Beemaster's International Beekeeping Forum

MEMBER & GUEST INTERACTION SECTION => THE 2ND AMENDMENT => Topic started by: beemaster on December 14, 2014, 02:13:21 am

Title: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: beemaster on December 14, 2014, 02:13:21 am
For over a year I have wanted to include this room in the forum, but thought it a bit self-serving for a new gun owner, so I put it off. As you may notice, I'm slimming down some of the forums rarely if ever used and likely may combine a few.

But the 2ND is just that: your place to share opinions on laws, show off some of your prized weapons or your go-to guns. Anything covered under the 2ND is fair game in this room.

Personal note, I live in NJ which is one of the toughest states on gun laws. We can not carry, can only transport (in our trunks) weapons and ammo, to and from the range. We can not use hollow point ammo, can not protect property,need to register all fire arms. And even air-soft guns and BB guns or pellet guns REQUIRED a Fire Arms ID Card to purchase.

I know most of you have more favorable laws to gun owners - I'd love to hear your stories, see your prized or just great shooter. Hope to see this forum take off. We have almost lost NY State, New Jersey has now moved into second place before California on certain restrictions. As a relatively new gun owner with a revolver, semi-auto 9mm and three WW2 rifles (all Russian) I hope to build up on handguns, but each handgun here needs a permit, and permits typically take 6 months to get - it is hard to build up a collection in NJ, time works against you - more accurately the state works against you by tying up your applications for months beyond the state law that says permit and license requests are to be completed or denied within 30 days. Of course they have added a clause extending that to whatever time is required "As to not burden the process system".

Enjoy the forum.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: mikecva on December 14, 2014, 02:21:31 pm
States and the Feds. have been usurping the Constitution for many years. NJ's restrictions on being able to legally obtain a constitutional right is just another form of our governments heave handed powers over those who they swore to protect.  Now with that said, I must add that I can not understand why a civilian needs a functioning auto-weapon for hunting or target practice. 
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: iddee on December 14, 2014, 02:58:30 pm
And I can't understand why a civilian needs a car that will do 120 plus MPH, but the gov. isn't trying to ban them. It's called liberty and freedom. Can you understand why anyone would want liberty and freedom?
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: BlueBee on December 14, 2014, 05:19:45 pm
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. :?
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: iddee on December 14, 2014, 06:41:42 pm
Must be one of those rich fellows that get new cars every year or two. My newest of 4 is a 2004, and it gets past 100, and I haven't maxed i out and I haven't activated any cut off switch.  NO, blue, if it were for safety, all cars and trucks would have roll bars. The so-called safety measures are all nothing but wool to go over the citizen's eyes.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: buzzbee on December 14, 2014, 07:58:15 pm
MikeCVA,
In all actuality the Constitution was written to limit the powers of the federal government . All powers not enumerated to the Federal government was reserved to the states and the people.
states have their own individual Constitutions , and most  have the same protections to the citizenry that is carried in the Bill of Rights.Powers to the states were not handed down from above,as they appear to be today. The Federal government was an agent of the states.

Section 21 of the PA Constitution
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
The second amendment and similar sections in state Constitutions are there to enforce compliance of the rest of the amendments.

 
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on December 15, 2014, 09:46:40 am
>Civilians don’t need cars that will do 120mph and most cars won't do 120mph.

I've known hundreds of people personally who race cars.  And certainly know OF thousands.  I think they would all disagree... and racing cars has been a part of U.S. culture as long as there have been cars...  I think the government doesn't need to be telling me what I can have.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: iddee on December 15, 2014, 09:57:11 am
""I think the government doesn't need to be telling me what I can have.""

I agree, in guns, cars, and more. I just can't see why one and not the other.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: beemaster on December 15, 2014, 05:05:41 pm
Good post!

I love people who NEED to put limits on things, as in "NJ limits 15 round magazines and NY limits it to 10 rounds, as does California" I went through 6 months of waiting for my firearms ID, being tested and probed in all the ways government does - including mental health backgrounds, addiction of alcohol and drugs  statements by all doctors I see and feedback from all police departments in any township I've lived in during the previous 10 years: then when I pass all that, the state still finds it necessary to limit me (us) to 15 rounds in a weapon? My point, 15 rounds (even 10) can do a lot of damage, then there are multiple magazines that can be carried. I can only assume limitations on magazine capacity is to allow a break during reload to shoot and kill someone on a rampage - I see no other reason to limit capacity.

So if the law says 10 round capacity, and someone with a legal weapon fires 10 times, a volley of fire in a Hellstorm returns? Is THAT the reason they put limits on rounds? I believe if you have passed the requirements in your state (and I know many states have few to no requirements) well if you passed, then let me have the same RIGHTS as all other law abiding gun owners. Don't throw out arbitrary numbers like 10 or 15 rounds because the anti-gunners want us to have no rounds and I can only believe the state limits rounds to appease both sides with a number they pull out of their rectum.

As I mentioned, police in NJ can not use stun Guns - is THAT safe? To quote recently deceased comic John Pinette "I say Nay Nay!" this ridiculous law does nothing but reduce the options an officer has when faced with life and death decision.

So I see no difference between a 33 round magazine in my Glock or a 15 round, nor any difference in a car that can do 120 vs. a car that maxes out at 80 - it is the driver or weapons owner, not the vehicle or weapon that is in control. If someone wants to spend $200 grand on a car that can do 170mph, and it is totally street legal and registered within a state, there is nothing legally stopping the drive from taking this car on the road. The law comes in when this vehicle that can go three times the marked speed limit exceeds the posted speed - and that comes back to operator responsibility. The same rules apply if your license is to operate a car by the law or operate a gun by the law. You have accepted responsibility to operate with in the law.

Don't lay any temptation BS on someone because they have a fast car or high capacity weapon - it is not the law abiding people breaking these laws, it is the criminal element, and surely THEY never took the time to jump through the same hoops we did to get what supposedly is RIGHTED to us in the Constitution.

Lastly, many states have fully automatic weapons, even one in the North East that I know of - in these state, gun owners abide by their laws as well. It's always the criminal element and don't get me wrong - it's a fact that many gun crimes have happened with licensed gun owners with registered guns - that does not discount the fact that this person is still part of the criminal element - the difference they chose to do it legal with the intent that if caught at a non violent crime, their "get out of jail card MIGHT be to have to surrender their weapons and license" a get out of jail free card. And don't think the criminals don't have such thoughts.

I boils down to one thing to me - you shouls be afforded what ever protection you believe you need to save your life and the life of others, and in states where permitted save your property as well. And no one other than you can be that judge. What if after a long drought, you see someone pouring gasoline along your property line to burn you out? This may not be a save property situation any more, it could be a save your family from burning to death citation - so what do you do, pop him in the head at 100 yards and drop him where he stands or wait until he starts the fire and hope he tries coming in your home and kill your family with a knife so your burnt remains look like death by fire. In this case, I say better judged by 12 then cremated by house fire.

Anti gunners need to get a grip and stop micromanaging what they think gun owners should own. If we are obeying the law, then keep your business out of our business. The same anti-gunners will beg you to go out and shoot a dog tearing their child apart, and I don't of anyone that wouldn't do that - but who did the anti-gunner go to first - not the police. It is hypocritical to say citizens don't need guns "unless in benefits" the anti-gunner.

People should be glad they have responsible people what choose to use their 2ND Amendment Rights to bear arms - it is a collective force that is at the ready if SHTF. I had to leave my wife home alone for 6 nights during the aftermath of Super Storm Sandy: she was in the living room, lit be candles and the only luxuries were hot water and a radio. Those nights she was scared because out the window she saw activity that looked shady and seemed like people eying up homes for invasion. That will never happen again, she is trained to use all weapons we own and they are close by. She will not be alone again, she'll have protection. And even if she hears jiggling at the doors, she knows the 21 foot rule - if they are closer than that, then the advantage of having a closely stowed or holstered weapon has a greatly reduced chance of saving your life. I'd be proud of her if she put a bullet into the door as a warning and end the confrontation before it escalated - but if the threat kept coming, then it's time to unload the gun as necessary and reload if possible. Citizens deserve the same motto as the police "at the end of the day it their my job to go home alive their family" and we deserve the same.

And no, I'm not a believer in warning shots - but if it stops an intruder before they breech the door - then put a 124 grain flat nose in the floor if you have to, ideally they'll quickly assess that this is not the house they plant to enter, thus move on. It is whatever it takes to survive, but luckily MOST gun owners shot paper or steel or animals, not intruders. But if an intruder knows you have weapons, chance of them coming into your home is slim to none - unless they have a death wish, then I hope they get their wish.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on December 15, 2014, 05:30:24 pm
My grandpa always insisted he preferred a single shot and he claimed he could shoot a single shot as fast as anyone could aim and fire a semiauto.  He did specify AIM and fire...

Ross Siegfried used to write a lot for the gun magazines and said he lent his Ruger #1 (single shot rifle) to his then fiancee' (now his wife) and she was coyote hunting.  Later that day she chewed him out because she called in five coyotes and he had lent her a single shot.  He asked if she got the coyotes.  Yes, she got all of them, but she broke a nail...
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Richard M on December 16, 2014, 01:53:48 am
And I can't understand why a civilian needs a car that will do 120 plus MPH, but the gov. isn't trying to ban them. It's called liberty and freedom. Can you understand why anyone would want liberty and freedom?

Maybe because cars, unlike semi-auto/fully auto centre-fire weapons with 30 round magazines aren't designed specifically to kill people.

The car that can do twice the speed limit is also fun to drive because with higher max speed comes better acceleration and you can still use that power safely.

I'm sorry but I just don't get with this whole 2nd amendment thing.

I'm not opposed to firearms ownership and I'm comfortable with hunting - when I lived in the bush, I owned two rifles, a .22LR, a 6.5mm Swedish Mauser and a Mossberg 12-gauge; I wouldn't have had a semi auto because unless you're chasing down elephants from the back of an F100 in the Serengeti, then they're downright useless for hunting and also intrinsically unsafe as each round fired puts another one in the chamber, cocked and ready to go from where mistakes can be and are made.

I'd define myself as centre-right politically and also spent a total of 13 years as an Army Reservist in UK (artillery) and Australia (infantry), so I'm not squeamish about guns as a matter of principle but by the same token, this experience makes me cynical of the utility of guns for self-defence in the hands of the average joe. If you don't want to be caught by surprise, it needs to be in your hand, with one in the chamber, 24/7 and you need to be mentally primed to use it at a moment's notice, which most average joes aren't. It takes months of training for most militaries to bring professional soldiers to this level of readiness and even then they don't always succeed.

And home invasions? Again, the real danger is illusory - it rarely, rarely happens - even here, where the vast majority in urban areas aren't armed and almost no one has a hand gun to protect themselves. Of the people who are killed by guns here, the ratio of accidentally shot by their own or a member of the family's weapon is far far higher than those felled during the act of a home invasion. Conclusion - in real life (not the movies), you're far more likely to be hurt yourself than hurt a crim.

When I first lived in Tasmania, there were few controls on gun ownership and in my former line (local government), I had at least 3 close calls when calling on (by which I mean knocking on the front door in broad daylight), crazies, who came to the door tooled up for a firefight. And also a case of an 8 year old girl (who I knew had mental developmental issues) who came out to see me dragging behind her (by the trigger) an SKK with magazine attached; I took this off her, unloaded the magazine and on clearing the action found a round in the chamber.

We had the laxest firearms laws in Australia, generally the most law-abiding population but also the highest rate of gun deaths in Australia. Typically male suicides, followed by wife/husband murder suicides, followed by accidents, followed (quite a way back) by armed robberies, criminal killings etc.

Then came the Port Arthur Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29) in 1996, with 35 dead and 23 injured by a nutcase with an AR15, bought from the dodgiest gunshop owner in the State; this was a massive body-blow, with a population of less than 500,000 almost everyone knew someone who knew one of the victims - I worked with the brother of one of them and I also knew one of the police officers in the TRG team who arrested the shooter. It's a small place, tight knit community.

I actually met the perpetrator years before and you wouldn't have sold him a pair of scissors, he was depriving a village somewhere of its idiot; I was also an occasional customer of the gunshop - he tried to sell me a rechambered bren-gun or at least strongly implied that he could obtain one.

This was quickly followed by a ban on semi auto rimfires, centrefires and shotguns and new bolt action rifles with magazines exceeding 5 rounds capacity, most handguns and an amnesty and tax-payer funded buy-back of the now illegal weapon categories, at market value, as ascertained by independent dealers. (A mate was paid $800 for an Uzi he bought on mail order via Soldier of Fortune magazine for $400).

You can still own a gun but it's licenced and registered and you have to provide a good reason for it - self defence (except for some security guards) isn't considered a good reason, although hunting, target shooting etc although you have to provide evidence that you have somewhere to shoot (ie permission from a landowner) and that it's bona dide, also required to keep them secure, with spot inspections by firearms branch.

After the ban, gun deaths of all kinds plummeted, annual gun deaths falling by almost half in 10 years (on the back of a rapidly increasing population, so the per 1000 rate fell more).

The result? Even though we still have more guns in circulation than most European countries (except Switzerland and some Scandinavians), we have a gun death rate, per capita that's 8% of the USA. http://www.humanosphere.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GunViolence-620x445.png (http://www.humanosphere.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GunViolence-620x445.png)

Your firearms homicide rates lie between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Pakistan (where the Taliban live) - http://www.humanosphere.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GunViolence2-620x477.png (http://www.humanosphere.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GunViolence2-620x477.png) . I find it hard to believe that this doesn't worry you all.

Looking from the outside in, I don't get it - school massacres, workplace massacres, police who are so terrified that they shoot first ask questions after, a gun culture with 10,000+ deaths a year (not to mention 20,000 woundings, many grievous with permanent disability) - that's more than double the annual death rate of US forces in Viet Nam each year, every year.

I get the liberty to do what you want thing, I also get it that the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding people - possibly more so than average, but really is this particular liberty worth the price? If one of mine were killed by a criminal with a gun, I'd be devastated but if they were killed because of the perceived need to respect a 240 year old piece of paper, written for a very different, America, then on the edge of a wild frontier, I think I'd feel far worse. Although as a walker & fisherman, I reckon a .44 would be handy to have if you're in bear country and fair enough too.

When speaking of liberty though, what about the over-riding liberty NOT to be shot up by some clown because he's been annoyed by his boss, doesn't like teachers or doesn't feel at one with the world.

Another matter of note to me as an outsider is the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" under the Declaration of Independence - I would perceive living with a 1250% greater risk of me or mine dying in a hail of bullets than I already do (on top of road accidents, cancer, heart disease etc) would tend to compromise that inalienable right apparently guaranteed by the Declaration. One estimate (see http://guns.periscopic.com/?year=2013 (http://guns.periscopic.com/?year=2013)) suggests the loss of half a million years of potential life now unlived in the USA, every year. All that human potential, productivity and uncollected taxes flushed down the drain, all that early bereavement.

And it's not all habitual criminals who are responsible for these deaths; even in the USA, over half of those deaths are suicides, which are usually a tragic waste for all concerned. Usually resulting from a transient issue that will not seem as bad over time, however easy availability of firearms vastly increases the ability to act on impulse. You can't blame it all on black kids living in the Housing Projects of Philly. Not to mention wives and partners killed by angry husbands.

However you paint it, you guys have a huge problem with firearms, you have the highest gun death rate by far for any first world country and the place is also awash (by first world standards) with guns. Go figure.

And yes, it's true, take away guns from law-abiding people and only criminals will have guns;  but make it harder for everyone to get them (such as by melting down seized illegal firearms instead of reselling them onto the legal market) and you'll find the criminals will eventually find them harder to get too. The big wealthy criminals will always get them, but less so the hard-up mugger or drug dealer who features in most street crime and who would be the ones we're all most scared of. And really, how much protection do they really give? Most killings with guns are where the gun is out, up and fired, all over in a few seconds. Draw, aim bang. The fact of  carrying a gun yourself is unlikely to be of any use if caught by surprise by an armed criminal, perceived protection is largely illusory.

And if you're looking for an example - yesterday a crazy Islamist took a bunch of hostages in Sydney; the best gun he could manage was a sawn-off shottie, which would have been double barrel max; it was obvious to all from the moment the black Islamic flag came out that he was intent on going to go out in a blaze of glory as are all of these d-heads but fortunately with only a D/B sawn-off in play we had onl two dead hostages rather than the potentially 17 had he been armed with a semi-auto assault rifle, Browning, Glock or whatever. As it was, he was completely out-gunned by the police and whilst not a happy ending, it could have been far worse.

And guns to protect you from the government? Do you really distrust them that much? - You've got a good solid constitution that's stood the test of over 200 years, an educated, engaged population with solid libertarian traditions; if you feel so insecure with what you have, that you really think you need to carry guns to protect yourselves from Washington, then you have my sympathy, it must be a terrible way to live.

Also, if you seriously think a whole bunch of you could take on the US Govt in an armed insurrection, you're seriously deluded - you have the deadliest military in the world; I wouldn't like to take them on - just ask all the people in the Middle East who tried it in recent years. But having said that, it won't happen. Your military won't turn on you for the same reason ours won't turn on us, they're YOUR military; if you ask the troops to fire on their own people you risk a military rebellion and hanging from a lamppost - remember how that went for the Tsar back in 1917.

OK. Rant over, normal service resumes.   :angel:


 
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: iddee on December 16, 2014, 09:42:13 am
One question, Richard. Even tho your death rate by gun went down considerably, how much did your actual murder rate and violent crime rate go down?

Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on December 16, 2014, 09:51:00 am
>Maybe because cars, unlike semi-auto/fully auto centre-fire weapons with 30 round magazines aren't designed specifically to kill people.

Actually they are not.  Deer rifles are basically WWII weapons that WERE designed to kill people.  those so-called assault rifles were designed to would people.  The design criteria was based on the idea that it ties up more of the enemy taking care of the wounded.  So the design criteria is that they are designed to wound, not to kill.

>The car that can do twice the speed limit is also fun to drive because with higher max speed comes better acceleration and you can still use that power safely.

You will have hundreds of thousands of times more foot pounds of energy with a car doing 120 than a 150 grain bullet going 3,000 fps.

>I'm sorry but I just don't get with this whole 2nd amendment thing.

How do you insure that the government will not turn on the people?  How do you allow people to defend themselves (a basic right if there ever was one) if they are disarmed?

>I'm not opposed to firearms ownership and I'm comfortable with hunting - when I lived in the bush, I owned two rifles, a .22LR, a 6.5mm Swedish Mauser and a Mossberg 12-gauge; I wouldn't have had a semi auto because unless you're chasing down elephants from the back of an F100 in the Serengeti, then they're downright useless for hunting and also intrinsically unsafe as each round fired puts another one in the chamber, cocked and ready to go from where mistakes can be and are made.

Can't say I have any USE for a semi-auto either.

>If you don't want to be caught by surprise, it needs to be in your hand, with one in the chamber, 24/7 and you need to be mentally primed to use it at a moment's notice, which most average joes aren't. It takes months of training for most militaries to bring professional soldiers to this level of readiness and even then they don't always succeed.

I've greeted people with a gun, who kicked in my door on four occasions so far in my life.  I would not have wanted to be unarmed.  All but one made plenty of noise.

>And home invasions? Again, the real danger is illusory - it rarely, rarely happens - even here

Rarely?  Well only four times in 60 years...

> where the vast majority in urban areas aren't armed and almost no one has a hand gun to protect themselves.

I've never lived in such a place.  I've never lived in a state where there were any less than four guns per person...

>Of the people who are killed by guns here, the ratio of accidentally shot by their own or a member of the family's weapon is far far higher than those felled during the act of a home invasion.

No one seems to count the ones where the invader simply runs and no one is shot or arrested... which, despite always calling the police, is how most of mine ended.

>Conclusion - in real life (not the movies), you're far more likely to be hurt yourself than hurt a crim.

So far I've managed to not hurt myself, not hurt my family, and not hurt the criminals...

>We had the laxest firearms laws in Australia, generally the most law-abiding population but also the highest rate of gun deaths in Australia. Typically male suicides, followed by wife/husband murder suicides, followed by accidents, followed (quite a way back) by armed robberies, criminal killings etc.

People always seem to manage to kill themselves with or without guns if that is their intention.  Cars, ropes, razors...

>Your firearms homicide rates lie between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Pakistan (where the Taliban live) - http://www.humanosphere.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GunViolence2-620x477.png (http://www.humanosphere.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GunViolence2-620x477.png) . I find it hard to believe that this doesn't worry you all.

There are lies, darn lies and then there are statistics.  I think these are very doctored numbers.

>When speaking of liberty though, what about the over-riding liberty NOT to be shot up by some clown because he's been annoyed by his boss, doesn't like teachers or doesn't feel at one with the world.

Or defend yourself if he does...

>And it's not all habitual criminals who are responsible for these deaths; even in the USA, over half of those deaths are suicides, which are usually a tragic waste for all concerned. Usually resulting from a transient issue that will not seem as bad over time, however easy availability of firearms vastly increases the ability to act on impulse. You can't blame it all on black kids living in the Housing Projects of Philly. Not to mention wives and partners killed by angry husbands.

>However you paint it, you guys have a huge problem with firearms, you have the highest gun death rate by far for any first world country and the place is also awash (by first world standards) with guns. Go figure.

Actually it sounds like we have a huge suicide problem...

#1: Heart disease Odds of dying: 1 in 6
#2: Cancer Odds of dying: 1 in 7
#3: Stroke Odds of dying: 1 in 28
#4: All types of land vehicle accidents Odds of dying: 1 in 85
#5: Intentional self harm Odds of dying: 1 in 115
#6: Accidental poisoning and drug overdose Odds of dying: 1 in 139
#7: Falls Odds of dying: 1 in 184
#8: Car accident Odds of dying: 1 in 272
#9: Exposure to prescription drugs Odds of dying: 1 in 289

Seems we have a lot of low hanging fruit we could go after if we really care about saving lives.

>And guns to protect you from the government? Do you really distrust them that much?

Anyone who has studied history should.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Richard M on December 16, 2014, 06:11:23 pm
One question, Richard. Even tho your death rate by gun went down considerably, how much did your actual murder rate and violent crime rate go down?



Firearm deaths as a proportion of homicides went from 25% to 13%.

Homicide rates in Australia by decade

1990s - 1.76 per 100,000 per annum

2000s - 1.58 per 100,000 per annum

2010-2014 - 1.1 per 100,000 per annum

Overall a 37.5% reduction in homicides from all causes between the 1990s and 2014. (ie knife, blunt instrument, strangulation etc didn't see a reciprocal increase). The place has never been safer.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Richard M on December 16, 2014, 06:50:37 pm

>And guns to protect you from the government? Do you really distrust them that much?

Anyone who has studied history should.


Hmmm, so not much trust in the rest of the Constitution then, I'd have thought that any objective study of the American Constitution and your Federal political history would lead you to quite the opposite conclusion - wasn't it the Washington that outlawed slavery, forced through Civil Rights and ended segregation in the 60s?

To put your gun death rates into some sort of perspective, at 11,000 or so a year, it's the equivalent of 3.66 x 9/11 deaths each year.

Ah well, the only upside that the rest of the First World can take from that mindset is that for the most part, while you wait with guns loaded, for the day that the government tries to oppress you, it's your kids who will continue to die and be maimed in their thousands every year, (more than a hundred thousand a decade - say 1.5 average superbowl crowds) not ours.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Snowhitsky on December 16, 2014, 07:02:08 pm
I agree with Richard M point by point but then I share his background (apart from the artillery and going to Australia) and I think this is what it's all about.

The US has a gun culture which simply does not exist in most of Europe. Even in those countries with large numbers of legally held or owned firearms, the relationship of citizens towards firearms is radically different to the US. Over here they are seen as a necessary evil best kept under lock and key and preferably in the hands of responsible law-enforcement professionals. What passes as a healthy interest in the US is seen as something to worry about over here. It's just two radically different cultures which are unlikely to ever understand each other.

As an aside, I must say I do find it amusing that almost any problem, no matter how banal, mentioned on a US forum usually ends up with at least one person suggesting a solution involving a firearm.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: buzzbee on December 16, 2014, 08:22:53 pm
Richard,
Your people stood by and left the government confiscate private property. That is exactly why we behold our Second Amendment. If your government becomes tyrannical, what option do you have for removal? Did your people learn nothing from what the Nazis did to unarmed populations in WW II ? That should be recent enough history to refresh us all of the cost of  an unarmed citizenry.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: beemaster on December 16, 2014, 09:27:27 pm
I think a point our foreign (relatively speaking) friends are missing is the massive population and the great use of our land. This is something Australia cannot understand due to its mainly populated coastal area and a population 10 times less than the US although we share nearly the same land area.

And not judging Spain or Europe either, but as Buzzbee said "of all places you would think Europe had a different mindset on guns" but there are many points being missed. With average response times in many areas of the US being 20 minutes or longer, is there really protection by the law if they are speeding as fast as they can to get to you but still 20 minutes away?

You need to realize too that the police agree with an armed society - in both open carry and conceal carry, incidences of gun related crime is far less that in any place where you are not armed. Not to mention all the cities where gun Rights have been taken away from the people, these are cities that are now under gang violence, people are afraid to leave their homes and black on black crime is a huge part of this point, mainly because a thousand blacks can kill each other and it won't make the news - one cop kills a thug who tries to wrestle the officer's gun away and smashes at his face, then turns and charges the cop when he finally gets out of his car to try and control the situation: this causes riots and protest. The black on black crime is stifled by the so called black leaders, because they will never accept that murder is murder, they only want to point out and milk white on black crime.

Tell me, does a store owner have a right to protect his business against arsons or mobs that will assuredly kill him if the can get their hands on them. I'm really not sure what you expect someone who is threatened with certain death to do to protect themselves?

I'm 56, and due to health issue which have plagued me most of my life, I believe incapable of protecting my wife, my home or my life if someone bigger or stronger breaks in. And don't say this rarely or never happens, in my township in the last three years 3 people were murdered in their homes - in all cases they had nothing to protect themselves with. I tell my wife if ever in a situation where she is backed in a corner by someone in our home with terrible plans while there, to shoot and keep shooting until 1 you know the intruder is dead or until the gun is empty - let the law figure it out.

As you can't relate to our country where guns played a part in the most detailed part from forming the country, to expanding to the west - guns have always been in our history. I read Michael Bush like revolvers, I do too and have a 22 Ruger that may not be the ideal home protection gun, but I doubt I'd have volunteers to stand there and let me shoot it at them. Revolvers (especially larger caliber) rarely fail and you just advance to the next round in the cylinder if they do. Being double action makes it very safe to carry and that is his chosen comfort zone. You need to know your weapon, inside and out, practice and then more practice, get your entire household trained to use them - remove the fear, raise the respect of weapons - saves lives.

Recently a young boy of about 12 killed an invader who was about to rape is sister - they were in the middle of nowhere and no help would prevent the rape. He wasn't about the get to a knife or baseball bat and no doubt the intruder would toss the boy like a doll and get back to his attack on the girl. The shotgun he fired did the trick, the guy collapsed like a bag of rocks - the boy a hero. All because everyone in that house was trained on how to use their weapons.

I honestly think you (out side the states folks) think we just pick up every gun we can afford and sit just inside the door waiting for the bad guys to come breaking in. Gun owners in plies you follow rules, gun safes, weapons kept out of site and away from strangers. Yeah, having a handgun on a nightstand seems crazy to a populous that has little access to guns, but when you grow up in an environment where guns are part of your world, it is no big deal - the young folks no to keep away, the older ones go hunting and shoot at targets and every generation in that home is prepared for the dredge of society to one day walk into the wrong house and likely the last mistake of their lives. Point is, not gun-owner (well can't no, but all most all) never want to use that gun in defending their lives, but our culture says we have to the right to use necessary force to prevent injury or loss of life and those of others.

More later.




Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Richard M on December 16, 2014, 09:34:58 pm
Does/should right to carry apply to everyone equally?

And in the context of protecting yourself or your community from government interference?

So how do people in a largely Christian country reconcile this with religious principles? Would religious people carry weapons and is this ok?

And then what about Civilian Militia Groups?

Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Richard M on December 16, 2014, 09:36:43 pm
Richard,
Your people stood by and left the government confiscate private property. That is exactly why we behold our Second Amendment. If your government becomes tyrannical, what option do you have for removal? Did your people learn nothing from what the Nazis did to unarmed populations in WW II ? That should be recent enough history to refresh us all of the cost of  an unarmed citizenry.


Marijuana is private property too and the government confiscates that on a day to day basis, however the compulsory buyback was surrender with good compensation; the money paid out on semi-autos was more than enough to cover the cost of buying a new, good quality bolt action rifle if wanted (the majority didn't).

Land is also private property but if they need yours for an airport or road project, they can take that too, by compulsory purchase - again with compensation but the principle of the government confiscating anything is hardly a novel one, or else how did your's manage to cover the country in freeways, airports etc? Voluntary sale by landowners? I doubt it. And TBH I'd be a lot more p-ssed about losing my land than losing a couple of pop guns.

On the matter of government tyranny, there's enough checks and balances in our constitution to prevent that, not least of which is that the public servants, police and soldiers are of the same community that would be oppressed by a future tyrannical government, it's their brothers and sisters, mums and dads, wives & girlfriends who would be oppressed and they would have to be party to that, bottom line it's not going to happen.

In Britain it's a little different, the reason they'd never have military coup there is that this would mean the Coldstream Guards and the Grenadier Guards cooperating and working together. Clearly this could never happen as they were on opposite sides in the English Civil War (1642-1651) and they haven't spoken to each other ever since.

If push comes to shove and you have your showdown with tyranny, a largely overweight rabble armed with M16s and M4s aren't going to be much use against a disciplined force armed with M249s, M203s, Apaches, Abrams and 155mm artillery. If going out in a massacre is your idea of making a political statement well I guess that's all pretty cool; but having seen how it worked out for the guys in Iraq, I don't know that it's a viable option.

As for opposing the Nazis (with small arms) - the ones who did try it didn't go too well; true I guess you could say that they came out with their honour intact but that wasn't much use to their families and their actions were no deterrence to the Nazis  - read up about the Warsaw Ghetto (Liquidation of). Ditto the Volksturm, civilian militia raised by the Nazis when they in turn were invaded by the Allies - those who stood and fought were slaughtered to a man. The only militias that have been a real factor in defeating a professional military force is where they've acted in or with the support of a large power ally, such as the various WW2 resistance and partisan organisations, however their chief value was in tying down troops who then weren't organised or available to fight off attacks by Allied regular forces when the invasion(s) came. The only militia that actually kicked out the Germans were n Yugoslavia and even then, only because they had massive external support and the Germans were also be kept busy by the Russians, Americans, British, Canadians etc. (Oh and the New Zealanders).

Nearest parallel I can think of where a reasonably democratic government (with some decency and foibles) fought a militia was the Boer War in South Africa at the turn of the 19th/20th Centuries. Sure the Boers made life difficult for the British but were ultimately defeated anyway, with massive casualties to both themselves and their communities - however this was against a power similarly equipped to them; the British at this time had no aircraft, no helicopters, no AFVs, no mortars, heavy weapons were short range, small calibre artillery suitable for DF tasks only and no battlefield communications. Yeah sure you'd have cellphones and email, but guess who can turn the network off in an instant? Bottom line you'd be, in Australian parlance, completely rooted.

Then there's Waco? Whole bunch of people standing up against Govt Tyranny there too, so what was the Branch Davidian: Federal casualty exchange ratio in that one? About 16:1 I think.

What our people learned in WW2 was not to rely on the French Army ....... and a few other things.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Snowhitsky on December 17, 2014, 03:33:34 am
Richard,
Your people stood by and left the government confiscate private property. That is exactly why we behold our Second Amendment. If your government becomes tyrannical, what option do you have for removal? Did your people learn nothing from what the Nazis did to unarmed populations in WW II ? That should be recent enough history to refresh us all of the cost of  an unarmed citizenry.


What government confiscated what private property?

I drive around France a lot for my job and I can tell you it's covered in memorials to the victims of nazi occupation. Some of those were armed citizens doing their patriotic duty against a regular army, the rest were civilian hostages. It happens in just about every country occupied by a foreign power (including the US) and the best way of avoiding that is having efficient government-run armed forces rather than relying on mobs of armed civilians with practically zero military value.

In Spain we had a civil war from 1936 to 1939 at a time where guns were pretty much in free circulation. A significant proportion of wartime casualties were caused by neighbours shooting each other over mundane issues (inheritances, petty disputes and jealousies) in the first month and disguising the murders as politically motivated. Law and order broke down when government forces were no longer involved in maintaining it. To this day there are huge numbers of unmarked mass graves containing relatives of neighbours  within a couple of miles of most villages. Following that bloodbath the Spanish love affair with firearms waned to the point where the ownership of a handgun (shotguns and rifles for hunting being a different matter) is now seen as rather odd and dangerous.

By the way, what about the US government's unconstitutional expulsion of US citizens of Japanese descent in WW2? Don't recall mass armed resistance of outraged citizens defending the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens then. I also don't recall state militias intervening to stop desegragation of schools in the South imposed by the Federal government (in defence of the Constitution granted but you get my point).




Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Snowhitsky on December 17, 2014, 06:38:31 am

And not judging Spain or Europe either, but as Buzzbee said "of all places you would think Europe had a different mindset on guns" but there are many points being missed. With average response times in many areas of the US being 20 minutes or longer, is there really protection by the law if they are speeding as fast as they can to get to you but still 20 minutes away?


Response times in Europe aren't much better. I doubt the police in my area would even be able to locate my farmhouse let alone under 20 minutes. The difference between the US and other first world countries is not just about gun-ownership (legal or not) it is mostly about the reality and perception of crime. On this side of the Atlantic, violent crime is a rare occurence and most of it is alcohol fuelled brawls at the weekend.

To give you an example, last week we had an armed bank robbery in the NW of Spain with the robber and one policewoman shot dead and another seriously injured. The robbery in itself was a novelty but the shootout was an extraordinary event and the deaths even more so. Hopefully this situation isn't routine in the US but over here it is a very rare occurence on par with being hit by lightning.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: buzzbee on December 17, 2014, 08:00:02 am
All well and good, but if and when that rare violent crime occurs,I would much rather have the option of defense. That well run government can't be there in time for a crisis intervention when someone approaches your door with the intent of committing a crime.
Cozy feelings are nice to have, but look at the world around you. I prefer to have a big stick and not need to use it, than wait for someone with a big stick come to my aid when I have been subdued.
As an aside, most of the violent crimes occur in our country where  the strongest gun laws are in place. Criminals try not to be confronted with an armed homeowner defending their castle.
It is not an open crap shoot on every street corner like the media tries to portray it.
 And remember this :   Those that beat their guns into plow shares will be ruled over by those who do not.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on December 17, 2014, 10:24:26 am
>Hmmm, so not much trust in the rest of the Constitution then, I'd have thought that any objective study of the American Constitution and your Federal political history would lead you to quite the opposite conclusion - wasn't it the Washington that outlawed slavery, forced through Civil Rights and ended segregation in the 60s?

We've had presidents and governments who ignored the Supreme Court's decisions on what is constitutional before.  In the end it's the people with the guns who make the rules.  When the supreme court told Jackson that his removal of the Cherokee was unconstitutional, Jackson said "The Supreme Court has made it's decision, now let them enforce it." and he openly defied them and removed the Cherokee anyway.

I'm always amazed to hear people say that "violence never solved anything".  I've never met a WWII vet who believed that.  Certainly we should make all reasonable attempts to avoid violence as the solution, but when all else fails, no matter how we "feel" about it, no matter how unfair it seems, violence is  the final arbitrator.  The leverage just before that final arbitration is the potential for violence.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Richard M on December 18, 2014, 04:15:11 am


I'm always amazed to hear people say that "violence never solved anything".  I've never met a WWII vet who believed that.  Certainly we should make all reasonable attempts to avoid violence as the solution, but when all else fails, no matter how we "feel" about it, no matter how unfair it seems, violence is  the final arbitrator.  The leverage just before that final arbitration is the potential for violence.


The problem is that a large number of people (11000 a year or thereabouts in your neck of the woods) evidently don't avoid violence as a final solution; it doesn't just apply to the law abiding citizen defending his home and family - in practice it ends up being the guy who ends up copping a third eye because his dog crapped on the neighbour's lawn. Simple, silly disputes that in other parts of the world get solved with fisticuffs end up with the ultimate in violence because there's a gun to hand.

If we were awash with guns, the same thing thing would happen here too, but thankfully it usually ends up with two idiots in ER feeling somewhat embarrassed as they have their cut eye stitched and broken nose cleaned up, rather than one in the morgue and the other facing life behind bars.

And just to follow up on comments made to the effect that assault weapons aren't designed to kill? Well to be honest - cobblers - I think that's splitting hairs and I'm pretty sure the parents of the kids at Sandy Hook Elementary School would beg to differ too. I well remember shaking my head in disbelief after seeing a senior police officer ask "what's wrong with our kids that they would do this", or words to that effect. Well my response is that the average American kid is the same as the average British, Australian or French kid.

Most are OK I'm sure, but some inevitably have problems and do nasty antisocial stuff, the only difference is that the British/French kids' mothers don't keep an M4/AR15 in the wardrobe to enable them to make a really big statement. At worst the Brit/French kid runs amok with a knife and one or two people get bad cuts, (and yes maybe someone dies), whilst the vast majority of possible victims can make a run for it until someone else belts him around the head with a cricket bat/chair/whatever. Unfortunately, it's darned hard to outrun or fend off a bullet.

And on the subject of massacres, a semi-auto, 30 rd mag rifle is the boss when it comes to inflicting mass casualties in a very short time, so forgetting handguns for home defence and hunting rifles, legitimate ownership of which can be justified, I find it really hard to understand why you'd want one of these things or be happy for the potential crazies in your community to have one.

If the justification is that defence against future tyranny means you need a capable weapon, well where does that finish? If you're thinking urban warfare, then shouldn't you also be demanding the right for anyone who feels the need to be able to bear grenades, landmines, MANPAD missile systems, 0.50 cal HMGs, anti-armour weapons etc? Where does this logic end?

Back to gun massacres - interesting that in Australia (where a massacre is defined as 5 or more deaths), the list of such massacres since 1980 goes like this:

1981
1984
1984
1987
1987
1987
1987
1988
1990
1991
1992
1993
1996
1996 (Port Arthur Tasmania - 35 dead)

(1996-1997 ban on semi autos, gun buyback scheme.)

Since 1996 (ie 18 years) we've had a single gun massacre - a farmer who shot his family and then himself a few months ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia)







Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Snowhitsky on December 18, 2014, 08:26:43 am
Well my response is that the average American kid is the same as the average British, Australian or French kid.

I beg to differ. I went to school in France in an international school with over 50 different nationalities of which the British and Americans were the largest contingents. Those who came from the US or the UK were significantly more violent/bullying than local kids or foreigners raised locally. When I returned to the UK as an adult I was shocked at the levels of violence I came across compared to those I'd experienced elsewhere in Europe (France, Switzerland, Spain). Even within England I noticed far more violence in the north than in the south of the country. And alcohol isn't the issue, a drunk Englishmen has a much greater propensity to violence than a drunk Spaniard.



Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on December 18, 2014, 09:27:42 am
>The problem is that a large number of people (11000 a year or thereabouts in your neck of the woods)

You'll find most of those occurring in places with very strict gun control.  I've never lived in nor will I ever live in such a place.  It was not unusual in Laramie Wyoming to see people walking down the street with a pistol on their hip.  The only shooting I ever heard of while I lived there was a drug dealer who was going to kill a rival but got the wrong house.  He didn't live long.  The sign in the bank asked you to check your gun with the guard and remove your ski mask. 

There was less than 1 "gun death" per 100,000 per year in the state (.858 per 100,000 to be exact) in 2010.  In 2010, in a state where guns outnumber people 7 to 1, there were 8 murders, 5 of which were committed with guns.  In California where people outnumber guns 4 to 1 (in other words there are 28 times as many guns per person in Wyoming...), there were 1,257 people murdered with firearms which comes to 3.4 gun homicides per 100,000 that same year (4 times as many murders by guns per 100,000).  But I've never understood the reason for separating "gun homicides".  Murder is murder and it's often committed with tire irons, kitchen knives or baseball bats...

Try this another way, in a state where there are 28 times as many guns  there are 1/4 as many murders by guns per 100,000... hard to make a case that guns are the cause of violence...



http://wyomingnews.com/articles/2013/03/31/news/01top_03-31-13.txt#.VJLTjCvF-So (http://wyomingnews.com/articles/2013/03/31/news/01top_03-31-13.txt#.VJLTjCvF-So)
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Snowhitsky on December 18, 2014, 10:19:56 am
Michael, whether it's 4 to 1 or 7 to 1 that is still an insane amount of firearms in circulation from our perspective. Legal gun ownership in 2010 in the UK was 1.800.000 (of which: 1.300.000 shotguns) out of a population of 61 million. That's 1 firearm per 33 people and 1 handgun/rifle per 122 people. Assuming you were talking about Wyoming, that state holds twice the firearms of the whole of the UK!

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/gun-ownership-firearms-certificates (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/gun-ownership-firearms-certificates)

On the murders front and by comparison, the UK had 1.04 murders/100.000 and 0,07 murders/100.000 using firearms (and most of those would be within the drug gangs) in 2011/2012.

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html (http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html)


Outside the armed forces the only person I know of in the UK who owns a firearm is my brother-in-law who uses it to put down sick or injured farm animals. To this day I have been unable to locate the locked gun cabinet where he keeps it as he's (rightly) obsessed with keeping it out of reach of kids.

While I absolutely respect your constitutional rights as US citizens, for me the bottom line is this: I live without fear for my life or that of my loved ones and I do not fear my government. You need a firearm to achieve the same thing.


Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on December 18, 2014, 11:28:19 am
>Michael, whether it's 4 to 1 or 7 to 1 that is still an insane amount of firearms in circulation

In California it's more like 1 to 4 as opposed to Wyoming's 7 to 1...  Why would it matter if someone has 7 guns?  They can only shoot one at a time anyway.  Limiting a gun owner to one gun is like limiting a golfer to one club.  A .22 LR is not a good deer rifle but it's a great squirrel gun and plinker.  A .25-06 is not a good squirrel gun, but it's a wonderful deer rifle.  A .25-06 is probably a better deer rifle than a 7mm rem mag but the 7mm rem mag might be a better Elk gun... and none of those is even legal for hunting ducks or pheasants... and, imo, all are almost worthless for self defense.  It's nice to be able to hit an elk with a high powered rifle from a bipod at 600 yards, but that kind of gun does not work well at 2 feet as most self defense situations are.  Here is a quick list of the guns any serious hunter would need to have the right tool for the job:

Geese 10 gauge mag full choke 36" barrel (bigger and further away)
Ducks 12 gauge mag full choke 36" barrel (not as big but often further than pheasants)
Pheasants 12 gauge double barrel full and modified 32" barrel (bigger and further than a quail bu not as big or as far as ducks)
Quail 20 gauge double barrel modified and cylinder 26" barrel (usually close and small)
Snakes, squirrels, rabbets .410 shotgun modified choke
Rabbets, squirrels, skunks, varmints etc. .22 LR (not shot to pick out)
Beer, Moose and Elk magnum high powered rifle (.300 Wetherby, .300 win mag, 7mm rem mag etc.)
Open country Deer, Antelope, big horn sheep etc. medium high powered rifle (.25-06, 6.5mmx55mm Swedish, .308 etc.)
Brush gun Deer (.30-30, 45-70 etc.)
Varmint, coyote, prairie dogs, rock chucks, etc. long range (.223, .22-250, .220 swift etc.)

That's 10 right there and I could add some more for special target competitions... and then there is self defense for which none of these qualify in my opinion.

The basic design criteria of guns varies.  Anti-gun people are fond of saying that pistols serve no purpose other than killing people, but that is not their design criteria.  The design criteria of a pistol is to stop a threat, not to kill the threat.  The design criteria of a deer rifle is to quickly and humanely kill a deer (which is a man sized creature).  This is evident in the statistics. 

The mortality rate for someone shot with a pistol is about 17% (I've seen numbers as low as 2% and as high as 20%)
The mortality rate for someone shot with a shotgun is about 80% (probably because most of them are accidents and the distance is far enough for the shot to lose velocity)
The mortality rate for someone shot with a rifle is higher than 90%
BTW
The mortality rate for someone stabbed with an icepick is 14%
The mortality rate for someone stabbed with a butcher knife is 13%

Let's get to the real issue though.  The root of the problem with all the anti-gun statistics is the illogical assumption that the CAUSE of violence is guns.  That the cause of suicide is guns.  There is no evidence to support those assumptions.  The fact is the cause of violence is people.  The cause of more or less violence in one country or another (or rural vs city) is culture.  In a culture with a concept of "defending your honor" there is typically more violence.  The cause of suicide is depression.  People have been killing each other since Cain and Able and guns have only been around for the last few hundred years.  People have been killing themselves just as long.  Pills, razor blades and crashing into bridge abutments seem to work just as well as firearms for suicide today.  Falling on a sword or poison were typical in the past.  Tire irons, baseball bats, kitchen knives, golf clubs, hammers, or whatever blunt object is handy seems to work fine for murder.  Once you've made the primary error in logic, "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" (after this, because of this) every conclusion you draw afterwards is not logical. I think it's a safe bet that 99.999% of people who have died, drank water the day the died.  But what does that statistic prove?  How dangerous water was?  I could take it a step further.  I'll bet 99.999% of people who died from pneumonia (fluid in their lungs) drank water (fluid).  Does that mean they shouldn't have drank water?

The other issue I have with the anti-gun propaganda is the abuse of statistics.  There's a story about a scientist, a mathematician and statistician who went deer hunting.  The scientist shot five feet to the left of the deer.  The mathematician shot five feet to the right of the deer.  The statistician jumped up and down and yelled "we got him!"

They typical numbers for an anti-gun propaganda will quote death rates by guns as if the guns committed the crimes.  They don't compare deaths by murder to deaths by murder or deaths by suicide to deaths by suicide.  Obviously in places where guns are not common, murders will be commuted using what is handy.   The same for suicide.  A person in a culture where guns outnumber people 7 to 1 such as Wyoming will have more suicide by gun than a place where guns are not available and that place will probably have more suicide by pills or razor.  Yet they will imply that those suicides by gun would not have taken place had there not been a gun.  And they will lump suicide deaths in with "gun deaths" which makes it sound like those people were murdered when they were not.  They will also come up with statistics about "children" and guns and then define "children" as anyone under 21 and include all the gang shootings.

But obviously comparing murder to murder and suicide to suicide is not in line with the agenda of blaming the guns...
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: BlueBee on December 18, 2014, 12:26:59 pm
I agree with Richard M point by point but then I share his background (apart from the artillery and going to Australia) and I think this is what it's all about.
Maybe I haven’t been “Americanized” enough since my relatives moved here from Europe some 150 years ago.  I completely agree with our international friends Richard M and Snowhitsky.  X:X  The facts are there for those who want to look.

Quote
As an aside, I must say I do find it amusing that almost any problem, no matter how banal, mentioned on a US forum usually ends up with at least one person suggesting a solution involving a firearm.
You are so right!
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: sawdstmakr on December 18, 2014, 01:49:02 pm
"Try this another way, in a state where there are 28 times as many guns  there are 1/4 as many murders by guns per 100,000... hard to make a case that guns are the cause of violence..." Michael Bush.

In other words, when everyone knows that the other guy is probably armed, they are much more sociable and less likely to try to rob or attack you.
Jim
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on December 18, 2014, 01:51:18 pm
>The facts are there for those who want to look.

The "facts" are merely unrelated (usually cherry picked and skewed by what is included and excluded) statistics which do nothing to establish cause and effect.  Where is the cause and effect?  Violent crime has dropped from a high in 1980 of 10.2 murders per 100,000 in the US (not "handgun murders" just murder)  to an all time low (as of 2013) since at least 1960 (I don't have numbers available further back right now) of 4.5 per 100,000.  I think it's every bit, if not more realistic, for me to assume that what has happened since the high in 1980 is that most states have passed concealed carry laws.  So murders have declined by more than half during a period where 29 states legalized concealed carry.  You can easily make a case for a mechanism for how honest citizens being armed would lower the murder rate as opposed to a mechanism for why a gun makes someone into a murderer.  The "facts" are that as we allowed more citizens to be armed more of the time murder rates plummeted.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on December 18, 2014, 02:51:04 pm
Let's try applying the same logic as "guns cause people to become murderers" or "guns cause suicides" to other things and maybe point out the irrationality of it:

matches cause people to become arsonists
crowbars cause people to become burglers
hypodermic needles cause people to become mainline drug addicts
hemostats cause people to smoke grass
shot glasses cause people to become alcoholics
decks of cards cause people to become addicted gamblers
water causes people to drown people
butcher knives cause people to stab people
baseball bats cause people to become murderers who hit people in the head with bats
hammers cause people to become murderers who hit people in the head hammers
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: GSF on December 18, 2014, 04:00:19 pm
I can somewhat understand the position of our friends from across the pond. We are a gun culture -  and love it! We have a saying; "If guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would have guns."

The unfortunate truth around here with the murders is it's mainly blacks. These numbers aren't exact because I don't remember, but last year Montgomery, Alabama had something like 71 homocides. If only the white on white murders would have been counted the number would have been something like 5.

The black family has been destroyed by gov't freebies. My son works in the emergency medical field. He told me it wasn't nothing to be on a call at 2 in the morning during a school week and see very young black kids (10-13ish) all up and down the streets. If this was a working class family they would have been put to bed hours ago. These kids are from single parent (mom) homes. Poor things don't have a chance. A child gets messed up mentally when they grow up with no rules or responsibilities. The black folks I know who work and try to scratch out a living don't fall in this category.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Snowhitsky on December 18, 2014, 04:48:57 pm
The fact is the cause of violence is people.  The cause of more or less violence in one country or another (or rural vs city) is culture.

I agree 100% with you: the issue is people and their propensity for violence. Where we differ is the influence of firearms on the equation. You see firearms as a means of reducing risk to yourself and I see it as increasing it which is perfectly logical given our respective environments. If I lived in LA I suspect I might treat myself to a little extra "insurance" and if you lived in my neck of the woods you'd eventually forget to lock the front door before going to bed as I frequently do.

Incidentally, I have nothing against firearms per se. I was a professional soldier in the British Army so I have handled quite a varied range of ordnance and I have first-hand experience in facing down armed thugs with the threat of force.. Weapons always have and always will have a place in maintaining law and order it's just I'd rather they were largely in the hands of professionals of my choice. Personally, I have to say there's nothing quite like the sound of automatic 30mm cannon or .50 cal rounds flying overhead to focus people's minds on conflict resolution.

By the way, interesting list of hardware you list there. Out of curiosity, is there ANY wildlife left in Nebraska?   ;)
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on December 18, 2014, 05:32:45 pm
>By the way, interesting list of hardware you list there. Out of curiosity, is there ANY wildlife left in Nebraska

The deer are so overpopulated that they are dying from several plagues and hitting them is a major cause of auto accidents.  We have Elk here and a season on them, and there were no elk here for almost 100 years.  We have big horn sheep here now as well and a season on them.  They were gone for almost 100 years as well.  We have wild turkeys, pheasants, quail etc. at levels not seen since the early pioneer days.  We even have a mountain lion season.  We do have game laws and enforcement... I can't find the exact dates, but we actually had no deer season from sometime back in the teens of the 1900s until, I think the 1960s.  Deer were considered extinct in Nebraska in 1915 as were Elk. 
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: iddee on December 18, 2014, 05:46:52 pm
MB, you forgot to mention that the majority of the money used to bring them all back came from hunting and fishing licenses, and taxes on guns, ammo, fishing equip. and other wildlife expenses. In other words, the hunters paid to bring them back.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: beemaster on December 18, 2014, 06:26:00 pm
Way too much to comment on since my last post - but I'll try.

First, statistics are SPIN material - the numbers you get are those you seek, every time. Watch political polls and see how the wording changes the numbers to reflect on what ever the party wants it to convey.

This topic has gotten very generic, missing the real basis of why we still hold the 2nd so close to our culture. Our country was formed in bits and pieces, first the Eastern regions, later the far Western lands of California and finally filling out the middle states where life is supported by ample farm land and good water and other needed resources.
People moved to where life could survive with minimal imported resources, people tilled the land, grew crops and raised animals for food, clothing, sale and barter.

Weapons fed your family, no one was out there with a knife tackling a buffalo for food or trade, they had guns and it kept them alive through the harshest of Winters. Guns were protection against anyone who threatened the Pursuit of Happiness (as was brought up earlier) people took their families across this landscape to never return to where they came from. The branched out, forming camp villiages, farming lands, town and cities and all this will minimal police and armies. having weapons and everyone in a family knowing how to use them saved countless lives throughout history.

These were tough times, handguns we mostly revolvers, typically 5 shot and often carried two at a time, on horseback or on foot, and in wagon trains. Those with weapons survived, no less than the animals with larger teeth and bigger claws feed well over herbivores who mostly crushed grass and seed and were low on the food chain.

Of all the species in history, man was the only one to make tool to benefit him in battle, from the earlies spears, shields and swinging and throwing weapons - man's superior ability to make tools that both defended himself and also feed him destined him to be a survivor.

Many people say MAN is at the top of the food chain, I say no - toss a naked and unarmed man in a ring with a tiger, bear, even a badger or POed opossum - the man will likely not fair very well. It is our ability to create equalizers that raise us above the others.

So back to today and in America the citizenship has some neat weapons at their disposal. Most are well regulated and of tend very costly "stamps" are purchased to improve the effectiveness of a weapon - $200 for a suppressor (silencer) stamp - add some subsonic ammo and even a .22LR pistol can be a formidable weapon.

I'm late into this whole gun thing (what you guys who can't have weapons call foolish) my first gun purchase was at 55 years of age. Guns in the Central Eastern US states are far less prominent the in the South and in those Western States where farm animals out number humans hundreds to one. Areas where you are the sole protector, the law on your own expanse of land - a place where intruders and rustlers are foolishly on the wrong piece of land. I know several people on this forum with thousands of acres of property - when livestock ends up missing or mutilated, it's time to find the problem and solve it, not times to call the police who will them the "This is a private issue, we are here to uphold the law, not to babysit your herd". Police recognize the law and the people have the right to protect what is theirs.

So let's leave the country, now we are in a neighborhood of people who go to work everyday, spending 2/3rd of their lives awaiting retirement - doing what is right and being part of a community. Then someone's home is broken into, jewelery taken, things of value and great memories, items past down generation to generation - luckily no one hurt this time. The neighbors learn of the break in and step up their vigilance at protecting their homes - hoping they aren't the next target. But the cocky thief returns, this time to find someone home - someone unable to protect themselves and the get pushed around, tied up, possibly beaten and worse of all, maybe killed. Now the neighborhood is at full alert, ready for anything and willing to put down anyone entering their homes with intent to do what it takes to rob the homeowner blind. You tell me, what is the home own supposed to do? whip out a golf club, a fly swatter, wave a knife at them - what if you are out numbered, caught off guard and can't get to a phone (don't worry the police will be there in 20 minutes if you do get to call 911) - I'm sure you can keep them entertained for at least 20 minutes.

The homeowner who is prepared will make it known that whatever the intruders planned has now change dramatically - likely the bad guy(s) can see they are now on the wrong end of a powerful weapon and the just run - or drop to the floor as the homeowner tells them to do so until the police arrive. If the bad guys insist on tempting their luck, I see no alternative for the homeowner to show the intruder who is in control - there is no need for the infamous Warning Shot, the first shot is paced into the intruder where he likely will finally understand the game is over and if he lays down and stays down, the police will get them out of their, still able to walk out alive.

I'll state this, reading Spain and Australia and other gun restricted countries  - you learn to start fires with 2 sticks because you can't have matches and because you have gotten good at it, see no need for matches. This is how your thinking on guns is - you can't have them, and interestingly think that the bad guys don't have them either - so you are even going in. Well.... here the bad guys have guns. The law abiding citizen may never shoot their guns, some will at the ranges, other on their open properties - but shooting at a person is the farthest thing from their mind. 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.

I'd love to know what either of you would do (if you had a gun) and God forbid found someone physically punishing someone you loved at gun point. You gonna put your gun in a safe and grab a frying pan? You gonna chance that if you jump on him that you are strong enough to not become another victim? Call your 911 service? Or are you gonna use that gun in some fashion, pistol whip him, shout "stop I have a gun" or plug the creep in the back of the head putting him out of your miser.

I don't know what I would do, seriously I believe you need to quickly evaluate the situation, the take the right action - if he needs to be shot to stop a deadly assault, then do it - don't worry about the law, let the police or the courts figure it out. It is not your job to determine the degree of the assault, it is your job to stop the attack, and if the attacker is bigger and stronger than you, seemingly hopped up on drugs and you need to decide if this man charges me, will he get my gun, will he kill me and then my loved one - that's a lot to think about and there is no time to think about it - it's then you use the gun, stop him in his tracks, make sure the threat is over, place your gun safely out of range of the body, but where the police have access to it when they finally arrive - and explain your case.

I never want to kill anyone - I know you think that Americans wait around every day for the situation to arrive so they can pull out their guns and shoot and kill anyone they can deem a bad guy. That is as foolish an idea as saying people buy cars and ride around with intent of running over an elderly person because old folks have lived long enough and you'll be doing the world a favor because the old person is a danger behind the wheel.

I have 5 guns, I will have more soon - and I never want to have a reason to use one to end another persons life. I think that same thing goes for everyone here who is law abiding and just wants to be left alone to live their live in an honest and wholesome way.

Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on December 22, 2014, 10:03:55 am
>MB, you forgot to mention that the majority of the money used to bring them all back came from hunting and fishing licenses, and taxes on guns, ammo, fishing equip. and other wildlife expenses. In other words, the hunters paid to bring them back.

Not only funded by the hunters, but the hunters started, funded, backed and insisted on game management.  All the conservationists who pushed to save the national forests and parks and who pushed for game management were hunters.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: BlueBee on December 22, 2014, 07:44:13 pm
So it was the hunters who pushed the save the spotted owl? 

Wow, I learn something new every day. 
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: iddee on December 22, 2014, 10:12:24 pm
 :stayontopic:

We are talking about game animals here. Start a new thread if you want to discuss predators.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: sawdstmakr on December 23, 2014, 01:38:51 am
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
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: sawdstmakr on December 23, 2014, 01:41:42 am
Sorry Iddee,
I read Blues post and immediately answered it.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on December 23, 2014, 10:52:23 am
>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.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Dallasbeek on January 13, 2015, 04:19:44 pm
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
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: beemaster on January 13, 2015, 06:54:44 pm
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.

Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: OldMech on January 13, 2015, 07:33:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Dallasbeek on March 12, 2015, 01:30:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Spyk on June 19, 2015, 11:04:08 pm
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Dallasbeek on June 20, 2015, 12:04:40 am
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
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Snowhitsky on June 20, 2015, 04:43:17 am
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:  https://vimeo.com/128373915

Regards,

Julian
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Dallasbeek on June 20, 2015, 12:02:43 pm
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
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: kathyp on June 20, 2015, 02:40:05 pm
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  :grin:
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Eric Bosworth on June 21, 2015, 10:15:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: NeilTheCop on July 25, 2015, 01:14:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Eric Bosworth on July 25, 2015, 02:09:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: NeilTheCop on July 25, 2015, 04:59:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Dallasbeek on July 25, 2015, 06:22:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Eric Bosworth on July 25, 2015, 08:53:43 pm
Now that Dallas is unconstitutional...
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: iddee on July 25, 2015, 09:29:31 pm
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


Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Eric Bosworth on July 26, 2015, 07:26:08 am
Un
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: NeilTheCop on July 26, 2015, 11:55:19 am
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.

It's not so much the taking away aspect more of the prohibited from owning a gun.
If the 2nd Amendment is a right then that right is inalienable, if someone, somewhere says you lose that right by being a felon, well it means it was never a right in the first place :oops:
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: beemaster on July 30, 2015, 06:46:33 pm
So now, Iddee (okay, seniors) are too old to possess firearms? Seems like that's what Obama is going for next, taking weapons from the people who most likely need them the most in home protection. Remove the threat of someone hurting themselves, or having a weapon strong-armed away are just two of this feeble minded president's ways to cut away at our Right to Arms: of course Obama's idea of the word RIGHT differs from anyone else's - even others on the extreme left.

I'm just curious, do we next add physically challenged adults, single mothers, registered Republicans, where does it stop - his gun banning rhetoric is no different than book banning, open the door and the house of cards fall. I saw at the Huff Post the other day there are now 31 Republican candidates and growing - if the people can't get behind one of them, we deserve Hillary.

Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on August 01, 2015, 12:24:20 pm
My Grandfather never harmed or threatened anyone with his guns.  But that's because they didn't try to take them away from him... if they had attempted it, that would have resulted in bloodshed, I'm afraid.  If they intent is to prevent bloodshed, trying to disarm old people is not the way to accomplish it...
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: NeilTheCop on August 03, 2015, 08:55:39 pm
"If guns cause crime, all of mine are defective."

Ted Nugent
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on August 04, 2015, 10:10:27 am
I suppose this is all being done in response to the recent outbreak of violence by people over 80.  I mean how many times does some demented 85 year old have to shoot someone before we act on this!!! ;)
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Dallasbeek on August 04, 2015, 10:21:48 am
Thank goodness I'm only 79!  I can keep my guns another year!  But I can keep my driver's license till I die. :cool:
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: NeilTheCop on August 04, 2015, 01:11:46 pm
I suppose this is all being done in response to the recent outbreak of violence by people over 80.  I mean how many times does some demented 85 year old have to shoot someone before we act on this!!! ;)

George Weller was 86 when he went crazy and drove his Buick through the Santa Monica street market, killing 10 and injuring 64.
But Buick's are still readily available even without a background check :shocked:
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on August 04, 2015, 04:39:21 pm
>But Buick's are still readily available even without a background check

He had a driver's license, so we know he was a safe driver...  It's a good thing we require a license...
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: NeilTheCop on August 05, 2015, 02:06:24 pm
And here in New Mexico we give anyone a drivers license, despite being unable to check their background.

http://www.ibtimes.com/amid-immigration-reform-debate-illegal-immigrant-drivers-licenses-law-new-mexico-1806012 (http://www.ibtimes.com/amid-immigration-reform-debate-illegal-immigrant-drivers-licenses-law-new-mexico-1806012)
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: kathyp on August 05, 2015, 08:48:45 pm
Here we do an automatic voter registration.  We are special.  For awhile, we had to show proof of legal residency.  SSN, or BC, green card, etc.  I couldn't even use my military ID.  had to go home and fine my BC.  The DMV emptied out when that was in place.  Now they have relaxed the rules again and anybody can get a licence. 
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Arnie on September 05, 2015, 10:04:44 pm
I love this! A beekeeping forum with a 2nd amendment sub-forum. Awesome!

For all you folks from other countries who don't understand why Americans love guns so much...........There's no need to understand. We're different, that's it.

If you guys/gals don't like guns,,,, fine.

For you Brits, here's a little read.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2012/8/23/the-hession-rifle/

Personally, I would rather have the choice to either own or not own guns. I like choices.

Now excuse me while I read about bees and hunt for the cigar and coffee sub-forums.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Dallasbeek on September 05, 2015, 11:37:21 pm
The article on the Hession rifle is awesome.  Thanks, Arnie.  What is your location? 

Gary ( NRA endowment member)
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: sawdstmakr on September 06, 2015, 06:15:41 am
Great article Arney, thanks for sharing.
Jim
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: OldMech on September 06, 2015, 10:59:09 am
I agree, thats a good article! TY For sharing that...

   IF... it were possible to remove ALL guns from the world, including those owned by police and government, I would be accepting of that..  However, it is not possible to "rid" the world of guns. It will ALWAYS be possible for a criminal to buy/steal or MAKE a firearm. Which means, there will always be the chance for me to be threatened by that firearm..    I already exceed the age of 50, and can no longer manage to stand toe to toe with my 27 year old son (who is an American soldier) and as the years pass, this will only become worse.
   My wife, is no longer the stunning vision of beauty she once was, but somehow, I have found that I love her more than I did when I married her. We are both falling to age and comfort, and as I said it will only get worse, and this is how it should be! Its called contentment... 
   The one thing I know, is that if my door is kicked in by one or more younglings in their 20's or 30's. I cannot grab my walking stick and drive them out..  Nor, would I want to take the risk that I could do it.. my wifes safety stands on the line, and for her? Yes, I will pick up my gun, and i will blow those younglings right back out the way they came in, and I will NOT regret it in the least..  I am not saying it will not effect me, hurt me, disturb me etc...  I am saying I will not now or ever take the chance/risk that they will harm her in order to get the safe opened so they can take my coins or money.   Why dont I use a bank?  Because our govt is printing money on an unprecedented scale, and we ARE going to lose the reserve currency status, and we are going to hit rock bottom fast..  what is in that safe mans I might be able to survive in some small measure of comfort until we start to rebound...  ANYHOW;
   It remains, that ALL guns cannot EVER, be removed, never, ever, ever, it is a physical impossibility.
   SO...  when the govt comes to take my guns, I will stand, and die with those resisting them..
   IF.... they manage to do it sneaky like, and take the few guns I have.. the very next day I will be standing in front of my lathe and milling machines replacing at least one of those firearms..  I will ALWAYS BE ARMED. And protecting the old gal I married, along with the things we need to continue to LIVE, means I am willing to face the repercussions, if I do have to use that firearm.
   I would rather be dead, than be helpless while someone hurt the woman I love.
   "My woman? Well, she can shoot near as good as I can. I am betting she will be standing right beside me. Shes a tough old bird, and God help me, but I do love every wrinkle on her old skin.

   MY RIGHT to bear arms Shall not be infringed.  If it ever is? Then those removing them are NOT AMERICANS and need to be removed, however is fastest.  I will even state flat out, if you want guns removed, then YOU need to leave this country, or I will be one of those putting you on the boat and waving with the statue of Liberty as you sail away...
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: kathyp on September 06, 2015, 12:11:49 pm
IF... it were possible to remove ALL guns from the world, including those owned by police and government

eh...IDK.  If someone is coming at me with a knife, I'd still rather have a gun  ;-)
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on September 06, 2015, 02:52:24 pm
Funny how often survey's on gun control are based on indirectly hypothetical questions.  I've seen several that went something like "Would you be in favor of gun control to reduce crime."  This infer's of course that gun control will reduce crime.  "Would you be willing to give up your rights to help keep America safe from Terrorists?"  Another assumption.  Sometimes they even make it a directly hypothetical question such as "If gun control would reduce crime would you be in favor of it?"
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: iddee on September 06, 2015, 09:17:21 pm
 My answer would be, "Would you agree to ALL adults carrying guns if it meant criminals being afraid to attack anyone?"
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: OldMech on September 06, 2015, 11:14:36 pm
My answer would be, "Would you agree to ALL adults carrying guns if it meant criminals being afraid to attack anyone?"

   LOL I would!  Most violent crimes would end violently, and that in itself would be a fantastic deterrent.

   A local radio jockey was making fun of an establishment that served FOOD and sold guns.
   He stated on the air..  "Oh, yeah, I would feel REAL safe while I ate there."
   They received so MANY angry comments, that this fellow was sent to the place being spoken of to speak with the owner.
   He only had to say One short sentence, if he was brave enough.
   He walked in, looked around, at the armed patrons, and walked back out without saying anything...
   The sentence he was supposed to say when he walked in?


    "This is a Stick up!"
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: sawdstmakr on September 07, 2015, 12:23:04 am
Same thing that happens when some idiot tries to hold up a cop bar.
 :shocked:
Jim
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Dallasbeek on September 07, 2015, 01:03:03 am
Any of you ever been in a cop bar?  Safest place I've ever been.  Everybody's armed.  Everybody's cool with everybody being armed.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on September 07, 2015, 01:43:14 pm
Ever been in a restaurant in Wyoming?  Everyone's armed.  Everyone's cool with everyone being armed.  The sign at the bank says "please check your guns with the guard and remove your ski mask before entering.  Most bars there is a fist fight every friday night.  Everyone has a gun.  No one gets shot.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: GSF on December 13, 2015, 08:39:31 pm
I got to where recently I started conceal carry'n at church. Just started getting a "sitting duck" feeling so I thought I'd keep our bunch a little more safe.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: MikeF on May 08, 2016, 01:47:12 pm
Bees and 2A in one forum! I love this place! 
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on May 08, 2016, 07:33:03 pm
I was in Alaska a few months ago and the restaurant where we ate had a sign saying people with guns were welcome and asking them not to pull them out unless there was a really good reason.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: sawdstmakr on May 09, 2016, 12:30:07 pm
Now that  is a real American restaurant.  :grin:
Jim
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Steves Bees on December 03, 2017, 07:04:22 am
States and the Feds. have been usurping the Constitution for many years. NJ's restrictions on being able to legally obtain a constitutional right is just another form of our governments heave handed powers over those who they swore to protect.  Now with that said, I must add that I can not understand why a civilian needs a functioning auto-weapon for hunting or target practice.

It's not needed for hunting or target practice. It is needed for taking our Country back from an out of control tyranny such as we have now, and have had for the last few decades, that is only getting worse with each passing day. Are we supposed to do that with flintlocks? The men who wrote the Constitution just fought a war against the world's superpower at the time to free themselves from it's tyranny. Do you really think they were thinking about "hunting and target practice" when they wrote the second amendment?
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: sawdstmakr on December 03, 2017, 07:17:34 am
They also had a few cannons hidden away to fight with. Since we didn't have any Willy mammoth to hunt, they didn't keep them for hunting. Cannons were the most advanced weapon at the time.
Jim
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: kathyp on December 03, 2017, 12:29:11 pm
Quote
Bees and 2A in one forum! I love this place!

Lol.  This keeps us from arguing non-bee stuff in the beekeeping forum.  Beemaster was wise.  Other sites did not do the same and are full of non-beekeeping crap.  Those of us who can't keep our mouths shut on social issues are saved from being booted by having forums to vent and the people who don't want to participate are saved from us  :wink:
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Michael Bush on December 04, 2017, 03:33:33 pm
The local bar in Nehawka now has a sign that says "Legal concealed carry welcome" inside a green circle.

It looks pretty much like this:
https://www.mysecuritysign.com/guns-are-welcome-on-premises-sign/sku-s-6119?engine=googlebase&keyword=&skuid=S-6119-EU-05&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhfPpvozx1wIVBMRkCh3DoQquEAQYASABEgJEufD_BwE
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: sawdstmakr on December 06, 2017, 10:04:56 am
I may just have to get one of them for my place.
 :cheesy:
Jim
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: siskosdad on October 27, 2018, 11:14:12 pm
I know that I am coming to this thread a bit late in the game but this is a topic in which I have a great interest.  I own a few guns and enjoy shooting them.  I have a concealed carry permit and, in general, carry daily.

I suspect that I will never have to use my EDC pistol (a Sig-Sauer P-238) to defend myself as I try to avoid those places where the use of a gun is likely.  I have a 20 gauge in my bedroom in the event that someone decides that my house is their house.  Again, I suspect that I will never have to use it but I want it in place just in case.

I get it that some persons should not own guns; the mentally unstable, person who have committed crimes, and juveniles, for example.  I have no problem whatever with the idea of background checks for anyone wanting to purchase a gun but with the caveat that the background check cannot take more than 90 days.

I know that guns can be used to kill people but so can many other things.  The method of killing is not the question; a person's morality is.    Persons who want to use a gun to kill others will find a way to get one.  Absent a gun, a person who is intent on taking a life will find some means of doing that whether it be by knife, baseball bat,  car, or cast iron frying pan.  The taking of a life by any means, other than in response to an act of war, is reprehensible and should be met with swift, concise justice.

All that said, I have to come down on the side of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  I enjoy the shooting sports and the ability to keep and bear arms.  I carry where it is legal to do so and don't where it is not.    My thought is that, if you want a gun, have one; if you don't want a gun, don't.  Just be sure to not foist your beliefs on others.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: kathyp on November 11, 2018, 12:23:47 pm
Quote
I know that I am coming to this thread a bit late in the game but this is a topic in which I have a great interest.

never too late.

yesterday I was reading an article that claimed the new Congress had gun control high on its list of things to do.  This is something we all need to keep an eye on.

Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: Dallasbeek on November 11, 2018, 02:47:06 pm
Fortunately, the Nancy Pelosi side of Congress won't be able to push its antigun agenda through without the Senate and Trump going along.  Gridlock may not be too bad.
Title: Re: Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room
Post by: sawdstmakr on November 11, 2018, 07:31:14 pm
I agree Dallas.
Jim