling of security that an assault rifle brings, even though if the government were to wage a war against its people it would divide and conquer so that not all gun owners fought against the government, some would in fact fight FOR the government, and then the US military (that which hasn't defected) could bring the full might of its arsenal, drones, bombers, tanks, APCs, to bear on its 'enemy' and it might even bring in allies to do it.

I'd say that such a thing is about as likely as the UK getting a halfway to decent Prime Minister in the next decade, but you can never rule these things out completely.

[Penguin]

The discussion about the connection between books and real life violence is already some pages away - I am always impressed with the pace on here, 2 days away and 2 million new posts:huh:.
Nonetheless I think it is an important one - which didn't jump the shark yet, unlike other stuff regarding this topic, which has been discussed to death in the past weeks.

Maybe but the author himself was concerned enough about it to withdraw the book from publication. Mainly due to the following incidents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_%28Stephen_King_novel%29

Words and thoughts have power. I don't know why people so often refuse to believe that.

No question about that, after all the discussion here is about 27 words written more than 200 years ago.
However drawing monocausal correlations, between words and deeds, like the wiki article about 'Rage' does, is not only wrong but dangerous.
Like Sammi correctly wrote:

Life may imitate fiction, certainly.
but fiction is shaped by life in the beginning.

King's book was certainly also inspired from real life events, not that there were no school shootings in the 70s. Following this logic, we could also say that news articles, documentaries, or even oral talks about violence are dangerous.
But even if King wrote a detailed instruction how to commit a massacre, even if he explicitely wrote "Go to school tomorrow and do as I have written!" - a book doesn't pull the trigger, just like a gun does not do so by itself.

I think any tendency to see a book as a sole reason for someone to commit a crime, brings us into the dangerous territory to infringe the 1st Amendment.

Judging by your statement in post #52:

Adherents to that argument should realize that if the Bill of Rights, created to be an inviolate injunction against government oppression of those rights in particular, can be ignored just because someone thinks we don't "need" them then they risk having that standard applied to the rest of our rights as well. We don't "need" to play violent video games or watch violent movies, or read books like Steven Kings Rage or maybe read about things that embarrass the ruling party. We also don't "need" the right to privacy if we have nothing to hide and the right against self incrimination if we're not guilty of something. We don't even "need" the right to free religion if God doesn't really exist.

you are also concerned about infringing other rights. As much as you don't want the 2nd Amendmend to be revoked, I see you neither want to put a curb on the others - and this is a line of thought which is honorable.

A real life example why the connection between media and crime is dangerous:
In the case of the West Memphis Three (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/11/national-post-editorial-board-keeping-due-process-for-when-justice-fails/), "proof" for their violent tendencies, among other stuff were Steven King novels and a Pink Floyd(!) album...:shifty:

[Ducimus]

Some good points there, however if those students at Tiananmen square had have had assault rifles...I doubt they'd have done much against the tanks,
Nope, not against tanks.

but I guess it's a psychological feeling of security that an assault rifle brings,

Well, look at it this way. If your fighting for your rights and freedom against tyranny and oppression, which would you rather have. Something, or nothing?


even though if the government were to wage a war against its people it would divide and conquer so that not all gun owners fought against the government, some would in fact fight FOR the government,

If your switching gear here and talking about the US, i would agree with you completely. Hypothetical "what if's" have been thrown around other message boards about a second Civil War. Putting on the Tin foil hat, If such a situation were to occur, it is my conjecture that divisions will occur that will have some correlation to the 2012 electoral map.


and then the US military (that which hasn't defected) could bring the full might of its arsenal, drones, bombers, tanks, APCs, to bear on its 'enemy' and it might even bring in allies to do it.

That is possible. The big wildcard IS actually the military. However, the Armed services tend to be conservative, and its guessed by many that they would not combat their countryman. Some of these scenarios have already played out believe it or not (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HRZfvtYlCY). In fact, there is a group devoted to just this scenario. Their called "Oath Keepers". (http://oathkeepers.org/oath/) Conversely, there's also people claiming Obama is replacing Generals with ones who will be willing to fire upon Americans. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzT6X3_Bg9o) (I'm not sure about their credibility )



I'd say that such a thing is about as likely as the UK getting a halfway to decent Prime Minister in the next decade, but you can never rule these things out completely.

I don't know anymore. Six months ago, if someone mentioned subjects like "Tyranny" or "civil war" , i would have said "Impossible! Crackpot right wing conspiracy paranoia!". Now, i find myself saying, "You know, it just might be plausible for such things to happen here."

[Oberon]

Indeed the gears were switching. :yep: I can understand and see where you're coming from, like I said earlier these are troubling times that we live in, the era of asymmetrical warfare threatens to erode rights to protect lives, but as Ben Franklin said "Sell not virtue to attain wealth, nor liberty to purchase power".
Personally, I don't think that in our lifetimes we will see America become a dictatorial state, not even if an Assault rifle ban comes into play, if it were to become anything, it would be like most European nations, a corrupt bureaucracy where money buys you exclusivity and the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Some might say that America has already reached that point but there are certainly nations that are worse off democratically, one of which sits on the USAs southern border.
Certainly though you cannot rule out the possibility of a gradual slide into a more authoritarian government, in fact I would say that over the next two hundred years that it will be an inevitability if resource shortages are not addressed before they become a major issue. A dystopian future? Perhaps, but equally a scientific breakthrough could make it a utopian future, at the moment it's just too early to call.
Egypt at the moment is a good example of people vs the state, although at the moment it's people vs people vs people vs the military vs the state, or something a bit like that, and the deciding factor there, as in all revolutions, is the armed forces. He would controls the biggest firepower has the biggest chance to succeed, so in terms of any US civil war it would be whoever got the most National Guard units and Armed force bases on side although central America would be an interesting strategic point since it hosts not only important farm supplies but ICBM silos...but that's a wargame for another day, and no doubt has already been played out in both military wargames and civilian wargames. However I think by the time that comes about, the average Joe with a gun could be either a help or a hindrance to the armed forces fighting to take back the country, certainly any ex-vets would be welcomed, but internet warriors with their Moms AR15 would probably find themselves posted to guard silage trenches in the middle of nowhere.

Still, in the here and now, there still lies upon us the problem of school shootings, the latest of which has brought about this soul searching of America...is the solution tighter controls on guns? If it is then it is a short term solution since the last Assault Weapon Ban didn't stop school shootings, nor did the Chinese gun ban stop a man going on a rampage with a knife on the same day as the most recent American school shooting.
The whole thing has been blown out of proportion so much since that day that, inevitably, the real message that came out from the shooting has been lost amid a tide of pro and anti-gun arguments.
Guns are tools, sure they are tools specifically designed to kill, but so were bows originally, and knives are multi-purpose, heck anything can kill a person if you try hard enough, guns just make it easier. One day something will make it even easier than guns, heck you could say that with things like air guided bombs that something has already been made. The problem lies with the people, not the tools, but that is a MUCH harder problem to fix, so once again, the easy option is chosen, take the tool away. That might fix some of the problem in that it makes it a bit harder to kill someone and might help lower school shootings since these kids tend to take the easier option, but it won't stop the most determined, heck, it's never stopped people from being murdered over here.

[Tribesman]

In fact, there is a group devoted to just this scenario. Their called "Oath Keepers". (http://oathkeepers.org/oath/)
Oh my, not the oath keepers again???????
Didn't the last link to them bring up the ex-marine "patriot" who when being sought for murder decided to combat the evil feds by murdering his ex and her kids before blowing what passed for his brain out.

[Catfish]

[...]
I'd say that such a thing is about as likely as the UK getting a halfway to decent Prime Minister in the next decade, but you can never rule these things out completely.

Oh "Yes you can !"

[Tribesman]

Oh "Yes you can !"
No you can't.
It is like saying the the 32nd moon of saturn is made of frozen unobtanium and has a supposedly extinct species of whale as its supreme leader in their local version of "mordor on the potomac"(thanks oath keepers.:har:).
It may seem highly unlikely, it may even seem completely crazy, but it can't be ruled out completely unless you can prove it not to be the case.
You can however also makes steps towards establishing if it is just highly unlikely or completely crazy.
First look at the basics, if they are false then all following arguements built on those foundations are also false no matter how sensible they may seem on their own.

[Oberon]

No you can't.
It is like saying the the 32nd moon of saturn is made of frozen unobtanium and has a supposedly extinct species of whale as its supreme leader in their local version of "mordor on the potomac"(thanks oath keepers.:har:).
It may seem highly unlikely, it may even seem completely crazy, but it can't be ruled out completely unless you can prove it not to be the case.
You can however also makes steps towards establishing if it is just highly unlikely or completely crazy.
First look at the basics, if they are false then all following arguements built on those foundations are also false no matter how sensible they may seem on their own.


But this IS British politics, Tribes... :yep:

[Tribesman]

But this IS British politics, Tribes... :yep:
ah but look at the Cleggster Oberon.
There was a possible real arguement that you could have someone different, a change of choice from the son of thatcher and thatcherlite candidates.
Though of course in the end young Cleggy just bent over to get treated as daves bitch with the sole aim of getting something for his party that had eluded the Libs for so long...ministerial pensions:rotfl2:

[Ducimus]

2nd Amendment and the Kool-aid drinkers. (http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/)

I just have to admit, i enjoyed reading that.

[Tribesman]

wow Paul R. Howe is a real muppet
How many obvious factural errors can Howe fit into one piece?

[August]

2nd Amendment and the Kool-aid drinkers. (http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/)

I just have to admit, i enjoyed reading that.

That was an interesting read. Thanks for posting.

[Ducimus]

That was an interesting read. Thanks for posting.

Yeah, it kind of puts the lid on the crack pottery. If you don't mind listening to another guy with credentials for 43 minutes, this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9eqSqzHUKk) expands on that letter.

I admit, ive been so invested into this issue, that i read and listen to just about everything i run across. Putting paranoia aside though, its still hard to argue against the erosion of our rights and liberties when looking at the combination of The Patriot Act, the NDAA, and a possible ASW. That isn't paranoia, that is black and white legislature.

[August]

Yeah, it kind of puts the lid on the crack pottery. If you don't mind listening to another guy with credentials for 43 minutes, this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9eqSqzHUKk) expands on that letter.

Thanks. I'll listen to it once I get home.

I admit, ive been so invested into this issue, that i read and listen to just about everything i run across. Putting paranoia aside though, its still hard to argue against the erosion of our rights and liberties when looking at the combination of The Patriot Act, the NDAA, and a possible ASW. That isn't paranoia, that is black and white legislature.Yep and you can add to that list questionable laws such as "hate crimes" and the piling on of charges and the hundreds of other increasingly restrictive laws that have been passed in recent decades.

All passed with good intentions I think, including the PA and NDAA, but also putting us at risk for future misuse.

[Tribesman]

Yeah, it kind of puts the lid on the crack pottery.
Yeah right, more like another dollop of cream on the crack pot cake.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. No they didn't.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. No they didn't.
China established gun control in 1935. No they didn't.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. No they didn't.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. No they didn't.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. No they didn't.
when the basics of an arguement are false the entire arguement is false.
Though in this case the conclusion drawn from those false "facts" stands all by itself as abolutely ridiculous....
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.:doh:
Its hard to work out which of that guy with credentials errors is the funniest, though I think the changes in law introduced against their opponents by the losing side 8 years into a 22 year civil war must take the crackpot cake. Especially as the deaths he attributes to the gun laws were done by the side which the laws covered.

[ETR3(SS)]

Uh just a thought for discussion, but doesn't this mean they can't pass an ASW ban?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[Ducimus]

Uh just a thought for discussion, but doesn't this mean they can't pass an ASW ban?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Assault Weapon Ban is Unconstitutional (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KpPmZto4wQ)

I would like to think so, but you know damn well they'll tap dance, wordsmith, and loophole their way past the supreme court. Aside from that if this would work, wouldn't it have worked the first time with the Clinton crime bill?

[Sailor Steve]

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. No they didn't.
You're doing it again. Please show what they did do.

[Tribesman]

Uh just a thought for discussion, but doesn't this mean they can't pass an ASW ban?

No since it only struck down some provisions contained in that legislation.
As long as any proposed legislation doesn't have the same terms and conditions that were struck down then they can do it.

[ETR3(SS)]

Assault Weapon Ban is Unconstitutional (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KpPmZto4wQ)

I would like to think so, but you know damn well they'll tap dance, wordsmith, and loophole their way past the supreme court. Aside from that if this would work, wouldn't it have worked the first time with the Clinton crime bill?Technically no it wouldn't as the Clinton crime bill expired in 2004 and this was made in 2008. But you're right, it wouldn't surprise me if they tap danced their way around it some how.

[Ducimus]

Technically no it wouldn't as the Clinton crime bill expired in 2004 and this was made in 2008.

Ohh.. no, you are right. I didn't look closely at the date. Maybe it would work after all.


But you're right, it wouldn't surprise me if they tap danced their way around it some how.

Christ I hope i'm wrong. Hell, I hope it never makes it out of committee.

[Tribesman]

You're doing it again. Please show what they did do.
Read the quotes , they are so obviously rubbish it shouldn't need any explaining.
Russian Gun regulation was not established in 1929.
Gun regulation were changed in 1919 altering the changes in 1917 which changed the older gun regulations which were about as tight as could be concieved under the Tsars tyranny
Simple isn't it. The changes in 1929 were on broadening the definitions of sedition and treason so uncle joe could clean his house.
Turkey is a funny one too.
the changes were by a new government in the sedition laws following a couple of wars and civil wars, those paticular changes were then done away with after the coup in 1913 did away with that government. It was the people that done away with those changes that did the armenian genocide, though at the same time they were also having a rather big war plus another couple of nice little civil war so the entire empire was awash with guns.
China is the funnest since their regulations on firearms go right back to the earliest days of gunpowder. However the Koumingtan firearm regulations in 1935 against communists can have absolutely no bearing on the communists actions over a decade later after the communists had won the civil war.
I won't bother going into the 1938 german changes as they are so well known and the claims so thoroughly trashed already.

Would you like the other 3 countries mentioned?
Guatamala is quite funny and I am sure US citizens especially yourself should be familiar with events in Cambodia.
Uganda is slightly different as the changes in the laws which were as usual themselves changes to earlier laws seems irrelevant as that fat bastards first target just happened to be the military.

edit to add... I take it you do know what "established" means?

[Sailor Steve]

It may seem simple to you but it's not obvious to those of us who don't know that particular history so well.

That's the way to do it. Thank you. :sunny:

[Tribesman]

How about something more local then steve.:03:
When would you say the USA established firearm regulations?
1776, 1783 or 1788?

[Sailor Steve]

Irrelevant, since you still haven't told me where you actually stand on the issue.

[Tribesman]

Irrelevant, since you still haven't told me where you actually stand on the issue.

It isn't irrelevant, plus I have told you several times where I stand on the issue.
You do understand the question and the nature of the question don't you.
Is that why you don't want to answer it?
Answering it would demonstrate that the most popular and most frequent arguement put out by one section of the debate is based on an entirely false line of reasoning.
From day 1 the US has had firearm regulations and has always had them ever since.
The only genuine arguement about regulation of firearms is simply their scope.

[Armistead]

Certainly guns have been regulated in some fashion since our conception of a nation by the Fed, state and local law. It was common in the wild west for cities to vote in no guns within town limits. However, we know that no amount of regulation will stop gun crime if a person chooses to do so.

If was interesting watching several of the Newtown parents testify before congress, some were pro gun, stating that more gun laws wouldn't stop such acts, others stating that the life of their children come before any other rights.

The big issue with these mass shootings seems to be how to we keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. There has been some talk of connecting guns to a drug data base, you apply, it can see what meds you're taking, any meds related to mental health would throw up a flag. The problem is Doctors hand out "stress meds" like candy, over 50% of Americans have been prescribed something that would cause a red flag. So then would come the process of getting medical approval, very costly and most Doctors don't want to be involved due to possible lawsuits and more insurance. Then the obvious issue, a person that wants to do a mass shooting can't get a gun legally, they'll just find one illegally.

[Sailor Steve]

"plus I have told you several times where I stand on the issue"

No, you haven't. You evaded the question forever, and then finally said it was in flux. When someone asks my opinion about an issue I tell them straightforwardly, without any games. You don't seem capable of doing anything straightforwardly.

I think I'm done with you now. I'd put you on ignore, but I still need to keep a close eye on your games. Goodbye.

[Ducimus]

I think I'm done with you now. I'd put you on ignore, but I still need to keep a close eye on your games. Goodbye.

Having a back in forth with Tribesman? I put that Trollmeister on my ignore list a very long time ago. :O:

[Tribesman]

No, you haven't.
Yes I have.

I put that Trollmeister on my ignore list a very long time ago.
That is how you can call someone a guy with credentials when he is shown to be a crackpot.:yeah:

[Sammi79]

I've got to say,

The subsim spelling nazis are clearly losing their touch. 200+ replies and not a single mention of the mistake in the title. It's just not good enough.

In fact it's so poor I've just had to do it for them.

And this used to be such a totalitarian forum. My oh my how things change...

:arrgh!:

[Sailor Steve]

The subsim spelling nazis are clearly losing their touch. 200+ replies and not a single mention of the mistake in the title. It's just not good enough.
No spelling nazis here. I'm concerned with grammar and usage, not typos. Anybody can make a mistake. It's the ones who actually abuse the language that bother me.

In fact it's so poor I've just had to do it for them.
No, you're actually the only one.

And this used to be such a totalitarian forum. My oh my how things change...
Still is, but only where behavior is concerned.

[MH]

Then the obvious issue, a person that wants to do a mass shooting can't get a gun legally, they'll just find one illegally.Maybe he will maybe not.
Finding gun illegally may involve risk and getting caught in the processes.
Some may succeed some may not.
There is also the issue which guns are suitable for self defence and which are for mass shooting.
You can say that explosives could be sold in walmart just because if someone wants to blow up empire state building he will anyway.

[Sammi79]

No spelling nazis here. I'm concerned with grammar and usage, not typos. Anybody can make a mistake. It's the ones who actually abuse the language that bother me.

And a very fine job you do, if I may say so Mr Steve. :salute:

No, you're actually the only one.

Such flattery is sadly wasted on me. Having only noticed myself after several days, then self deprecating by pointing it out, hardly qualifies me for such an esteemed position I fear.


Still is, but only where behavior is concerned.

Really? That is encouraging, I never would have guessed. Thank you for assuaging my doubts and concerns.

[Ducimus]

Maybe he will maybe not.
Finding gun illegally may involve risk and getting caught in the processes.
Some may succeed some may not.

It ain't hard if you know where to go. I know a lady who's from South Africa, and as far as i know she can't go into a gunstore and buy a firearm. Yet she has a couple, that she says she got off "The black market". I don't know the details, and i don't want to know. All this lady wants, is the ability to defend herself.

There is also the issue which guns are suitable for self defence and which are for mass shooting.

I'm gonna call BS here, for one, your wordsmithing and trying to frame the argument to your liking, and for two this is a blatant attempt to label rifles based on Armalite Rifle No 15 (which happen to be one the best self defense rifle you could own) as weapons designed for mass shooting. Weapons designed for mass shooting have been banned and heavily regulated since 1934.


You can say that explosives could be sold in walmart just because if someone wants to blow up empire state building he will anyway.

You may as well be suggesting that we should be allowed to carry a Nuclear suitcase.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2tLVPVS0Bc)

[MH]

I'm gonna call BS here, for one, your wordsmithing and trying to frame the argument to your liking, and for two this is a blatant attempt to label rifles based on Armalite Rifle No 15 as weapons designed for mass shooting. Weapons designed for mass shooting have been banned and heavily regulated since 1934.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2tLVPVS0Bc)

It is just a matter of definition that dates back to 1934.
As some one who owns modern assault rifle (with no auto:nope:) next to hand gunyou should know the difference in fire power and capability between that one and any other.

[August]

Interesting article:


NRA chief: Why we fight for gun rights

(CNN) -- After President Lyndon Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968, many anti-gun politicians looked forward to the day when they could completely ban the sale and ownership of firearms and perhaps even confiscate those already in private hands.

After the draconian legislation imposed restrictions on "dealing" firearms, Sen. Ted Kennedy wrote to the NRA to demand our support for a national gun licensing and registration system. A few years later, a Nixon administration advisory commission proposed that all side arms be outlawed and confiscated in about a decade.

That didn't happen. Those hostile to firearms ownership and the Second Amendment thought they were on the verge of victory, but had in fact managed to wake up millions of Americans who hadn't previously believed that government would ever threaten their guns or their way of life. They were joined by others who were not necessarily gun owners but believed the Second Amendment and the rights it guaranteed a free people worth preserving.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/opinion/keene-nra-guns/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+%28RSS%3A+Mo st+Recent%29

[Cybermat47]

Bugger :nope:

http://www.news.com.au/world/two-shot-at-price-middle-school-in-georgia/story-fndir2ev-1226566379028

[Sammi79]

It ain't hard if you know where to go. I know a lady who's from South Africa, and as far as i know she can't go into a gunstore and buy a firearm. Yet she has a couple, that she says she got off "The black market". I don't know the details, and i don't want to know. All this lady wants, is the ability to defend herself.

The self defense argument is the most potent, I think. If someone were threatening my life or the life of a friend or family member, and I happened to have a loaded gun to hand, I am absolutely sure any principles I may have on the issue would quickly evaporate. The firearm as a leveler for the weak against the strong (or the innocent against the criminal). Trouble is, rather than being a leveler, in the end it just substitutes 'the strong' with 'the most heavily armed'. Also the counter argument that unless you sleep with it loaded under your bed, in the case of a home invasion you are likely to be surprised and overwhelmed, is not without merit.

The real question is how do you tell a criminal from an innocent before a crime is committed? Considering that the subjective judgement of criminality will differ depending on the observing individual, and that we may or may not personally agree with some already extant laws. The lady you mention is a case in point.

I'm gonna call BS here, for one, your wordsmithing and trying to frame the argument to your liking, and for two this is a blatant attempt to label rifles based on Armalite Rifle No 15 (which happen to be one the best self defense rifle you could own) as weapons designed for mass shooting. Weapons designed for mass shooting have been banned and heavily regulated since 1934.

The definition of terms is important though. Arms in the sense of your right to bear arms means weapons in common usage not designed for military use, which is ambiguous in that the only difference between weapons designed for military use and those designed for civilian use is one of marketing. Military design requirements tend to be focused around reliability, ease and cost of manufacture and light weight, some of which will be of a lesser concern to civilian design requirements. I'd go as far to say weapons designed purely for civilians may even occasionally end up being better quality and more destructive than their contemporary military counterparts.

You may as well be suggesting that we should be allowed to carry a Nuclear suitcase.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2tLVPVS0Bc)

A nuclear suitcase does not fit the current common usage and non military definition whereas explosives might.

Currently, my thoughts are along the lines of you should retain your right, but that the majority of people would choose not to exercise it for the lack of need. Unfortunately that's an idea that probably has about as much potential as a bovine bicycle.

P.S. your link to the video about the M14 was brilliant, thanks for sharing. It consigned me to yet another evening of watching utube videos by gun enthusiasts. :yep:

[Tribesman]

NRA chief: Why we fight for gun rights

(CNN) -- After President Lyndon Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968, many anti-gun politicians looked forward to the day when they could completely ban the sale and ownership of firearms and perhaps even confiscate those already in private hands.
Is that complete rubbish from the NRA yet again?
Lets see.
45 years for them to find a even a single careless slip from some politician that would back up their crazy conspiracy theory ....and they have produced absolutely nothing.
People still parrot their rubbish though.

[August]

I found this quote the other day which I thought fits pretty well with this discussion:

“Political tags ― such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth ― are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."

- Robert Heinlein

[Cybermat47]

Wonder wether or not the Georgia school shooting today was done with legally owned guns? :hmmm:

[August]

Wonder wether or not the Georgia school shooting today was done with legally owned guns? :hmmm:

14 years old? I seriously doubt it.

[Cybermat47]

14 years old? I seriously doubt it.

The police haven't released much information on the shooter. Not even his age.

[August]

The police haven't released much information on the shooter. Not even his age.

My bad it's the victim that was 14.

One interesting tidbit from the CNN article:

An off-duty Atlanta police officer working as a school resource officer disarmed and apprehended the suspect immediately after the shooting, police Chief George Turner said.

Maybe putting a guard at our schools can work after all.

[Cybermat47]

Maybe putting a guard at our schools can work after all.

If children stop dying and you get to keep your rights, perhaps it can.

[Tribesman]

Bugger :nope:

And
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/31/phoenix-police-hunt-for-gunman-who-injured-5-3-critically-inside-office-complex/?test=latestnews

and talking of suspicuious surly curmudgeons being good neighbours
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/31/driver-fatally-shot-aboard-alabama-school-bus/

[Ducimus]

It is just a matter of definition that dates back to 1934.

Since your talking about assault rifles, which i'm sure everyone can agree is an Firearm found in the military, then we should probably use the military definition of an Assault rifle. The military definition of an assault rifle is:

1. Fire's an intermediate cartridge
2. Uses a detachable box magazine.
3. Is selective fire. Which, in case your unaware, means it can fire fully automatic. Like a machine gun.

The AR-15 does indeed fire an intermediate cartridge, and have a box magazine, however it cannot fire fully automatic. So by definition of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is NOT an assault rifle.

By the way, in case you didn't catch it, the AR in AR-15 does not mean "Assault Rifle", it means, "Armalite Rifle". That's just how the Armalite corporation named their designs. Did you know that there is an AR-7? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-7)



As some one who owns modern assault rifle (with no auto:nope:) next to hand gunyou should know the difference in fire power and capability between that one and any other.

I WISH i owned a modern assault rifle. Really i do. That would be freaking cool. Actually though, id be happy with an older model like M-16A1. Those have full auto. The A2's only have a 3 round burst, and I think the modern M4's do as well. Though i can say for sure, I never held one in my hands. However, I've trained with M-16A1's and my go to war rifle was the M-16A2, so I know them very well.

Firepower and capability, well yeah, a rifle will always bring more firepower to a fight then a handgun. That's a no brainer. In fact, ill go as far as to say, if your in a fight with a handgun and the other guy has a rifle, odds are, YOU WILL LOSE.

Now truthfully, I never really seriously considered getting an AR-15 before, outside of reasons of nostalgia. It handles just like my old service rifle without the "fun switch". To me, it's old hat, and I could care less. So what changed my mind about owning one? My wife. She can't handle my rifle. For her, it's too long, it's too heavy, and it has too much recoil. She can't use it very well. Two shots and she's done.

So on a whim one day, we rented an AR-15 at our local gun range for grins and giggles. We found out that for my wife, everything that my rifle is, the AR-15 is not. It can be made to be just the right length (aka "length of pull"), its light , and it has very low recoil. She could shoot that rifle all day. She also really enjoyed shooting it, cause it's a lot of fun.

At the end of the day, the best firearm to use, be it for defense, or sporting purposes (though i don't advocate going bird hunting with a rifle or something silly like that), is the firearm you can hit with. I don't care what firearm a person could be using, it's no good to you if you can't hit what your aiming at. So as rifles go, for my wife, the AR-15, IS the best rifle. For me it's not, and I could care less, id rather have my M1A.


Bugger :nope:

http://www.news.com.au/world/two-shot-at-price-middle-school-in-georgia/story-fndir2ev-1226566379028

yeah I saw that. To me it sounds like one indvidual had some serious issues with another. I think there was another shooting a week or two ago. Very similar, and ill bet dollars to donuts, it was gang related. Two guys shooting at each other after a yelling match if i remember correctly.

Shootings like this are nothing new, and in fact, ill say that when i was growing up, the problems of shooting were WORSE THEN THEY ARE NOW. Or to put it another way, kids growing up now, aren't dealing with HALF the crap i had to put up with. Igraduated high school in 1992. In my four years in high school we had a lot of gang problems, which resulted in at least 7 drive by shootings that I know of.

One of which, i was witness too. On that day, I was driving to work after getting out of class and for some stupid reason, I decided to go down the most congested street that day. Suddenly, I heard a "Pop pop pop pop pop pop pop" from somewhere behind me, I looked around i saw people diving to the ground, or into bush's, and then the realization hit me that it was a shooting. I ducked down in my car and got as close to the floor as i could. A min after the shooting stopped, i looked up, and saw a bullet hole in the left rail of the rollup door of a UPS truck that was in front of me. I'd say it missed the left side of my car by two feet. Once the traffic cleared, breathed a sigh of releif , continued my way to work, and never drove down that street again.

As it turns out, it was gang related. Hell, when i went to school I had to worry about being knifed, beaten with baseball bats, fist bats, and being shot at. The best thing to do, was don't get involved with or piss off the wrong people, don't go walking around where you shouldn't be, and mind your own damn business. Kids nowadays don't deal with that on the level that i did, at least not where i grew up, and in my area I went to the good high school. The other was WORSE. You know what ended the violence? The local PD opened an office in my old high school. Resource officers i think they're called. Yup, just like the NRA was saying, armed security, and it worked. I know because ive seen it happen.

EDIT: You Can't Ban Evil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vn7bkncf1_E)

[Stealhead]

Since your talking about assault rifles, which i'm sure everyone can agree is an Firearm found in the military, then we should probably use the military definition of an Assault rifle. The military definition of an assault rifle is:

1. Fire's an intermediate cartridge
2. Uses a detachable box magazine.
3. Is selective fire. Which, in case your unaware, means it can fire fully automatic. Like a machine gun.

The AR-15 does indeed fire an intermediate cartridge, and have a box magazine, however it cannot fire fully automatic. So by definition of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is NOT an assault rifle.

By the way, in case you didn't catch it, the AR in AR-15 does not mean "Assault Rifle", it means, "Armalite Rifle". That's just how the Armalite corporation named their designs. Did you know that there is an AR-7? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-7)



EDIT: You Can't Ban Evil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vn7bkncf1_E)

When Colt bough the rights to the AR-15 from Armalite they also copyrighted the name AR-15.Later when Eugene Stoner left Armalite (Armalite was owned by Fairchild an aircraft manufacturer) he gave his designs the prefix S for Stoner(SR-25 Stoner 63).

Also to those who look around and claim that suddenly pro gun people are saying that AR-15 does not mean Assault Rifle the exact meaning of AR has been a topic of debate for some time.People not knowing what they are talking about will claim that it means "assault rifle" (including misinformed gun users) The true meaning is Armalite Rifle during Vietnam with the early troubles the M-16 had some troops said that AR meant ARmalite rifle (a reference to the original company) or "Always Reliable"(a pun alluding to its unreliability).

[MH]

Since your talking about assault rifles, which i'm sure everyone can agree is an Firearm found in the military, then we should probably use the military definition of an Assault rifle. The military definition of an assault rifle is:

1. Fire's an intermediate cartridge
2. Uses a detachable box magazine.
3. Is selective fire. Which, in case your unaware, means it can fire fully automatic. Like a machine gun.



ok..

From my perspective as someone who spend 3 years in military since age at 18 and then doing reserve service every year i must say i never used full auto unless for fun or while shooting types of MGs.
I was never trained to use full auto but the opposite , Military here exercises a lot mostly with real ammo unless doing OPFOR off course:o.
Im not gun expert just a sort of user:haha: yet this definition that somehow turns military rifles into innocent civilian guns i find ridiculous.
From my perspective they are both the same.

I really admire the amount of personal freedom you got there and understand the reasons why it needs to be defended but again , the ease with which anyone can put his hands on all sort of weapons really baffles me.

[Ducimus]

The self defense argument is the most potent, I think. If someone were threatening my life or the life of a friend or family member, and I happened to have a loaded gun to hand, I am absolutely sure any principles I may have on the issue would quickly evaporate.

Which is a reasonable assumption for anyone to make. When it's your life, or the one you love, any scruples will most likely disappear.

The firearm as a leveler for the weak against the strong (or the innocent against the criminal). Trouble is, rather than being a leveler, in the end it just substitutes 'the strong' with 'the most heavily armed'.

Well, one could argue that in terms of a life or death struggle where you are in fear for your life, or the life of a family member, I don't think there is any such thing as "fighting fair". You take any advantage you can get, and exploit it to its fullest. In this scenario, this is your life we are talking about. It is all you own, and all you'll ever own, and all you'll ever have. You only get one chance, and second place is a toe tag and a body bag.

That said, I have always felt that the best defense , is to not be there, to extract yourself from the situation entirely. Lethal force should only be used when you have no other choice. In the case of home invasion, I think the situation and response will depend on one's household.


Also the counter argument that unless you sleep with it loaded under your bed, in the case of a home invasion you are likely to be surprised and overwhelmed, is not without merit.

Your right, it is most certainly not without merit. In fact, in the case of home invasion, this is my greatest fear. I am a very sound sleeper. When my head hits the pillow, i am out within 5 minutes, and am effectively dead to the world. To that end, ive put "stop sticks" in all my windows, and make sure the doors are locked. With "stop sticks", the only way to open the window, is to break it. Which will make a lot of noise, and increase the likelyhood of waking me up.

Failing that, I have what i jokingly refer to as my "Early Warning Doggie Detection system".
http://www.ducimus.net/temp/raven.jpg
He sleeps by the bed, and he hears everything. Of course, i realize not everyone has a good dog.


The real question is how do you tell a criminal from an innocent before a crime is committed? Considering that the subjective judgement of criminality will differ depending on the observing individual, and that we may or may not personally agree with some already extant laws. The lady you mention is a case in point.

Well, you can't, unless you want to change the law to where someone is guilty until proven innocent. Which is one reason im having issues with these attempts at gun legislature. It's like we are now all guilty, and we are all suspect. For the horrendous crime at newtown, I and millions of other law abiding citizens are to be punished for a crime we did not commit through legislature? Last I checked, we are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

The best thing we can do, is improve measures to where firearms cannot be acquired by criminals and the mentally ill. On that note, I think doctors pass out way too many drugs that alter the minds chemistry like it's candy. See prozac.


The definition of terms is important though. Arms in the sense of your right to bear arms means weapons in common usage not designed for military use, which is ambiguous in that the only difference between weapons designed for military use and those designed for civilian use is one of marketing.

When it comes to defining type of arms, in this case assault rifles; if your going to apply a military application to it, then i will always use the military definition. In this case: intermediate cartridge, detatchable box magazine, selective fire.

Fact of the matter is, our military does not use the AR-15. I seriously doubt you'll find a single AR-15 in any Military armory, in any branch of our Armed Services.


I'd go as far to say weapons designed purely for civilians may even occasionally end up being better quality and more destructive than their contemporary military counterparts.

Hollow points is a good example. Used accross the nation for self defense because it increases the lethality against your intended target, and decreases the likelyhood that the round fired will penetrate past the first surface it comes in contact with. In an urban scenario, this is important in the lawful defense of self and others, and ironically, is also banned by the Geneva convention.


Currently, my thoughts are along the lines of you should retain your right, but that the majority of people would choose not to exercise it for the lack of need. Unfortunately that's an idea that probably has about as much potential as a bovine bicycle.

Well here's the thing. We have a "Bill of Rights", we do not have a "Bill of Needs". When anyone says, "Well, you don't need a rifle like that!"? They're just not getting it. A counter point would be, "Well, you need a sports car either!" Two completely separate items that have no relationship to each other save one. It's not about what you need, its about your rights. We cannot allow ourselves to get into a situation where people can dictate what common items you can or cannot own on basis of need. That's not what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is about.

Now if others choose not to exercise their rights, that is their decision; however, they have no moral leg to stand on to infringe on everyone's rights simply because they themselves choose not to use them.


P.S. your link to the video about the M14 was brilliant, thanks for sharing. It consigned me to yet another evening of watching utube videos by gun enthusiasts. :yep:

Your welcome. I work from home, and often listen to documentaries and such on youtube on my personal desktop while working on my companies laptop, (go go gadget KVM switch), so i know of a ton of interesting video's on youtube.

ok..

From my perspective as someone who spend 3 years in military since age at 18 and then doing reserve service every year i must say i never used full auto unless for fun or while shooting types of MGs.
I was never trained to use full auto but the opposite , Military here exercises a lot mostly with real ammo unless doing OPFOR off course:o.
Im not gun expert just a sort of user:haha: yet this definition that somehow turns military rifles into innocent civilian guns i find ridiculous.
From my perspective they are both the same.

Well, ill give you this. When i first got out of the military, I didn't understand why anyone in the Civilian world would need a rifle similar to the one I used the the military, and I know I said as much in the past. In fact, at time when i left active duty, i just assumed never touch a rifle again. I swore to myself, "I never want another job where I have to carry a gun", and wanted nothing more then to live in peace. I still want nothing more then to live in peace, however, my perspective on guns in general has changed.

Mainly because these are uncertain times we live in, our civil liberties have been steadily whittled away. We already have two pieces of legislature that allow gross potential for abuse to haul citizens off without due process, and detain them indefinatly. This is the anti-thesis to freedom, and the principles upon which our country was founded, and this errorsion of our civil liberties cannot be allowed to continue. Our right to bear arms, as are all of our civil rights, is not based on what a person does or does not need. They are god given right's as a human being, guaranteed by the founding fathers of our nation in the bill of rights for a reason.

(EDIT: On a side note, It is not lost on me, that Osama bin Ladin, and anyone his associated with, have quite possibly achieved a long term goal, in a way they couldn't possibly imagine. Since 911, we have been on a downward spiral in every concievable way. In short, we have allowed them to do far more damage to our country then the world trade center by virtue of our own reactions. Destruction of "the great Satan" from within. We are less free, a lot poorer, and no more safer then we were before 911. )

[Sammi79]

@Ducimus

Thank you for an eloquent and well reasoned response. It took me a while to get started in this particular thread as previous responses made me feel decidedly unwelcome (To be clear, my problem, no one else, and I took what I felt was the necessary action to try to avoid such bad reaction from me in the future), and from its inception was not intended as yet another thread arguing about gun controls rather about Mr Kings written views - which is of no interest to anyone else evidently and that is fair enough. I rather expected it to die quietly after the first few negative replies, as there are plenty more threads on the overarching issue.

Instead, here I am, here you are, exchanging views on gun culture etc. and on that note I would like to elaborate the reason I think this is so.

You mentioned the perceived projection of guilt by anti-gun folks upon pro-gun folks for the terrible crimes committed by criminals. To me this is a very unfortunate manifestation of the polarizing effect of shock and tragedy, and a part of the argument that to my mind is quite detrimental to the gun control advocates cause. The media knows this all too well of course, as do the politicians and we all know that their motivations are often less than honorable. However, and this is a clear point in Mr Kings essay and one I agree with completely - The reason that you kindly describe to me your views whether they be pro or anti-gun (for want of better less monochrome terms) is itself an indication of the fact that you care very deeply about the problems in your society, as I do about mine and this is hope inspiring. Particularly since this is an argument you have been having your whole life while outsiders like me tend to only get involved when we are shocked and saddened by unashamedly sensationalist media coverage. Media is too often a pernicious thing I think, and conscientious gun owners/enthusiasts are in no way responsible for the crimes committed by people with either mental disorders or inferior motives.

That said, I will ramble on a bit if anyone would care to read it, and not necessarily about gun controls. /phew...

I understand your definitive separation of rights and needs, which is why I was careful to imply the personal choice inherent in the lack of needs. I know there are many Americans who do not own guns through choice and yet will not like yourself accept any erosion of their right to do so. I do differ in some rhetorical statements in that I choose an atheistic life as is my right, so 'God given rights' means very little to me (and I hope that this does not make you think worse of me). We could debate the exact meaning of the word 'creator' which I would argue should be 'creation' in your constitution but that is another discussion altogether, and not pertinent to the fact that a right is indeed a right. As I have mentioned before I have huge admiration for your constitution and have found it a singularly fascinating document to analyse.

I wander about the right to life in regard to capital punishment, and the right to the pursuit of happiness in regard to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. Obviously some may feel that criminals forfeit these rights entirely upon committing a crime, I personally can't agree with this, because of human subjective judgement of criminality and peoples propensity to make mistakes. There is I believe always a possibility no matter how slight for change in any and every individual. Don't get me wrong, I think someone like Charles Manson should probably remain incarcerated permanently if only for his own safety, regardless of whether or not he is or was capable of any rehabilitation. I guess that since the words describe rights being endowed by mans creator (or creation) that might be construed or even stated as being inviolate or unlimited since no one man or group of men can endow these rights, neither can they take them away. However, society has a duty to try to mitigate the damage to society that is a result of evolved aspects of humanity, those being opportunism, fear, greed, etc. so in actual fact all fundamental rights should be and are limited. Compromise is a word that does not inspire confidence in people and it is certain that some individuals will lose more than they gain in any sense of it, but compromise is I believe essential to the continued functioning of large societies, and is itself simply another evolved aspect of humanity. Above all, criminals and crazies are unavoidably human aspects too and they are not going to go away. My worry when I discuss the US constitution is a sneaking feeling that some regard the rights as their own exclusively, in the case of prepper groups for example, to me seem to be a move towards division, of different interpretations of constitutional declarations and ultimately between groups, peoples and governments, maybe even the military. A fairly rough analogy here would be the Waco siege, those folks were certainly well prepped, and they couldn't be stopped.

So I digress, my thoughts are not yet completely collected on the various sound points you have made, and I shall stop here until such a time as I can efficiently put them into words.

As an aside, your doggie early warning device is a wonderful looking creature :) and a very wise precaution that I think all gun owners should consider, along with effective security systems, burglar alarms, etc.

Best regards,
Sam.

[Madox58]

Haveing been down the road of a Home invasion?
I can say this.
I wish a Fire arm was in my home at the time!

The Wife and I were in Hawaii when the invasion put my step son and his friend in Hospitals.

My home was trashed.
I never recovered the cost of fixing things.
My step son still owes bills.

I did voice one thing at the sentenceing of the scum.
"I will execute anyone of the scum that even drives by my home upon release from prison! Should they attack anyone of my family after release? I will hunt them down and execute them. Should they send others to do harm to my family? I will hunt down, and then execute, all involved with no regrets."

The Court did not like that but they knew I ment it!

I have one thing I hold so dear that life to me is beyond thinking about.
That's my family.
I can nothing about anything else to that level.
Hurt my family?
I will go postal in a way that no one ever has!

[Armistead]

The gun debate is mostly a political joke to simply outlaw guns, kill the gun party, mostly the GOP. The liberal media harps that there is mass gun smuggling from the US to Mexico, it's mostly garbage. The majority of fully automatic assault weapons in the US come from Mexico and our inner cities are full of them. Most of these weapons are used in gang violence, but thousands die every year, but you here no talk of it because we would have to shut our border down with the military. The Dems will go nuts when a white kid shoots up a white school with a legal semi automatic weapon, but you never hear anything about inner city violence with real assault weapons. Like I said, what would Dems be debating if a person walked into a school with an illegal Uzi smuggled from Mexico? Would they simply call it an illegal act with an illegal gun?

[Armistead]

911 call.....Lady with no gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu4lVFijM6g

911 call....Lady with gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsvggjYRbL0


Which would you prefer to be.......Case closed.

[Takeda Shingen]

911 call.....Lady with no gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu4lVFijM6g

911 call....Lady with gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsvggjYRbL0


Which would you prefer to be.......Case closed.

At the same time, there is the story of Keith Ratliff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us/keith-ratliff-gun-enthusiast-of-fpsrussia-is-shot-to-death.html?_r=0

If somebody wants to get you they're going to get you, guns or not.

[Sailor Steve]

If somebody wants to get you they're going to get you, guns or not.
That's true. There is no guarantee against a dedicated assassin, and there's no guarantee against bad luck. On the other hand when someone is trying to cause you harm it's better to have a serious weapon at hand than not.

[Madox58]

If somebody wants to get you they're going to get you, guns or not.

As the weapons issues raise notice? Sooner or later We'll see a far more frightening change on how this happens.

In my home, I have 90% of a remote bomb.
I'd say all you here do also.
The 10% missing is the explosive material.

Through training and books I could produce the other 10%.
I am not the only one who can do that.

I fear the bombers much more then a loon with a fire arm!

[August]

Well yeah they might get you and they might not but no sense making it easier for them by refusing to arm oneself.

This is the key part of the article though:

"For him not to pull out that gun and try to defend himself, he had to feel comfortable around somebody. Either that or he was ambushed".

Inside job or professional hit. But NOT some drugged up punk or wild eyed nutcase.

[Takeda Shingen]

There is never a time when I am unarmed.

[HundertzehnGustav]

Well yeah they might get you and they might not but no sense making it easier for them by refusing to arm oneself.

That.
and as privateer says, Guns are not the only weapon there is.
It starts with the Mind, goes over the Body, basic tools and weapon hacks. The gun is a sophisticated weapon already...

Being armed - having a set of tools and the abiilty to defend yourself is needed IMO.

HOW? That is up to the individual to decide, wether or not he choses to repsect the law and follow the game rules...

[August]

HOW? That is up to the individual to decide, wether or not he choses to repsect the law and follow the game rules...

Exactly and there's a saying over here that I think applies quite well to that:

"I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six"

[Madox58]

There is never a time when I am unarmed.
I walk with no weapons that can be touched.
Trained by the U.S. Government.
I am a weapon.
There are millions of us.
We are called Veterans.

[Takeda Shingen]

I walk with no weapons that can be touched.
Trained by the U.S. Government.
I am a weapon.
There are millions of us.
We are called Veterans.

Not to impugn your unarmed abilities, but I have had full-contact sessions against a number of vets, and I had left unimpressed. While those techniques may be effective in the chaos of the battlefield, my experience there is no substitute for concentrated and formalized martial arts training, at least in isolated combat. The times when I've been rocked, and I mean really rocked, it's been by specialists.

[Madox58]

My statement was not to imply any unarmed vet was a master at unarmed combat.
The truth is that 99% are not even kind of good at it.
In a mass fight?
The vets are the weapon.

The 1% I left out?
They scare the hell out of me in what they can do should they put thier minds to it.

[HundertzehnGustav]

Exactly and there's a saying over here that I think applies quite well to that:

"I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six"

If you are unlucky, you get the 12 judges AND the electric chair... then carried by one, as your ashes are dumped somewhere.

Difficult world...

[Armistead]

At the same time, there is the story of Keith Ratliff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us/keith-ratliff-gun-enthusiast-of-fpsrussia-is-shot-to-death.html?_r=0

If somebody wants to get you they're going to get you, guns or not.

I know the story well, most likely it was someone he wasn't afraid of, those events happen, nothing we can do about it. However, if I fear of attack, home invasion, harm coming to me or my family......I want a gun and I want the right to have what's needed to protect myself and family.
Police depts across this nation demanded assault type weapons because they were being outgunned by criminals, I should have that same right. I do live out in the woods, you come in my house uninvited you won't be facing a pistol, if I lived in town in an apt, be different.

[HundertzehnGustav]

hold on, does that mean if you are out there, you do not point a thing at me if i break your lock?
but in the city, i shall stare at a barrel?

Or does that mean that in your cabin you are not pointing one barrel at me but six a la Gatling Gun?:haha:

[August]

If you are unlucky, you get the 12 judges AND the electric chair... then carried by one, as your ashes are dumped somewhere.

Difficult world...


Oh yes that is very true, but at least it'd be some time after it would have been if you had chosen the six.

[HundertzehnGustav]

Phew! But what kkind of life would THAT be.
and if you ever made it out again, managing to not get the electric chair, your life would be in ruins anyway, stainted by the time and accusations "inside".

No win situation.

[August]

Phew! But what kkind of life would THAT be.
and if you ever made it out again, managing to not get the electric chair, your life would be in ruins anyway, stainted by the time and accusations "inside".

No win situation.


Eventually yes but nobody really can know for sure that they will actually have to get into that chair until just before it happens. There's years of appeals, any of which which might reverse or reduce the sentence, commutations, pardons, heck even the collapse of society could occur. Who knows the Bastille might be stormed again. It happened once, it could happen again.

Yeah that last part is a bit of a stretch but i'd imagine sitting on death row there is a lot of hoping it'd happen. :)

[Sailor Steve]

If you are unlucky, you get the 12 judges AND the electric chair... then carried by one, as your ashes are dumped somewhere.

Difficult world...

Phew! But what kkind of life would THAT be.
and if you ever made it out again, managing to not get the electric chair, your life would be in ruins anyway, stainted by the time and accusations "inside".

No win situation.
Those are some awfully big ifs you're projecting. The choice in August's quote is between being dead now and having a chance to prove it was self-defense later. I would gladly take the "judged by twelve" option any day of the week.

Or, as the most famous Old West gunfighter you never heard of said, when asked what it takes to be a successful gunslinger:

"Being willing to stand up in court and prove you were in the right."
-Elfego Baca

[Stealhead]

Not to impugn your unarmed abilities, but I have had full-contact sessions against a number of vets, and I had left unimpressed. While those techniques may be effective in the chaos of the battlefield, my experience there is no substitute for concentrated and formalized martial arts training, at least in isolated combat. The times when I've been rocked, and I mean really rocked, it's been by specialists.

That depends on what the person did in the military.I bet the guys you spared with where where mechanics or something of this nature in that case the most training they got in the military was some basic hand to hand stuff back in basic training.Many former military will claim to have been one job but if you where to look at their DD214 discharge papers they where really a cook and only deadly to powered milk.

Now an infantryman would be much better in fact they have a pride about hand to hand combat so they can be pretty good fighters but not ever infantryman is best at hand to hand.Now you spare with a former elite forces member that man would be pretty tough unless he got really lazy after he left the military.

I worked with this very mild mannered man that was a former Navy Seal only he never bragged about it or really even mentioned it.One day we where walked out of this gas station and for some reason or another this younger black kid got really mad because the ex SEAL (who also is a black person not sure if that is why the kid started the problem or not) bumped into him and embarrassed him in front of his "Gs".

The young kid(he was over 18 but young) was right the ex SEALs face talking smack and the whole time he just stood there and I am thinking "if this kid makes the mistake of striking its over." The whole time though ex SEAL is calm and quite.Finally the kid took a swing and the reactions was so fast and violent from the ex SEAL I could not tell what happened but the swing got blocked and a few strikes had the kid on the ground hardly able to breath.His "Gs" who appeared ready to bum rush just stood there in fear and you could tell that this action was a mild effort on part of my SEAL co-worker.

I often think what would that ex SEAL have done in a life or death situation? I don't know but it would have been very bad for the attacker.

[Takeda Shingen]

I bet the guys you spared with where where mechanics or something of this nature in that case the most training they got in the military was some basic hand to hand stuff back in basic training.

You'd bet wrong. I'll leave it at that.

I worked with this very mild mannered man that was a former Navy Seal only he never bragged about it or really even mentioned it.One day we where walked out of this gas station and for some reason or another this younger black kid got really mad because the ex SEAL (who also is a black person not sure if that is why the kid started the problem or not) bumped into him and embarrassed him in front of his "Gs".

The young kid(he was over 18 but young) was right the ex SEALs face talking smack and the whole time he just stood there and I am thinking "if this kid makes the mistake of striking its over." The whole time though ex SEAL is calm and quite.Finally the kid took a swing and the reactions was so fast and violent from the ex SEAL I could not tell what happened but the swing got blocked and a few strikes had the kid on the ground hardly able to breath.His "Gs" who appeared ready to bum rush just stood there in fear and you could tell that this action was a mild effort on part of my SEAL co-worker.

I often think what would that ex SEAL have done in a life or death situation? I don't know but it would have been very bad for the attacker.

Cool story. Of course, even I can sling punk kids around. I wonder how your SEAL friend would fare against a real master. I don't know myself, but I am certain that it won't be like dealing with some street thug. Of course, anyone who has really practiced isn't going around picking fights. That's kind of antithetical to the philosophy. I was taught to use what I know defensively; something to which I adhere.

[Madox58]

I was taught to use what I know defensively; something to which I adhere.

A Warrior would say that.
:03:

[Tribesman]

hold on, does that mean if you are out there, you do not point a thing at me if i break your lock?
but in the city, i shall stare at a barrel?

Its almost like he is saying there should be different firearm regulations for urban and rural isn't it.:hmmm:

[Stealhead]

You'd bet wrong. I'll leave it at that.



Cool story. Of course, even I can sling punk kids around. I wonder how your SEAL friend would fare against a real master. I don't know myself, but I am certain that it won't be like dealing with some street thug. Of course, anyone who has really practiced isn't going around picking fights. That's kind of antithetical to the philosophy. I was taught to use what I know defensively; something to which I adhere.

Did I say that the former SEAL picked the fight? He did not he merely kept the other person from harming him he was actually trying to walk away as best he could with someone pressing into him.

I don't now it would depend when one takes into consideration that a master in reference to a martial art such a person would never go around picking fights either.In all honesty what are the odds of a person skilled in martial arts encountering another so skilled in an uncollected situation? I would say rather slim.

The odds of a skilled person encountering unskilled person are very high though and underestimating anyone is a rather grave mistake in some cases literally.

I used to practice a fair bit of Tae Kwon Do I spared many times however I have also been in a few real life hand to hand situations and I see many differences for starters one is a controlled situation with rules and another is an uncontrolled situation with no rules what so ever a warrior does not show their true effect until they in a situation where no rules apply in other words in a war zone where they can kill their foe if need be without consequence.

[MH]

Cool story. Of course, even I can sling punk kids around. I wonder how your SEAL friend would fare against a real master. I don't know myself, but I am certain that it won't be like dealing with some street thug. Of course, anyone who has really practiced isn't going around picking fights. That's kind of antithetical to the philosophy. I was taught to use what I know defensively; something to which I adhere.

Military as far as i can tell is not very much about martial arts.
In some cases one is thought some nasty offensive and defensive moves to be used in tight situations to resolve the issue quickly with full determination....and that's it.
Also helpful for those that never in their lives had some serious fights and joined the military.

There is no time for years and years of training with martial arts and it would be pointless.