Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room

[iddee]

 :stayontopic:

We are talking about game animals here. Start a new thread if you want to discuss predators.

[BeeMaster2]

So it was the hunters who pushed the save the spotted owl? 

Wow, I learn something new every day. 

Blue,
Since when is the Spotted Owl a game animal.
Jim

[BeeMaster2]

Sorry Iddee,
I read Blues post and immediately answered it.

[Michael Bush]

>So it was the hunters who pushed the save the spotted owl? 

The entire conservation movement, which preserved the forests of this land was started, continued and funded by hunters.  There would have been no spotted owl to save if it weren't for them.

[Dallasbeek]

Beemaster said: " But in that million to one chance a madman with homicidal thoughts breaks down your door, I'm not depending on pepper spray, or the better option wasp and hornet spray which shoots a stream 20 feet and can cause permanent blindness - I'm assuming the worse case scenario, which is the intruder has a gun and plans to use it if needed. My only job at that point is to get my family to a safe place if there is time, and if not make use of knowing my home layout and beat the intruder to the draw - ending the situation, saving my family and neighbors from the terror that threatens them and thanking the Forefathers for having the foresight to cement in our doctrines that life is the most precious gift and it is to be preserved at all cost."

Beemaster, I'd be very careful with that wasp and hornet spray.  Knowing it could permanently blind someone, then using it in self-defence or otherwise could cost a person everything he owns and a lot more.  If I ever find myself in a situation that calls for desperate measures, I intend to make sure the perpetrator creating that situation is no longer capable of finding a lawyer to sue me.  If I blind someone, I'll be sued for sure.  I might win the lawsuit, but the legal expenses would probably break me.  I once represented the owner of a gun store who shot two armed robbers trying to steal guns from his shop.  One died on the spot.  The other was shot through the spine and crippled for life.  Within days, his lawyer called wanting to know my client's insurer.  I told him my client owned the building free and clear, which was also his home, and therefore had no insurance that would cover the situation and could file bankruptcy if sued, so his client was out of luck, having brought about the problem on his own.  Nothing more was heard of it, but my client was lucky the lawyer had sense enough not to push the matter. 

I carry a gun because a cop's too heavy.  If I am forced to use my gun, I'll keep shooting until I have no more reason to fear for my life or safety -- or my welfare.  I will never fire a warning shot because I can't control where that bullet goes.  Even if I fired a round into the floor, it could ricochet and hit an innocent person. 

I hope you can eventually get the rights in your state that are supposed to be guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.  Join your state affiliate of the NRA and help push for NJ to join the states that have recognized their citizens' rights

[beemaster]

I totally get the whole "permenantly Blind someone" blind is better than dead! I'm suggesting ways people protect themselves, and that was just one of the. The only think I support is doing what it takes to end a threat.

I'll gladly blind every intruder if the try to cause me harm - I'm not thinking whether it is him or me - I want it to be ME who comes out on top. And if he has a knife or a gun, what should I shoot him with Fabreeze? How about a Mentos and diet coke on my night-stand, is that a dainty enough for the felon in my home causing me to react in a survival mode - cause that's what it is.
I get it, don't blind the prospect killer - Guantanamo Bay isn't that cruel. But sorry, I don't have apathy for someone in my home and threatening my family - He'll be lucky to live without his sight, bet it's his last home invasion.

Sorry, I don't advocate bug spray as a self defense weapon, but it is surely the one that will resolve an issue before it happens. Before you're done spraying,  he's on the floor - now just keep him busy til the cops come. Once you take him down, then I'd periodically spray him until the cops come - no sense him trying to make a break for it.

You shouldn't take advantage of his curled in a ball on the floor, no kicking in the crotch or head. It's not your job to be executioner, just civilian in need of the police now that the threat is controlled.

[OldMech]

Civilians don’t need cars that will do 120mph and most cars won't do 120mph.  All modern cars have vehicle speed and engine high RPM fuel cutoffs to PROTECT the other civilians from irresponsible people.  It’s called liberty and freedom for the majority.   Can't understand why anybody wouldn't want that. :?

   Really? my wife has a new Prius that will do over 100, and HAD a Yaris that did 122..  so someone forgot to tell Toyota that people are not responsible enough to go that fast.. 
 
   The FACT of the matter is, were supposed to have the choice..   Do I need a car that goes 120?  Nope. Do I need a gun thats full auto?  Nope!!   I have had both, and I have GREATLY enjoyed having both, and that was the entire point.. I am supposedly free in my pursuit of happiness.. I did not harm anyone, not even myself with the fast car, or the full auto gun, nor did I intend to harm anyone.. I wanted them, because they were FUN.  I had my fun, and sold them so someone else could play...
   In all honesty  do you NEED toilet paper??   NO! You can use your fingers! You DO have soap dont you?  Toilet paper has a practical application. A full auto gun doesnt..   Or does it?  It entirely depends on how our government keeps going.. if they keep TAKING rights that they have no "right" to take, then YES, that full auto gun in the hands of a civilian will have a practical purpose.

[Dallasbeek]

I'd like to recommend some light reading to all with an interest in this topic.  Jeff Cooper was not only a remarkable shootist, but a good wordsmith.  Look for Jeff Cooper's Commentaries for some well-informed discussions on this and related topics.  Clint Smith has also contributed some memorable, pithy remarks on the subject.

[Spyk]

It entirely depends on how our government keeps going.. if they keep TAKING rights that they have no "right" to take, then YES, that full auto gun in the hands of a civilian will have a practical purpose.

lol - "Practical Purpose"

Gonna shoot us some politicians  are we - its all their fault - my right to happiness has gone - kill a few and things will be like the good ole days again.

Here is why people  from a non-gun culture just shake our heads and move on - you guys seem crazy.

[Dallasbeek]

That's what King George said about a bunch of rough-cut frontiersmen.

It's also what we said about the Viet Cong.  What we've been saying so far about Al Queda, Boko Haram, ISIS. And a bunch of others.

You Aussies and others should read up about asymmetrical warfare.  I'm not anywhere near being one of those people we've cultivated in the USA who are opposed to anything the government does, but I respect what they might do and I fear them.  Maybe you should, as well.

When Mao set off on his long march, he had a ragtag group of followers.  Same with Fidel Castro. 
Same with our founding Fathers.  They were undisciplined, untrained, poorly equipped, sometimes poorly led, often half starved, sometimes almost defeated.  But they won. 

The problem I see with Aussies, Europeans, and a lot of others (including our present leadership) is arrogance and pessimism.

When World War II  Russia, Europe, China, India --most of Asia, in fact -- and even the United States faced certain defeat.  Thanks to some audacious leaders and millions of pi$$ed-off Americans, Brits, Australians, New Zealanders and some desperate Russians, we won that war.  The mightest armies ever marched triumphantly to victory after victory until a bunch of farmers and shopsmiths took up arms against the Nazis, Imperial Japan and the Italian Fascists.

So you can take your defeatist, namby-pamby defeatist attitude and shove it up where the sun don't shine, but don't lecture us about standing up against tyranny.  If you like being slaves, suffer with it.  As for me and most Americans, we'll die with our guns in our hands before we'll live as serfs and die under the yoke of your masters

Gary Stone

[Snowhitsky]

Gary,

I see no defeatist or namby-pamby attitude statement in Spyk's post. He is putting a sarcastic slant on how most non-US citizens perceive the USA. To give you an example, I travelled to the USA for the first time  in 2002  for business.  Since I don't watch TV at home (no time for it) I had very little knowledge about US TV networks. When I got to the hotel room, I switched on the TV and up came Fox News. Initially I thought it was a parody of frothing at the mouth, far-right crazies. After about 15 minutes it suddenly dawned on me that this wasn't a parody but a bona-fide news network. It was a bit disconcerting but I thought it must be a niche network. It wasn't until the next day after a few discrete enquiries at our New York offices that I discovered that this was a p?pular AND trusted news programme that my jaw dropped. That's when I realised that it's not just two oceans that separate the US from the rest of the West but a cultural gulf too. I'm making no judgement on who is better, just stating a fact.

On other points you make, what makes you think we (Aussies, Europeans...etc) are arrogant and pessimistic? As for WW2  your comment would be more accurate this way around: "some pi$$ed-off Americans, Brits, Australians, New Zealanders and millions of desperate Russians, we won that war."

Here's a video that illustrates the point nicely: 

Regards,

Julian

[Dallasbeek]

Julian,

Thanks for your comments.  I wrote that late last night and after going to bed thought about the changes and additions I would make later.

Yes, I agree that the Russians were desperate and suffered greatly during that war, but the fact is that the people suffered partly because of the acts of their leader, who had originally sought to split Europe with Hitler and only went to war with Germany when Hitler double-crossed Stalin (probably before Stalin could do the same to Hitler).

My position is that we Americans that call ourselves conservative (whether Republican or  libertarian [lc L], or conservative Democrat [yes, there are some] ) prefer not to become subjects of tyrants like Hitler and Stalin. 

I also should have mentioned the Free French, Poles, Hungarians and others who struggled to defeat Hitler and the Chinese, Filipinos, etc. who were involved in the fight against the Japanese Empire.

Let's not forget, either that the British Isles were about to be Overrun be Hitler's armies until millions of gun-loving Americans sent their pistols, hunting rifles, shotguns and whatever to them.  Then our government started sending war materiel and we in America geared up to provide the British, Russians, Chinese and others with hundreds of tons of armaments that defeated the Axis powers.

I'll write more later, and I'm sure some of my countrymen will join in.  I consider this a dialog and appreciate your point of view, but resent like heck being lectured to by people who base their views of us on, as you, have spent at most, perhaps a few days among us and fail to understand all that America stands for.  Of course we are not without our faults, but who are you to assume a superior attitude?  If I based my opinions of Europe on the relatively few days I've spent there, I'd take an even more dim view of it.

Gary

[Kathyp]

Here's the thing, for you folks outside the country that don't get it.  ;-)

We have a constitution that grantees certain rights.  It is a guarantee like no other in the world.  It tells us we have certain rights that are the rights of man given by the creator, and can not be take by man.  It is the law.

Any good law requires protection.  Any rights must be defended.  There are always people around who wish to control what we do.  Unlike Europeans, who have grown up with the (false, I think) idea that government exists as a benefactor, we have an intentionally adversarial relationship with our government.  It was designed that way as a means of keeping the people in control of the government, rather than the other way around.

Consider the Bill of Rights one document.  Any part of it damaged and all of it is subject to assault.  You think we are nuts for wanting our guns.  I can't imagine allowing the government to define "hate speech" and limit what I can say.  To me, that is far more dangerous than the people being armed.  Yet many of you are just fine with it.

If you want examples of an armed population being able to stave off a government funded military, look to many of our recent wars.  Our government may not have learned it's lesson, but the population has. 

I think you all should do whatever you want to do.  If you are comfortable with being dependent on your government for every bit of your  protection, that's fine with me.  If you are comfortable with them telling you what you can and can't say, go for it.  Just understand that most of us, don't want to be you...and for a country of 400 million people, we don't have to much of a problem with violence, gun or otherwise,....except in the places that have strict gun control, but that's another subject 

[Eric Bosworth]

Kathy touched on this but I will add to what she said. Our fathers believed government is evil. It is a necessary evil, but evil none the less. To that end they did everything possible to limit its power. The idea of "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" came about for because they just fought a tyrannical king for independence. They feared that one day our own government would become tyrannical and if that happened we would need arms to fight a second revolution. It also causes the government to fear the people.

[NeilTheCop]

As a former Englishman who is now a proud American (None of that British/American, African/American, Mexican/American BS for me, to call myself anything other than an American is an insult to my adopted country) I have actually read all of the Constitution. Nowhere does it say, even in small print, words to the effect of "This document does not apply to convicted felons ", yet a felon cannot own a gun or vote. It seems that we may have two distinct classes of citizens, one class who are protected by the Constitution and another class who are not.

[Eric Bosworth]

Interesting... But it does say something about not being denied life liberty or property without being convicted by a jury of peers. So, if they were convicted then they could be denied life or liberty.

[NeilTheCop]

The 5th and 14th amendment both have the clause "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
The due process of law may mean they can take your gun away if the courts say so, but there is nothing in the Constitution to stop you buying another.

[Dallasbeek]

Yes, well, how about the way they are taking guns away when a person is ACCUSED of domestic violence.  Not convicted, just accused.  This is by order of a judge, often if not usually a civil court judge who may or may not be fully informed of protections provided in criminal law.

[Eric Bosworth]

Now that Dallas is unconstitutional...

[iddee]

They even steal guns from dead men....... How constitutional is that?

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/24/mystery-of-weapon-cache-found-in-dead-mans-home-deepens/21213834/?cps=gravity_4816_6957552978786402678