Gun Companies Boycott New York.

[August]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

That's probably true as well.

And civilians have guns to defend against criminals. Law enforcement has guns to attack criminals.

Law enforcement is supposed to apprehend criminals, not attack them.

I tend to think the 'apprehend' has been replaced with 'kill' if a shot is fired.

Not that I disagree with that.
Shoot at me? I'll fire back intending to kill you. As should the Cops.

What gets me is that all research and equipment is intended to kill not wound.

Remember the rubber bullets and such talked about back in the '70's?
Those are only for rioting type situations and never went much past that type useage.

And those so called "Cop killer' bullets?
Invented by the Cops themselves to reduce slowing and deflection of the rounds.
You can't have them. They can.

Get caught with a bullet resistant vest? Yep. You have a problem.
Got any ParaMilitary gear laying around? You have a problem.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Dowly

It is also more likely that they (the police) come upon situations where they
need something heavier than a pistol or a shotgun in their line of work.

Wasn't it the '97 North Hollywood shootout that started the talk about how
poorly armed the officers are against suspects with bodyarmor and automatic
weapons?

For that dept and others joined in. Now a great many trained policeman carry higher powered rifles, but usually in the 223 range. Like I said, if police state they're being outgunned by criminals, then I want the right to own weapons I can defend against them.

Like I said, if police state they're being outgunned by criminals, then I want the right to own weapons I can defend against them.

There is a solution, write to the police commissioner and inform him that he should disconnect your batphone as you will no longer be on call for bank robberies like the one in the post you quote.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

There is a solution, write to the police commissioner and inform him that he should disconnect your batphone as you will no longer be on call for bank robberies like the one in the post you quote.

One morning I was in the corner store getting coffee. Cops chased a car that pulled in right at the front door. The cop got out and pulled his gun. I could see 4 or 5 males in the car with gun barrels sticking out. I wrapped my belt around the door to sort of lock it. The guys wouldn't follow orders from the cop. Two got out, acting like they were giving up, but no doubt in my mind distracting the cop. One pulled at the door, but by that time owner locked it. Then came the calvary, they gave up. The guys arrested were all armed and they found several assault type weapons, including full auto. This group had been on a bank robbing spree in the state and had killed two people. No doubt they had thought of charging the store. What they didn't know is the owner was waiting with an assault rifle of his own and one man any myself were armed with pistols. Had they tried to come through the door, I don't think they would've gotten far.

I live in a small rural county, most people are armed, not a place for robbers to come vist.

If they want to do something, they need to stop letting criminals out of jail.

One morning I was in the corner store getting coffee......

And when you see a SWAT member getting coffee dressed like in Augusts picture when he is not actually at work then you may say you need what the police have.

Though your story looks like the demand you are making is for the right to have a belt and a key to secure doors.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Wasn't it the '97 North Hollywood shootout that started the talk about how
poorly armed the officers are against suspects with bodyarmor and automatic
weapons?

I think your correct. Prior to that, i think all police kept in their car was the obligatory remington 870 shotgun that you used to see mounted in a rack, in the front of the car, in the middle of the front dash board.

It's worth mentioning that this shootout occurred during the Assault Weapon ban of 94. The criminals involved

The thing is, if the gun grabbers really wanted to institute some kind of draconian gun control legislature that would actually accomplish something besides limit the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens, they missed that window of opportunity A LONG, LONG time ago. From stats ive seen, there is 88.8 firearms per 100 people in the US. There are millions of firearms in circulation, twice as many normal capacity magazines, and the majority of Americans will not accept government confiscation under any guise. (myself included)

In other words, the horse has already left the gate. The ship has already sailed. The guns are out there, and they are here to stay despite what Obama and Fienstien want to dictate. In America, a ban simply does not work, nor are guns the cause of mass shootings. Stastically, when you look at the number of firearms owned compared to the number of mass shootings, i think you probably have a greater chance of being hit by lighting then being involved in a mass shooting. The gun is just a tool. It's the hard heart that kills.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

The gun is just a tool. It's the hard heart that kills.

The gun is a weapon. It amuses me that gun fetishists are always talking about how they need their gun for safety and yet seem to shy away from the fact that it is a weapon. I mean isn't that why you want it? If a gun's primary function was to dry your laundry, would you be so passionate about it?

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

It amuses me that gun fetishists...

I don't think the insulting name is really necessary to the discussion. Are we also privacy fetishists because we believe in the 4th Amendment? Speech fetishists because we believe in the 1st?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

I don't think the insulting name is really necessary to the discussion. Are we also privacy fetishists because we believe in the 4th Amendment? Speech fetishists because we believe in the 1st?

Where was your complaint about this August?

The thing is, if the gun grabbers

Is this conducive to discussion? Or is it cool so long as the other side is getting the names?

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

The gun is a weapon. It amuses me that gun fetishists are always talking about how they need their gun for safety and yet seem to shy away from the fact that it is a weapon. I mean isn't that why you want it? If a gun's primary function was to dry your laundry, would you be so passionate about it?

There is no denying it's a weapon, however, from a pragmatic point of view, it IS a tool. Perhaps the choice of words shows more about the person engaged in the conversation, then the item itself. To me it's just a tool, no different then a powder actuated tool.. I'm well aware that handled wrong, incorrectly, or irresponsibly, injury of death can happen to myself, as well as others. Like any other tool, I'll wear the proper personal protection, and maintain safe practices so that I don't injure myself or anyone else. The same could be said for a circular saw, a table saw, a band saw, a Jointer, plainer, or nail gun. A tool is designed to do a job; and broadly speaking, I view firearms as tools for lawful defense of self and others. I don't think of them as weapons (though I know they are), because I have no aggressive motives, nor have I any intent on harming anyone.

While true, a gun is a weapon, what your really doing is a using a word that inspires mental images fear, danger, death, homicide, etc. The word "weapon" is a little on the aggressive side in meaning and intent. The gun isn't going to jump up by self and injure, maim or kill anyone. It' is a mechanical device, and It's the monkey handling it that is the problem and cause for concern.

Now your choice of word "fetishists " is both derogatory, and pretty much tells how you feel about gun control in general, without having any read or remembered any previous arguments you may have made on the issue. I take sides with the pro gun crowd for a few reasons:

1.) To me, the gun control issue is more about the continued erosion of civil liberties. I'm looking at the larger picture. The politics of fear have created The patriot act and the National Defense Authorization Act, both of which have tremendous potential to trample upon our civil liberties as defined by the bill of rights. Now they're going after our means of self defense? No, this has gone too far already. No more.

2.) It pisses me off that some dillweed politicians who are not even living in the same state as me, try to dictate policy as if I were under there thumb, and their solution was a one size fits all. Honestly, i think gun policies should be decided at state level, NOT the federal level. What works for New York or California, does not work for Utah, and vice versa. The demographics are different, and different demographics require different solutions.

3.) I enjoy target shooting. It is a fun hobby and competitive sport, and I resent being told what i can or can't do on or during my free time. Don't screw with my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness when I am not doing anything wrong, and not harming anyone. I was not at Sandy Hook elemetary with a gun in my hand shooting at innocent kids, nor would I ever do such a hideous thing, it is beyond my comprehension. (See tool vs weapon), furthermore I resent legislative punishment for a crime i did not commit.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Where was your complaint about this August?



Is this conducive to discussion? Or is it cool so long as the other side is getting the names?

A "gun grabber" is a politician with an anti-2nd Amendment legislative agenda, whereas what you call a gun fetishist means anyone who holds a belief in the right of a free people to be armed. Beliefs vs actions. Apples vs oranges.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

There is no denying it's a weapon, however, from a pragmatic point of view, it IS a tool. Perhaps the choice of words shows more about the person engaged in the conversation, then the item itself. To me it's just a tool, no different then a powder actuated tool.. I'm well aware that handled wrong, incorrectly, or irresponsibly, injury of death can happen to myself, as well as others. Like any other tool, I'll wear the proper personal protection, and maintain safe practices so that I don't injure myself or anyone else. The same could be said for a circular saw, a table saw, a band saw, a Jointer, plainer, or nail gun. A tool is designed to do a job; and broadly speaking, I view firearms as tools for lawful defense of self and others. I don't think of them as weapons (though I know they are), because I have no aggressive motives, nor have I any intent on harming anyone.

While true, a gun is a weapon, what your really doing is a using a word that inspires mental images fear, danger, death, homicide, etc. The word "weapon" is a little on the aggressive side in meaning and intent. The gun isn't going to jump up by self and injure, maim or kill anyone. It' is a mechanical device, and It's the monkey handling it that is the problem and cause for concern.

Now your choice of word "fetishists " is both derogatory, and pretty much tells how you feel about gun control in general, without having any read or remembered any previous arguments you may have made on the issue. I take sides with the pro gun crowd for a few reasons:

1.) To me, the gun control issue is more about the continued erosion of civil liberties. I'm looking at the larger picture. The politics of fear have created The patriot act and the National Defense Authorization Act, both of which have tremendous potential to trample upon our civil liberties as defined by the bill of rights. Now they're going after our means of self defense? No, this has gone too far already. No more.

2.) It pisses me off that some dillweed politicians who are not even living in the same state as me, try to dictate policy as if I were under there thumb, and their solution was a one size fits all. Honestly, i think gun policies should be decided at state level, NOT the federal level. What works for New York or California, does not work for Utah, and vice versa. The demographics are different, and different demographics require different solutions.

3.) I enjoy target shooting. It is a fun hobby and competitive sport, and I resent being told what i can or can't do on or during my free time. Don't screw with my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness when I am not doing anything wrong, and not harming anyone. I was not at Sandy Hook elemetary with a gun in my hand shooting at innocent kids, nor would I ever do such a hideous thing, it is beyond my comprehension. (See tool vs weapon), furthermore I resent legislative punishment for a crime i did not commit.

Then make that your argument. I don't necessarily share your view on society and the nature of gun ownership, but this is the position:

My gun is a weapon; a lethal device which I am granted the right to own by the United States Constitution. As a law-abiding citizen of this nation, my gun represents the last line of defense for my physical self, my loved ones, my property and my inalienable rights. As such, there is nothing wrong with my exercise of this right; a right that should not be revoked due to the fact that a miniscule percentage of the American populace abuses it.

It is the lethality of that weapon that makes it useful for those things. Perhaps I should not have ascribed what I am about to say to you, and I apologize for it, but the NRA line where guns are needed for defense combined with the downplaying of the weapon as a tool drives me crazy.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

A "gun grabber" is a politician with an anti-2nd Amendment legislative agenda, whereas what you call a gun fetishist means anyone who holds a belief in the right of a free people to be armed. Beliefs vs actions. Apples vs oranges.

"Gun grabber" is a term used to belittle proponents of gun control. "Gun fetishist" is a term used to belittle supporters of gun ownership and rights. Apples and apples.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Is this conducive to discussion?

You know originally, I put "they" instead of "gun grabbers", but decided to put "gun grabbers" instead. Why not call "them" out by their real intent? Discussion? In my opinion, the bill of rights is not up for discussion. It is called the Bill of RIGHTS. Not the bill of NEEDS. So no, i don't think any item contained within the bill of rights is up for discussion.

Now if you want to talk about how to keep guns and other weapons away from criminals and the mentally insane, that is indeed a topic for disucssion. But the INSTANT that "discussion" is about changing, altering, cheapening, lessening, etc on the bill of rights for competent law abiding citizens, there is no discussion at all.