| Author |
 Topic  |
|
jim19452
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 05/25/2008 : 2:46:31 PM
|
I support teaching kids gun safety and target practice. I also support concealed carry after appropriate training. I've a friend licensed to concealed carry and feel very relaxed when I am with him (or a her). He is one heck of marksman, handgun or rifle. There was a time in this country when a 12 year old could buy .22 ammo at a hardware store. I and some of my friends have been around guns literally hundreds of times. Never know anyone hurt because of lack of gun safety although I do not trust some hunters. More than one survey found that a great majority of prisoners will not illegally enter a house or business if they know the owners are armed.
Best Wishes, Jim
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 323 |
 |
|
|
JohnnyBoy
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/29/2008 : 1:21:57 PM
|
Ya know, on a certain level, (most) religion(s) and firearms are related. Religion teaches us that there are severe and eternal consequences for our actions (hell). Criminals know that violating a home where there are firearms will most likely result in death. Hence the reason prisoners feared the armed citizen more than the police. Those without a belief in the eternity also lack a belief in severe and eternal consequences for their actions, and act accordingly. In essence, if I commit a heinous crime, the most I'll get is the death penalty, and then it's over. In that sense there are very limited (in that case) consequences for my actions. One with religious beliefs knows there are consequences far beyond mere death.
Having said all that, part of the reason for our recent increase in societal violence (although it is a multi-faceted issue)is a denial of the consequences. Part of this is due to to our continuously more lenient judicial system. And part is due to the shift away from religious beliefs.
Just my $.02, YMMV
John
I ain't as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 22 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/01/2008 : 01:05:04 AM
|
One thought I could add is that where honest people carry guns, the dishonest people are at a disadvantage. As for myself, I don't fear an honest person who packs a gun. Consider this, while we're thinking of it -- if guns were outlawed, could you imagine all the bad folks lined up, waiting to turn in their guns to the government? Doesn't sound logical, because they'd keep theirs. Essentially all you would do in this case is to weaken the honest folks, vis-a-vis the criminal types.
Three cases in point -- Florida loosened the gun laws, and crime went down. Australia tightened up on the gun laws, and crime is up. The District of Columbia has highly restrictive gun laws, yet violent crime there is legendary.
As to the law of it all, you would have to ratify an amendment that overturned the 2nd amendment, and you would need not less than 38 states to go along with it. That's a tough row to hoe. Of course, the government can cheat and add a rider to a house resolution or a sentate bill, in an effort to sneak in an unofficial ban of the 2nd amendment. If they can do that, your free speech is next. Government works more efficiently if the people cannot criticize it. <ahem>
The founders of this nation had a clear understanding of what they were doing; they were quite acquainted with despotism, and were understandibly repelled from tyranny.
An armed society is a polite society.
That government governs best, which governs least - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Bare Warrior
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/01/2008 : 4:30:47 PM
|
All anyone has to do is look at Australia's situation to see the folly of taking guns away from honest individuals. Because of a single violent incident Australia,just a few short years again banned the ownership of all guns. Even antiques and historic artifacts were not spared the ban. Only the police and military may carry guns, there is no privat ownership. Did gun crimes go down? Yes gun violence did, obviously, but all other criminal activity including violent crime, such as rape, armed robbery, etc. more than tripled in less than 2 years. Criminals quickly realized that citizen's were completely helpless. Oh and guess what, the criminals still have their guns.
Another interesting fact. Almost every single one of these violent gun events that take place here in the US,Australia, Italy, England etc occurred where guns were banned, schools, malls, etc. And by the way, police were either present, or within 2 minutes of each location. Normal pollice response time is 15 minutes. So police, CANNOT, protect you from crime. (this isn't a slam on police, but all the restrictions, lawsuits, and PC training our societies have placed on them). Nuts and criminals go where it is safe to do their evil.
Do you realize that the 9/11 terrorists were empowered, by our insane gun laws, and knew they did not need to be armed to hijack a plane? Only one terrorist may have had a box cutter in his possession.
We, as a people, have grown to love victimhood and living without responsibility so much that we have given up our right to defend ourselves. Better to be dead, a victim and not responsible for the safety of yourself or your family. What you are doing is showing more respect for the criminal than respect for the lives of yourself and your family. How irresponsible is that?
Bare Warrior
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 61 |
|
|
|
Phydeau
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/03/2008 : 01:25:36 AM
|
If I might grab someone's soap box for a moment: (ahem)
There's a reason the founding fathers made the second amendment the SECOND amendment. It was foremost on their minds, after the freedom to protest (the first amendment). The reason we exist as a country is because they had the ability to defend themselves against the British military. The founding fathers were very concerned with their new government becoming the same kind of tyranny, so they guaranteed protection to the people.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't think there's any reason for a civilian to have the need to conceal a weapon, let alone carry something that fires 120 rounds per second. But an all-out ban on guns is extreme.
Nut-jobs will kill you with improvised devices if they want to. If nothing else, if someone wants to commit a crime, how much of a stretch would it be for them to commit the crime of obtaining a gun illegally?
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 214 |
|
|
|
JohnnyBoy
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/04/2008 : 1:56:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Phydeau
...I don't think there's any reason for a civilian to have the need to conceal a weapon, ...
Just to rebut this point, the need to carry concealed is a tactical need, and in this politically correct society, a practical one as well.
The alternative is commonly referred to as "open carry" where you carry in a holster in plain view. Most (sorry to use the term) soccer moms would freak if they saw a person, not in LEO uniform with a sidearm. This can and usually does brings unwanted attention to the carrier, and can result in non-weapon related charges such as "disturbing the peace". Even though open carry is perfectly legal anywhere in Nevada, try open carrying down on "The Las Vegas Strip" and see what happens. In essence, what they don't see can't scare them.
Concealed carry also gives the carrier a tactical advantage during criminal activity. Consider this scenario... You're in a convenience store when an armed robber enters. He has no qualms about shooting the clerk for whatever is in the register. He sees you with a sidearm and decides to "take you out first" as the only threat to him completing his crime. On the other hand, when carrying concealed, you just appear to be another customer until he draws down on the clerk. You then have the element of suprise at your advantage. If he threatens you first? (eliminate witnesses) Again...suprise.
Carrying a concealed weapon is a great responsibility, one I don't take lightly. Therefore I train. Not only range practice, but also formal training from professional schools such as Frontsight ( www.frontsight.com ).
I ain't as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 22 |
|
|
|
Fulldraw
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 08:24:04 AM
|
There are a lot of places you can go to get away from firearms:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917,
1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to
1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979,
300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to
1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th
Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America
because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 60 |
|
|
|
Fulldraw
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 08:27:26 AM
|
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100- pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 60 |
|
|
|
Phydeau
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 7:19:24 PM
|
Fulldraw, thank you. I personally do not own a firearm, but I'll defend to the death the right for free people to own them (kind of ironic, isn't it?). Those statistics should strike fear into anyone who has not abolished the use of reason.
Gun SAFETY is the real issue.
Though I'm going to "stick to my guns" as it were, and say that I think people should have a better reason to carry a concealed weapon on the streets than simply "something might happen". I see your point. I'm just worried about trigger-happy, paranoid nut-jobs. Basically, it comes down to "who's watching the watch-dog?"
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 214 |
|
|
|
Bare Warrior
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 7:59:12 PM
|
Phydeau,
Your last comment is the point. We are currently defenseless against paranoid nut-jobs. All but one of the mass murders in the past 20 years occurred where guns were not allowed. It is because of the paranoid nut-jobs, as well as violent criminals, that we need the right to protect ourselves. Also note that most of the mass murders were conducted by people who were carrying their weapon openly.
Last year, an off duty security officer, at a mall stopped what was going to be another mass murder. The mall was a "no gun" zone. Because she violated the law, she saved lots of people. In all cases police officers were less than 2 minutes away from the scene. NONE were able to stop the murders.
We all should take responsibility for our on safety and not rely on the government to protect us. Its funny how many of the liberal folks on this site and elsewhere are against any government intrusion in their lives yet they want to turn over responsibility for their personal safety to the very same government.
Take care.
Bare Warrior
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 61 |
|
|
|
Phydeau
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/06/2008 : 06:42:50 AM
|
Good point. I never really thought of it that way.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 214 |
|
|
|
JohnnyBoy
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/06/2008 : 3:49:20 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Phydeau
I'm just worried about trigger-happy, paranoid nut-jobs. Basically, it comes down to "who's watching the watch-dog?"
Phydeau
As far as "who's watching the watch-dog", criminals are going to do what they do regardless of the law. But in order to legallycarry a concealed weapon in all but 2 states that allow it, (Vermont's laws are silent on concealed carry, therefore it's legal without a permit, and Alaska does not require a permit to carry concealed) one must attend a training course focusing on the laws of that state. When is deadly force justifiable, when is it not, confrontation avoidance and how to de-escalate the situation, situational awareness, (google "the color code of situational awareness"), and you must demonstrate a certain skill level when handling a firearm. Then, you are fingerprinted, photographed, and must pass a state police and FBI background check. Once all that's done, they will issue a permit in those states where it is a "shall issue" permit (in some states you must adequately justify the need to carry).
After going through all that, law enforcement still monitors you. Whenever you have an encounter with LE, even a traffic stop, they know you are a permit holder. Any infraction that violates the terms of your permit will result in suspension or revocation of it. Long way around, but the issuing authority (your state) is watching...
Be safe...
I ain't as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 22 |
|
|
|
brazhunter
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/09/2008 : 09:04:50 AM
|
quote:
I think people should have a better reason to carry a concealed weapon on the streets than simply "something might happen". I see your point. I'm just worried about trigger-happy, paranoid nut-jobs. Basically, it comes down to "who's watching the watch-dog?"
I'm not sure of what point the 'who's watching the watchdog cliche'is supposed to make but the first part I've quoted makes no sense at all. If everyone could predict when they might face attack and bodily harm, it would be simple enough to avoid that time and place altogether and let law enforcement deal with it. For the same reason, I keep a smoke detectors and fire extinguishers my house because I can't predict if and when I might need them. The case for the latter is exactly the same as the former - 'hopefully never'.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 20 |
|
|
|
RichNKaren
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/14/2008 : 09:10:36 AM
|
May I suggest a book called: The Lost Constitution. It is, of course, fiction by a MA Author named William Martin.
The essence of the book is that an annotated copy of the Bill of Rights from the original framers of the Constitution has been lost. It may or may not have the feelings of the framers listed on it. As a result of a terrorist attempted attack on the US, the 2nd Amendment is questioned. Even to the point off voting for a referendum to repeal the 2nd.
Although meant to be fast paced and exciting - it really does cover what the feelings of both sides of the arguement feel and to what extremes they would go to achieve their goals.
It is good reading and bound to arouse even more discussion on this matter - I highly recommend it!
Rich&Karen
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 35 |
|
|
|
ROB g
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/14/2008 : 10:17:23 AM
|
The bll of rights is the most important part of our consituition. Regardlees if it's freedom of speach,Religion, assembly, press, protection against illeagel search and seizure,right not to have to testify on grounds of self incrimanation, or the right to bare arms. and we need to fight to keep these rights. The abolishment of slavery runs a close second. The right to let all men age 18 or older regardless of race as long as your an U. S. Citizen vote and the right to let women vote ties for third.
Let's keep this in mind. We live in a free country let's fight to keep it that way. Just one other thought
on the freedom of assembly. Should nudists be able to explore this same right? As long as we are not
desturbing the peace or doing any thing violent?
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 223 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Why we should rethink the 2nd Amendment
