Virgin Islands Nat'l Guard to seize guns/ammo ahead of Irma

[eltalia]

Not a weapons owner no longer - trained and blooded tho' - it seems to me
the US struggles with weapon carrying through very localised situations and
the belief having a weapon handy is "safer". Not familiar with either as good
reason I butt in to put maybe AB is playing on both?
Another version of - for those that "get it";
"This is my rifle, this is my gun
 This is for fighting, this is for fun"

Perhaps AB is bent on prolonging the proverbial screw... as a diversion built
from personal concerns in these worrying times, locally?

Bill

[Fishing-Nut]

I wouldn't own a gun if I needed someone else to handle it for me. I wouldn't trust the gooberment with my dirty socks. I sure wouldn't ask them to look after my valuables until the storm passes. My thinking is this..... Your only going to disarm the honest man. (Or maybe turn an honest man into a dishonest man when you ask for his weapons) everyone in my family has a gun (or a bunch of them) in there house. Everyone in my family is also responsible with them, doesn't have them laying all over the place so that they become a Hazzard, and knows good and well how to handle them.  A gun is like a parachute, you better not get your butt into a position where you are wishing you had one. Or guess what......you ain't nothing but a memory, and a stone with your name chiseled in it. I'm not one of these cold dead hands kind of guys, but the nut jobs in the media, and the Looney toons that support the nonsense that spews from the television all day long have a lot to learn.

[BeeMaster2]

Brian,
Never forget that it is the second amendment that protects all of the other rights. When You take it away, the others will follow.
Jim

Jim, I am not advocating taking your guns away.  I am suggesting that law enforcement or some other trust worthy entity could secure your guns for you if you don't have a way to do it when a cat 5 hurricane is blowing through.

No thanks.

Exactly, noooo thanks.
Jim

[BeeMaster2]

I wouldn't own a gun if I needed someone else to handle it for me. I wouldn't trust the gooberment with my dirty socks. I sure wouldn't ask them to look after my valuables until the storm passes. My thinking is this..... Your only going to disarm the honest man. (Or maybe turn an honest man into a dishonest man when you ask for his weapons) everyone in my family has a gun (or a bunch of them) in there house. Everyone in my family is also responsible with them, doesn't have them laying all over the place so that they become a Hazzard, and knows good and well how to handle them.  A gun is like a parachute, you better not get your butt into a position where you are wishing you had one. Or guess what......you ain't nothing but a memory, and a stone with your name chiseled in it. I'm not one of these cold dead hands kind of guys, but the nut jobs in the media, and the Looney toons that support the nonsense that spews from the television all day long have a lot to learn.

Well said.
Jim

[Acebird]

My thinking is this..... Your only going to disarm the honest man.

The problem is with the word "only" it could very well arm the dishonest.  You have to ask yourself, are your valuables worth your life?  The last big hurricane that came through Miami flattened every house.  If you didn't leave you were either dead of very lucky.  No gun is going to save your valuables.  But if your guns are part of the wreckage then that is likely to put more of them in the hands of criminals.  If you are in an area that doesn't get hit hard and you are staying with your guns then that is a completely different scenario.  The Virgin Islands got decimated partly because their structures are not hurricane resistant.  Do you think the people in the Virgin Islands have their guns in a 2000 dollar safe.  Some of their houses aren't worth 2000.

[iddee]

If my house was worth less than 2000 dollars. I likely couldn't afford a gun unless I stole it.  Maybe your scenario would disarm more criminals, rather than arm them.

[Fishing-Nut]

I will mostly agree with you that if I was in an area that my home could potentially get leveled, and everything I owned got scattered across the state for just anyone to pick up and use however they choose, then yes, take the guns with you when you leave. Guns dont take up that much room. Even 50 of them. But for the government to come in and make my decisions for me, is not something I want to participate in. The criminals that will use a weapon to commit a crime will always have, or have access to a weapon. Whether we like it or not. To take away mine just makes me a sheep amongst the wolves. No thanks. I'll walk around and eat grass going baa baa all day long, but turning me into lamb chops would be a tough job.

[Acebird]

But for the government to come in and make my decisions for me, is not something I want to participate in.

Again that is not something I am suggesting.

[Acebird]

If my house was worth less than 2000 dollars. I likely couldn't afford a gun unless I stole it. 

I don't think that is the case in this country.  I had a double barreled shot gun at the age of 15.  No way could I afford a 2000 dollar house.

[iddee]

So how much was your house worth?
If you didn't own one, it doesn't fit into the conversation.

[Acebird]

So how much was your house worth?
If you didn't own one, it doesn't fit into the conversation.

Iddee have you ever seen poverty?  Does the second amendment give you the right to have a gun if you are poor?  What makes you think the poor don't have guns unless they stole it?

[iddee]

We owned guns when I was a kid. My father paid 1000 dollars for a house and land. No running water, no doorknobs, only 2 nails and a shoe string.
No glass in the upstairs windows. No over night heat. Wood cookstove.

Groceries at the store was 100 lb. flour and 60 lb. lard. The rest came from the garden, barnyard, woods and river.

No, Ace, I've never known poverty.

[Acebird]

We owned guns when I was a kid.

Did you steal them?  Why then would you think the way you do?

[iddee]

Because my guns didn't average 25% of the price of the house.  Average gun today is around 500 dollars. NOT ALL, just average.

At that time, a 1000 dollars would buy close to 100 guns.

My first was considered high dollar. I paid 15.00 for it.
A single shot .32 rifle, breech type, with octagon barrel.

What would a 2000 dollar house and lot on today's market be like?

[Fishing-Nut]

Ace..... correct me if I'm wrong, (because I very well could be) but I think I have seen you refer to some weapons as "war machines" on here. What makes you say that? I am honestly just asking, and not trying to fuss with anybody. Even though I do enjoy a good conversation with differing opinions. (I don't own a weapon that would be referred to as a war machine)

[Acebird]

Ace..... correct me if I'm wrong, (because I very well could be) but I think I have seen you refer to some weapons as "war machines" on here. What makes you say that?

Because they were designed with specific needs for the military.  They really don't have any advantage for protecting one's belongings.  I have been told they are "fun" to shoot.  Should manufacturers make dangerous weapons that coddle the fun gene?

[Acebird]

What would a 2000 dollar house and lot on today's market be like?

Usually it is a house in poor shape that has been taken by the city for taxes.  Typically they end up being rentals because of the area they are in.  When I made the remark about $2000 house I was referring to the Virgin Islands.

[Psparr]

Ace..... correct me if I'm wrong, (because I very well could be) but I think I have seen you refer to some weapons as "war machines" on here. What makes you say that?

Because they were designed with specific needs for the military.  They really don't have any advantage for protecting one's belongings.  I have been told they are "fun" to shoot.  Should manufacturers make dangerous weapons that coddle the fun gene?

Sure. It's covered by the second amendment.

Now if you didn't want certain flavors of ice cream manufactured, you may find some legal ground. See ice cream isn't covered by an amendment.

[Fishing-Nut]

Ar15 (223) can be had in a single shot rifle. My buddy's kid hunts with one. Same with an ar10 (308) , very common hunting rifle for both youth and adults. What makes them "specifically" for the military? Because of the picatinny rails? The capability to mount attachments to the weapon? Or is it the looks of the gun? I will agree that it's an intimidating looking weapon. And also keep in mind that I don't agree with someone carrying one across there chest through town just because it's there "right". Some things are just dumb, and abusive to a situation.  But there are lots of common, practical uses for them. Keep in mind that I don't own one, or care to for that matter. But I know guys that use them for coyote control, and crop damage control for night hunting feral hogs. The fun to shoot part is just a bonus, but in my opinion it's still plenty of reason for a gun guy to own one if he so chooses, and can legally do so. Here's a little food for thought.....I would bet my Boots that a 12 gauge shotgun loaded up with 00 buck would do more damage in a nut cases hand than a scary looking 223 rifle. If your not familiar with coyote hunting or hog hunting, there is more times than not, a very necessary need for quick follow-up shots. With a bolt action rifle it takes to long to be on target and ready for another shot, especially when the animals are scattering. As far as protecting ones belongings....... If my wife woke me up in the middle of the night and said honey a vehicle just pulled in and 2 masked men  got out with guns in there hands. In the closet is a single shot 22 , and an ar15.......guess which one I'm about to "protect my belongings" with..... again I don't own that style rifle. But if I did that would be the scenario

[Fishing-Nut]

Sawdust and idee......I'm really just making up for my bad Indian joke. I really am anti gun, voted for Obama, and then Hillary.... And Ace. I'm really not bickering I am honestly enjoy the "conversation". And I respect a fella like you that is voicing his opinion, even though the majority of us (at least in this conversation) have a different opinion than yours. I can honestly appreciate something like that.