On Liberals and gun control.

[CrankyYankee]

atriot: 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

 

[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.

 

[ZomBrady]

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