On Liberals and gun control.

[Powerman]

I am really asking a serious question. I really want to know. We all know about the "red and blue states". I would say that this site is mostly red. That is why I ask. I am not anything. To me the extreme left and right are just the same thing. Nothing but conspiracies and paronoia.

First off, I don't like the extreme left trying to save people from themselves with legislation. That would be my beef with them. I'm not really talking about the left, but I can't ask about gun control without being labled a liberal. I'm not a liberal.

I belive everyone has the basic right to protect themselves. I belive ANY gun is a perfectly reasonable weapon to do that with. However, what is so wrong with trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Why can't you even sugest such a thing without being labled a commie, bleeding heart liberal.

This will probably get locked up or deleted. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, and I am not trying to stir the pot. I am seriously asking for your opinion. To me it seems extreme on both sides of the issue. Another thread was getting muddy so I made this one to discuss it. Can we please be adult about this?

[johnlv6]

Gun control would be a great concept if it affected the people it was intended to. How does gun control keep firearms out of the hands of criminals? They're still going to purchase weapons through illegal means anyways. The only people that gun control laws keep from purchasing weapons are law abiding citizens.

Allowing people that follow the law to purchase firearms serves as an equalizer (in my mind at least).

[old_man]

Keeping guns from criminals is a joke. If criminals followed the laws in the first place, they wouldn't be criminals. Making a law preventing them from having guns is a dream. It's a nice idea, but not based on reality.

There is a difference between making a law and enforcing it. Just because something is against the law doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Case in point, illegal immigration. There are lots of laws but the government simply isn't enforcing them. Most of the laws are not enforcable anyway in a real world. We just rely on volunteer compliance as a society.

[CrankyYankee]

IMHO, gun control laws do nothing to stop criminals from buying firearms. How many dirtbag criminals do you think go through legitimate channels to obtain guns? My guess is not too many. The current laws are an inconvenience to upstanding citizens looking to purchase firearms for hunting or sport purposes. Like I said, IMHO....

[DrMoab]

retarded...just...retarded

[Powerman]

I do know that there is no way to stop a black market. I agree that criminals will do as they please.

The Brady bill was considered a triumph by the Liberals. The NRAers hated it. The dirty little secret was that it was absolutly meaningless. I did not accomplish anything. Except that you coudn't buy post ban hi cap mags. There was still plenty of pre bans.

What about all the problems these days with guns? Can anything be done? Does anyone think anything needs to be done? Like an exapmple is that before in some states that required a background, you didn't need one at a gun show. So bad guys would just buy from there. So some would say the loop hole needed to be closed, while others would say checks are stupid.

Also some people believe everybody should carry. In my state it is perfectly legal to carry open. I have and it drew too much attention. However, nobody does. Why don't more NRAers carry open? I would think some would love to.

[Powerman]

retarded...just...retarded

I appriciate your directness. And you just might be right, but I really am trying to learn more. At the end of this I might realise I should of listened to you in the first place.

[SBrad001]

IMHO, gun control laws do nothing to stop criminals from buying firearms. How many dirtbag criminals do you think go through legitimate channels to obtain guns? My guess is not too many. The current laws are an inconvenience to upstanding citizens looking to purchase firearms for hunting or sport purposes. Like I said, IMHO....

Okay, devil's advocate here.

Can you honestly say that gun laws do nothing to prevent a criminal from purchasing firearms?

Gun laws force the criminal element to obtain firearms in unlawful manners ie, stealing or purchasing them from less than reputable dealers. But if there were no gun laws, criminal could freely and easily purchase said firearms from a legitimate gun shop. Thus, gun proliferation amongst the criminal element would rapidly increase.

Gun control laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but they do make more difficult for those criminals to obtain firearms. There will always be means for a criminal to obtain firearms, but that doesn't mean that we should hand them the keys to the gun store. . . .

[CrankyYankee]

retarded...just...retarded
Care to elaborate??? I have never in my life made the claim that I am not retarded.............BTW, I dig your sig.:thumbup:

[DrMoab]

Yes, something can be done.

Make it a law that every single household in the USA is armed and the house owners are trained to use their weapons.

Get these stupid states like Jersey, Mass, California and others to easy CCW restrictions and make it easier for the common citizen to be armed.

Don't you think it is kind of odd that the areas where it is hardest to get guns are the areas with the highest gun crime?

If you were a criminal and you wanted to rob someone would you rather rob someone in a town where there was a good chance that who you were robbing might shoot back or a town where you know the honest Joe isn't going to have a weapon where they are illegal.

[SBrad001]

Yes, something can be done.

Make it a law that every single household in the USA is armed and the house owners are trained to use their weapons.

Get these stupid states like Jersey, Mass, California and others to easy CCW restrictions and make it easier for the common citizen to be armed.

Don't you think it is kind of odd that the areas where it is hardest to get guns are the areas with the highest gun crime?

If you were a criminal and you wanted to rob someone would you rather rob someone in a town where there was a good chance that who you were robbing might shoot back or a town where you know the honest Joe isn't going to have a weapon where they are illegal.


This I can completely with!

[DrMoab]

Care to elaborate???.........BTW, I dig your sig.:thumbup:
The whole subject is retarded.

It doesn't matter what your opinion is on Gun control no one is going to change any minds. Its like the Religion thread or an abortion thread.

[johnlv6]

I don't see a problem with concealed carry if someone is proficient with their firearm. I think open carry would draw too much attention.

If you live in a dangerous area or carry lots of money on a regular basis, i can see why you'd need one. IMO, the average person has no need to (aside from what many NRA people will say that someone could whip out a gun and shoot you at any moment).

[Powerman]

The whole subject is retarded.

It doesn't matter what your opinion is on Gun control no one is going to change any minds. Its like the Religion thread or an abortion thread.

That's just it, I am trying to find out for myself. To think that I will get anything out of this might be retarded, but we'll see.

I know control sounds dumb as soon as it is sugested. You said that if all teachers were armed there would be no school shootings. But bank guards are armed and banks still get robed. The bad guys just know they have to take out the guard first.

One side want to ban all guns, and the other side want to arm everyone. Both are unrealistic. I'm sitting in the middle, curious.

[SCW]

That's just it, I am trying to find out for myself. To think that I will get anything out of this might be retarded, but we'll see.

I know control sounds dumb as soon as it is sugested. You said that if all teachers were armed there would be no school shootings. But bank guards are armed and banks still get robed. The bad guys just know they have to take out the guard first.

One side want to ban all guns, and the other side want to arm everyone. Both are unrealistic. I'm sitting in the middle, curious.

So read. Do some research. Start with a guy at the University of Chicago named Lott if you want some interesting stats. Next look crime rates and social conditions of South Florida in the mid-80's and again in the mid-90's. Huge difference with only one change- widespread concealed weapon use.

I really don't think you'll get anything substatial from a stupid message board. Good hell, google the TV show Bullsh!t and watch their gun control episode. Lots of interesting factoids there mixed with everything else.

Gun control is more about control than guns, don't forget that for a minute.

[CrankyYankee]

Gun control is more about control than guns, don't forget that for a minute.
You got that right.......

[ECKSJAY]

MOLON LABE






That is all.

[Beej]

MOLON LABE






That is all. :D

What is your stance on gun control Ecksjay?

[Powerman]

Gun control is more about control than guns, don't forget that for a minute.

That sounds legit, I could see that.

I was on a gun forum just surfing for info one day. I was shocked at how many "liberals" were there. It is hard to trust anything out there. Most info is about supporting an opinion. I kind of know what this site is like so I just thought I would ask. Thanks

[Beej]

That sounds legit, I could see that.

I was on a gun forum just surfing for info one day. I was shocked at how many "liberals" were there. It is hard to trust anything out there. Most info is about supporting an opinion. I kind of know what this site is like so I just thought I would ask. Thanks There is no such thing as a liberal...

[CrankyYankee]

:patriot: http://www.guncite.com/ (http://www.guncite.com/)

[SCW]

There is no such thing as a liberal...

Beej, what kind of a comment is that? Clearly there is no such thing as a conservative either....???

[Beej]

Beej, what kind of a comment is that? Clearly there is no such thing as a conservative either....??? I'm suggesting that there is no such creature as the one he is defining as 'liberal', or at least they are so rare that to call them 'liberals' is a gross overgeneralization...

[DrMoab]

I wouldn't have so much problem with gun control laws if they actually worked.

If you could prove to me that the fact that I have to wait 15 days to pick up my gun(which thankfully I don't) would keep a criminal from obtaining one I would be all for it.

The problem is it doesn't work that way at all. 99% of the thugs out there and even some who claim to be decent citizens (snoop dog???) get them anyway.

If the laws that were on the books now worked then Snoop shouldn't have to be arrested for having a weapon because being a felon he shouldn't have been able to obtain one...Right??

[RichP]

See Van Vogt's Weapon Shops of Ishar, good SF read.

Read Dr. Kleck's Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991), and Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Aldine de Gruyter, 1997).
The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty
International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause,
among other politically liberal organizations He is a lifelong registered
Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates.

As has been said, firearms control has nothing to do with safety and all to do with control, alot of people in Govt at the end of WWII studied the axis powers and specifically the Nazi party and how they exerted control and were able to do what they did, it also allowed them to see at first hand how 'The big lie' actually did work.

Most laws passed today have nothing to do with social improvement, most laws passed today are passed by self serving legislators whose only goal is to cement their careers in elected office. IMO one of the biggest mistakes we ever made was to actually PAY elected officials more than a basic stipend and putting air conditioning in washington DC govt buildingsm, also allowing them to spend more than 2 terms in office. Beware persons seeking power.
Just my .02 :D

[TRNDRVR]

The whole subject is retarded.......Its like an abortion thread.I say kill all 2 headed babies! :thumbup:

[Matthew Currie]

If you see it as a simple liberal/not liberal issue you're not going to get very far. Look at Vermont - you know, the state with the socialist senator (who became a representative when his conservative predecessor pissed off the electorate by backing an assault weapons ban); the environmentalist Republican governor; "the Gay Mountain State" where billboards are illegal but anybody can carry a gun; and also the safest state in the Union, as well as, according to a recent education survey, the smartest.

Fix the culture and the guns go back to being just tools.

[Powerman]

Thanks everyone. Rich P. I'll look that up. So let me ask this. Another common theme is that supporters of the 2nd Amendment say we need gus to be able to overthrow the Government. I can see why and when this was written, but how does it apply today? If some crazy stuff went off, there would have to be support from the military. Back when everyone had muskets that would be effective, but today? I could have a how rack of AR-15 but I can't beat tanks and air strikes.

When that get brought up it sounds like paranoia. Like some millitant extemists. Does anyone think that still applies? I'm really just asking. Thank you for your replies, it's what I was looking for.

[LBEXJ]

If you see it as a simple liberal/not liberal issue you're not going to get very far. Look at Vermont - you know, the state with the socialist senator (who became a representative when his conservative predecessor pissed off the electorate by backing an assault weapons ban); the environmentalist Republican governor; "the Gay Mountain State" where billboards are illegal but anybody can carry a gun; and also the safest state in the Union, as well as, according to a recent education survey, the smartest.

Fix the culture and the guns go back to being just tools.
Good point ...

Gun control is not the "answer", and too much control may actually contribute to the problem. The "answer" involves identifying what the problem is you need to solve (crime, accidents, or both?)), identifying causes, identifying those causes you have some control of, and creating an action plan for solving them (organized problem solving).

Too many people look at problems through this small tube and fail to see a host of contributing factors outside of their line of sight.

Les

BTW: Our politician spend too much time worrying about their political future and taking care of their constituents then practicing good problem solving. JMHO ...

[SCW]

The "answer" involves identifying what the problem is you need to solve (crime, accidents, or both?)), identifying causes, identifying those causes you have some control of, and creating an action plan for solving them (organized problem solving)

For the most ardent control advocates, it's about controlling (through guns). Not crime, not defending constitutional law, not personal defense, not victims rights, not personal accountability. It's control. For Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein and the rest of the far left widespread personal ownership of guns is a huge separation between us and a true communism, and it drives them nuts.


If we are disarmed and must rely on local or even federal "authorities" to provide our security, they've got us where they want us.


BTW: Our politician spend too much time worrying about their political future and taking care of their constituents then practicing good problem solving. JMHO ...

Agreed. There are really only a few things different about today's world from 1900. New laws regarding identity theft should be visited but fraud, murder, theft and all the rest of the sins of the world have been around long before our self-serving congress decided it was their mandate to save the world.

[LBEXJ]

... If we are disarmed and must rely on local or even federal "authorities" to provide our security, they've got us where they want us.
My father, who served as a tail gunner in WW2 but never owned a gun, was an avid supporter of the "right to bear arms". He often sited this and the fact it was very important to our national security to be armed.

Les

[RichP]

My father, who served as a tail gunner in WW2 but never owned a gun, was an avid supporter of the "right to bear arms". He often sited this and the fact it was very important to our national security to be armed.

Les

It has also bee well documented that during WWII the axis powers were terrified of the thought of having to invade the US, same with the USSR during the cold war. That movie Red Dawn from the 70's while comical and theartric also holds quite a bit of truth, granted it was just poorly done. I also think that is one of the reasons that we have not had alot of active terrorist activity here. The image that we project is as a gun toting society right from Tom Mix to John Wayne to Arnie, Sylvester, Bruce and even our comedians tote like will smith, kevin kline and a host of others.
During WWII the allies built this cheap little .45 called the Liberator, it's purpose was to be used to acquire other larger arms, a bootstrap effect.
http://www.adrax.com/watsons/lib.htm
The authors comment about not many being deployed is way off base, they were dropped by the thousands with other supplies in france and the netherlands to resistance forces. One of the Army museams I went to had a better history of them, might have been at the tank museum at Ft Knox, don't for sure remember as I'd been to so many of them when I traveled in the 80's and 90's, mosty to military bases we had service contracts with.
What I do know is the govt is getting really close to the edge with the legislation they have been passing and they continously push the envelope. Whats going to be really interesting is as the years pass all those combat troops who know whats what are going to be coming back and intergrating into society and the pendulum is going to swing the other way as the vietnam draft dodgers and those who got deferments age and pass away, not since WWII have we had this may combat hardened and experienced troops under arms so the next 20 years should be interesting.

[Elfwizard1975]

I carry everywhere I go, With all the Mall shoootings, school shottings, banks being robbed, carjackings, muggers. Its just a matter of time before your in the wrong place at the wrong time. Once I started to carry I couldn't leave without it, First questiona I ask is What if this is the day I need protection and I don't carry? There was a Car jacking 2 towns away from me and the family barely got their baby out of the car seat before the crook took off, he sped down the road hit a tree and killed himself. I have a family to protect!

[JohnX]

Okay, devil's advocate here.

Can you honestly say that gun laws do nothing to prevent a criminal from purchasing firearms?

Gun laws force the criminal element to obtain firearms in unlawful manners ie, stealing or purchasing them from less than reputable dealers. But if there were no gun laws, criminal could freely and easily purchase said firearms from a legitimate gun shop. Thus, gun proliferation amongst the criminal element would rapidly increase.

Gun control laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but they do make more difficult for those criminals to obtain firearms. There will always be means for a criminal to obtain firearms, but that doesn't mean that we should hand them the keys to the gun store. . . .
This may be true in part. Some gun laws are designed to keep guns away from criminals. The laws that really upset me are not the ones that say "a felon can't buy a gun", or "insane people can't buy a gun", or "it is illegal to buy a gun for someone else". Those are all "good" gun laws. The ones that piss me off are the ones that say I can't own an automatic rifles with a 50 round mag. I can't have a handgun that holds more than 10 rounds. I can't carry a useful weapon in my vehicle without jumping through a bunch of hoops to do so legally. These are the types of laws that hinder me(a law abiding citizen), but have no effect on a criminal who does whatever he feels like anyway.

[Powerman]

OK, well now I have first handf experience. I was shooting with my dad this morning before I drove home. He lives in Texas and has a carry permit. He told me that he can't own more than 500 round per the permit. He also can't have more than a 10 round clip. I thought that was old Brady bill stuff. He said no that he can't carry a new gun with more than a 10 round clip, but he can carry as many clips as he wants???

Making it harder for criminals to buy guns is a good thing even if it can't be stopped. Why make it easy? However, after hearing my dad I see what you guys are talking about. Of all people that should be carrying a hi-cap weapon it should be a law abiding, responsible, certified individual.

I also found out I have turned into a bad shot. I need to practice. I have a XD-45 waiting for me on layaway. I'll get it after the 1st of the year. Can't wait.

Does anyone else have any good sites to visit? I will check out the other link that was posted now I'm back to my cable. Pearents had dial up!

[JohnX]

I also found out I have turned into a bad shot. I need to practice. I have a XD-45 waiting for me on layaway. I'll get it after the 1st of the year. Can't wait.



Don't worry about your shot....the XD fixes that. Only gun I've ever owned that I can hit paper at 50 feet right out of the box without using the sights. It just feels right.

I'm sure you'll love it.

[SBrad001]

This may be true in part. Some gun laws are designed to keep guns away from criminals. The laws that really upset me are not the ones that say "a felon can't buy a gun", or "insane people can't buy a gun", or "it is illegal to buy a gun for someone else". Those are all "good" gun laws. The ones that piss me off are the ones that say I can't own an automatic rifles with a 50 round mag. I can't have a handgun that holds more than 10 rounds. I can't carry a useful weapon in my vehicle without jumping through a bunch of hoops to do so legally. These are the types of laws that hinder me(a law abiding citizen), but have no effect on a criminal who does whatever he feels like anyway.

I can't agree with you more. But we need to differentiate between gun laws that limit the 'rights' of law abiding citizens and those laws that are effective means of limiting a criminals access to firearms.

I personally don't believe that law-abiding citizens should have their access to firearms limited in any shape or manner other than a thorough back ground check. Those are the laws that demo-Nazis like Fienstien, and Boxer would like to impose on us, and in that respect 'they'(both the laws that restrict law-abiding citizens and the legislators who would impose those laws) should be fought every step of the way.

[5-90]

All interesting, save one point.

Prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968, criminals could purchase firearms. If you went to prison, you got everything back - including your hardware.

Now, I'm not saying that allowing people who are obviously a danger to society to own firearms, but what has changed in the last forty years? What has made people more violent and more "dangerous" (there are no "dangerous weapons," only "dangerous men") than we were before?

Granted, people who commit "crimes against the person" (murder, rape, assault, and the like) should be shot out of hand - but what has caused the sharp increase in recent record?

Oh - Powerman? Why is a 10-round mag a huge problem? A 1911/1991 holds seven (I think Wilson and Ed Brown sell 8-round mags,) but the most rounds expended by a private citizen against "armed goblins" stands at, as I recall, five. Even with the admonition that "anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice," the chances that you'll have to change mags "hot" run slim. You're probably going to end up doing an "insurance reload" after you're done shooting - just to make sure you've got rounds to spare.

If you need more than 10 rounds in your sidearm at a time, perhaps you should switch to a larger round? The 9m/m has an atrocious record for one-shot stops (in round numbers, I believe it's zero,) and shouldn't be bothered with in the first place. The principal reason it's current issue is simple - NATO politics. They didn't want to adopt the .45ACP, so we took the 9m/m.

It is worth noting that when we trialled pistols back around 1908 or so, we passed up the 9m/m because it was ballistically inferior to the .38 Special then in common use. Why we're using it now eludes me - from a practical point of view, it's a step backwards (and I'm not wild about the Beretta 92F/M9, either...)

5-90

[planefixer]

An armed society is a polite society.

[5-90]

An armed society is a polite society.

I think he said this in a few books. Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with him - would you do stupid stuff to people if there was a tickle in the back of you mind going, "This person might shoot me?"

I don't think so either.

5-90

[Powerman]

I think he said this in a few books. Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with him - would you do stupid stuff to people if there was a tickle in the back of you mind going, "This person might shoot me?"

I don't think so either.

5-90

That would imply the person is rational. Criminals rarely are. First off. It was a 9MM and I don't care about the #of rounds just the point that it was silly to begin with.

I just asked about gun control. I know that there are larger problems with society that are bigger than this thread. I didn't see the point to go into that stuff, but it is there. However, I don't agree with the "total" deterence the thought of a gun brings. Criminals, especialy drug addicts, can't think 5 minutes down the road. I don't think they ever think "I wonder if he has a gun".

Look at Capital punishment. If the majority of society want to put people to death for killing someone, so be it. I don't exactly agree, but I don't loose a wink of sleep over it either. But I have never believed in it's deterence. Again, to a rational person yes, but to someone that doesn't give a sh*t, and doesn't expect to see 30, I don't think so.

I'm not getting all bleeding heart on you guys, I'm just saying. Thanks for taking the time to answer some ???

Oh ya. A high way safty expert said he knows exactly how to stop traffic deaths. Remove the seat belts and instal a giant metal spike on the steering wheel. Everyone would drive much better! Your "polite society" reminded me of that.

[lazarus]

I wondered how long It would be before I saw that. awesome job on being the first. sorry i was not.



if guns are to be outlawed then only outlaws will have guns!

MOLON LABE






That is all.

[BrettM]

Keeping guns from criminals is a joke. If criminals followed the laws in the first place, they wouldn't be criminals. Making a law preventing them from having guns is a dream. It's a nice idea, but not based on reality.

There is a difference between making a law and enforcing it. Just because something is against the law doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Case in point, illegal immigration. There are lots of laws but the government simply isn't enforcing them. Most of the laws are not enforcable anyway in a real world. We just rely on volunteer compliance as a society.
So when a law becomes a joke, what is the proper solution?

-guns
-immigration
-marijuana
-etc

[5-90]

That would imply the person is rational. Criminals rarely are. First off. It was a 9MM and I don't care about the #of rounds just the point that it was silly to begin with.

I just asked about gun control. I know that there are larger problems with society that are bigger than this thread. I didn't see the point to go into that stuff, but it is there. However, I don't agree with the "total" deterence the thought of a gun brings. Criminals, especialy drug addicts, can't think 5 minutes down the road. I don't think they ever think "I wonder if he has a gun".

Look at Capital punishment. If the majority of society want to put people to death for killing someone, so be it. I don't exactly agree, but I don't loose a wink of sleep over it either. But I have never believed in it's deterence. Again, to a rational person yes, but to someone that doesn't give a sh*t, and doesn't expect to see 30, I don't think so.

I'm not getting all bleeding heart on you guys, I'm just saying. Thanks for taking the time to answer some ???

Oh ya. A high way safty expert said he knows exactly how to stop traffic deaths. Remove the seat belts and instal a giant metal spike on the steering wheel. Everyone would drive much better! Your "polite society" reminded me of that.

I believe that the mentality dissolving of "(s)he may be armed" was brought about by the fact that gun control laws exist.

Look at the differences in crime rates in "right to carry" states versus "discretionary issue" states.

Look at the difference in crime rates between populous areas where firearms ownership is commonplace vice where it is not (New York City has their Sullivan Law, and I don't know what the laws are called in DC and Chicago.)

Look at the crime rates in Dade County, Florida 10-15 years ago vice now - they went "right to carry," and CCW skyrocketed (and crimes against the person and against property plummeted...)

Look at Kennesaw, GA. They recently passed an ordinance that said each household, unless disqualified for legal reasons, must maintain a firearm

For a jumping-off point for research, Google "Uniform Crime Report" - it's fairly unbiased, even though it is put out by the FBI and DoJ...

I won't argue that a criminal may be less rational than you or me, but I think you'd have a hard time finding a criminal that was truly irrational - they want to stay alive just as much as we do.

I honestly think that our legal system needs a full overhaul - before it collapses under its own weight. But, that's neither here nor there, WRT this topic. I just find it illogical that, if we have laws that are not being obeyed, more laws would help. I think it's more a matter of Congresscritters trying to justify their overinflated salaries and suchlike than anything else. We should be paying them what they're worth - not a damn thing...

5-90

[Powerman]

5-90, I agree with what you say in general. My point with the criminal wasn't that they don't want to die, it was they don't think that in the first place. They don't make the connection.

Also, as far as states that have carry laws and a low crime rate, I find that suspect. The criminals didn't just pack up and move. They didn't go on the straight and narrow. They might have just shifted their criminal behaviour to other areas.

I know laws do not prevent crime and they are not intended to. They are a mechanism for punishment if the deed is done. But, now I am just being picky. More laws to fix the ones that don't work is silly.

When I hear this subject all I hear is "we need to stop the flow of guns to criminal" then I hear "la la la la, I'm not listening to you, 2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment, la la la la". Then how we have to overthrow the government and a bad guy could get you any second!!! I have never needed a gun, or wish I had one, for any situation in all my life. So for me, I don't see it as a pressing NEED cause some bad guy somewhere. It sounds paranoid. However, you guys have valid points and are not as crazy as I thought. For the record, I'm still retarded, but I'm glad I asked. Anyone have any more good reading?

[RichP]

I have never needed a gun, or wish I had one, for any situation in all my life. So for me, I don't see it as a pressing NEED cause some bad guy somewhere. It sounds paranoid. However, you guys have valid points and are not as crazy as I thought. For the record, I'm still retarded, but I'm glad I asked. Anyone have any more good reading?

How often have you used your car insurance ? or catastrophic health care ? How about the fire extinguisher in your home or car ? Your spare tire ? First Aid kit ? flashlight with extra batteries ?
If you have never needed any of those why bother having them ?
The point is you may go your whole life and NEVER need it, then again you may not, but if you do you need it NOW, usually in the next 10 seconds, sometimes even faster, depends on your situational awareness. Yes, I've needed a gun two times, once in a rest area in georgia on my way down to a school at Ft Gordon when someone broke into my van at 0500 while I was sleeping, woke up and stood up thru the sun roof and watched him work the jimmy bar, the slide chambering a round on the issue .45 came as a shock, he took off, then had the nerve to call the police, I hate sore loosers, plus I had to deal with the georgia hiway patrol.
Like I said, you may never need it, you may go thru your entire life wearing rose colored glasses but then again, you may not...

[ECKSJAY]

then had the nerve to call the police, I hate sore loosers, plus I had to deal with the georgia hiway patrol.

Ouch. How was it trying to explain the piece of issued hardware in your POV?

[5-90]

"It is better to have and not need than to need and not have." I don't know who said that first - but I've long agreed with it.

Granted, this is California, where "citizens" are rendered into "subjects." That means I can't carry a sidearm.

Fine - there are quite a few things I can legally carry, and do. There are also some things that no action of law or of the State Assembly can take away from me (mindset, know-how, experience, hands, feet, brain) no matter how they try.

Short form? I tend to think of myself as "safer" than state officials - and they've got bodyguards! The sheep are securing the rest of the flock, and don't want help from us sheepdogs (I consider most of the cops sheep - either they didn't change when they went through the Academy, or they're so far into "them or us" that you just don't want to deal with them. A "good cop" is increasingly rare out here...)

The simple fact of the matter is what I've been telling people for a number of years - if you want to be safe, you have to provide your own security. Even bodyguards need to sleep sometime. Like so many other things, a firearm is a tool one can use to enhance one's own personal security - and taking the ability to own a sidearm or a longarm away from you (for home defence, personal defence, hunting, or even just the sheer enjoyment of mastering the physical skill of target shooting!) is a step backwards. It's not going to make us more safe - it will, in fact, make us less safe.

And, the original intention of the Second Amendment wasn't to enable us to overthrow the government - it was to make government afraid to grind us under their heel. I'll grant that most people in government should be fired out of hand (I don't want to overthrow the government - just reform it to what it used to be...) but the purpose was never to overthrow it from within.

Check out the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 - you may find that instructive...

5-90

[Powerman]

I can agree with that. But am I going to holster a weapon for the next 40 years when my experience has been that I haven't needed one. I know what you are saying Rich really. My point was just that some people make it seem like I will need a weapon in the next 30 seconds, or I'm gonna die. My experience does not show that. Obviously, as a person, if I wanted to raise my level of protection, or my ability to defend myself and my family, having a firearm available would do a great job of that. It is the best tool for the job, without a guarentee.

[Matthew Currie]

I can agree with that. But am I going to holster a weapon for the next 40 years when my experience has been that I haven't needed one. I know what you are saying Rich really. My point was just that some people make it seem like I will need a weapon in the next 30 seconds, or I'm gonna die. My experience does not show that. Obviously, as a person, if I wanted to raise my level of protection, or my ability to defend myself and my family, having a firearm available would do a great job of that. It is the best tool for the job, without a guarentee.

I also go unarmed, unless you count the Swiss Army knife, and nobody but me knows that the only gun in the house is a 22 rifle, and something like 15 years ago when the kids were little I took the action out and never got around to putting it back in....

But I don't much mind living in a state where the bad guys don't know that. I could as easily be carrying. Let them guess.

[DrMoab]

But I don't much mind living in a state where the bad guys don't know that. I could as easily be carrying. Let them guess.
To me that right there is more the value of CCW permits then actually carrying a weapon.

[RichP]

Ouch. How was it trying to explain the piece of issued hardware in your POV?

Not a problem, the USG security case with the handcuff teather plus my orders took care of that. I had specific items for the crypto repair course I was taking with me. It did eat up 2 hours at their barracks though.

[Matthew Currie]

To me that right there is more the value of CCW permits then actually carrying a weapon.

Per-mit???? I don't need to show you any stinking per-mit!

little, but mean and green....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/Rtc.gif

[ECKSJAY]

Not a problem, the USG security case with the handcuff teather plus my orders took care of that. I had specific items for the crypto repair course I was taking with me. It did eat up 2 hours at their barracks though.

Ah, I see. :rolleyes: