PDA

View Full Version : Why we need gun control



csuppelsa
12-24-2006, 03:39 AM
as much as I hate the idea

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1519758545

Amazing how dumb people are eh?

marcaverill
12-24-2006, 06:04 AM
Stupid people shouldn't breed, it results in stupid things like this. My father never locked his guns, they hung on the wall and I was taught not to touch them without him and never did. Had I (or my brothers) done so, it wouldn't have been pretty.

Ohioreb1861
12-24-2006, 08:44 AM
Probably a good thing he didn't kill anyone, hopefully. We don't really need gun control, we need parents to take control of their kids. We also need better criminal control. Look at Germany, Austrailia and England, they decided that guns were bad and took them away then crime went up, how is that??? defenseless citizens. Ya, we need gun control, Hitler thought it was a good idea too and I think Castro did too; look at the history of those countries.

Get the idea, if the guns are gone, crime goes up, the Law Enforcement agencies can't be everywhere at once. We just need to control the idiots, stiffer penalties. Make aggrivated stupitity a law:D


Sorry, I won't get on my soapbox like that again.

sbl
12-24-2006, 09:19 AM
It's not that WE need gun control, it's that THEY need gun control.

The ONION had a gag story: "Fun Toy Banned Because of Three Stupid Dead Kids."


http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28331

MtVernon
12-24-2006, 09:35 AM
I'm happy to see that a few of you gentlemen beat me to punch. The day this forum, en masse, supports gun control is the day I cease to be a member. If the fine folk on this (and other similar) forum(fora) cannot make simple distinctions, i.e. 'it's not the tool but the man using the tool', then we're all in real trouble.

MtVernon
12-24-2006, 09:36 AM
It's not that WE need gun control, it's that THEY need gun control.

The ONION had a gag story: "Fun Toy Banned Because of Three Stupid Dead Kids."


http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28331

...one of my favorites!

John1862
12-24-2006, 10:06 AM
as much as I hate the idea

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1519758545

Amazing how dumb people are eh?

Looks pretty fake to me...

sbl
12-24-2006, 11:38 AM
J.C.,

I have a theory that our forefathers kept the muskets away from the village idiots during the well regulated militia musters. (made them drummers?;-))

The idiots probably couldn't afford their own fire arms anyway back then or get into grand dad's liquor and arms.

csuppelsa
12-24-2006, 01:04 PM
Just for the record

When I say gun control I do not mean any legislation, but rather just using
common sense and putting them in a safe or using a trigger lock.

Kimmel
12-24-2006, 01:05 PM
It's not that WE need gun control, it's that THEY need gun control.

The ONION had a gag story: "Fun Toy Banned Because of Three Stupid Dead Kids."


http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28331

Thats funny! :-) .... I actually have the only guns in my household and I'm the teenager!! But they are always stowed away when the nieces and nephews come over. Just shows that at least one teenager isn't a total idiot!! :-)

Ohioreb1861
12-24-2006, 01:13 PM
It's not that WE need gun control, it's that THEY need gun control.

The ONION had a gag story: "Fun Toy Banned Because of Three Stupid Dead Kids."


http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28331


Wow, I can't come up with anything else to say, except where were the parents?

FranklinGuardsNYSM
12-24-2006, 01:16 PM
Looks pretty fake to me...

I've got to agree with John. This isn't real...no muzzle flash, and a perfectly mixed generic Hollywood gunshot sound effect. A chinsy home video would not record a close-range, indoor shot like that.

Radar
12-24-2006, 01:44 PM
hitting your target. What we need is more stupid laws. Hillary and the guncontrol freaks can't/won't enforce what's on the books now, why in the &^%^$ have more?

AZReenactor
12-24-2006, 01:49 PM
Stupid people shouldn't breed, it results in stupid things like this. My father never locked his guns, they hung on the wall and I was taught not to touch them without him and never did. Had I (or my brothers) done so, it wouldn't have been pretty.

Amen, a little gun safty instruction isn't a bad idea either. That fool should be old enough to know how to check to see if a gun is unlaoded as well as knowing what chambering a round does.

TheBaldYankee
12-24-2006, 02:42 PM
I agree that the video looks faked. I'm no gun expert but I would think if it actually went off it would've sounded different. That being said, that kid had no business messing around with that gun. When will some of these stupid parents learn? And a kid of that age should no better. If a parent owns a gun, it's their pesponsability to educate thier children about that weapon.

sbl
12-24-2006, 03:16 PM
hitting your target. What we need is more stupid laws. Hillary and the guncontrol freaks can't/won't enforce what's on the books now, why in the &^%^$ have more?


...don't go there. That's not what this thread is about.

Do you know what this is a picture of?

http://www.toysoldierco.com/images/Full/NR155.jpg

MStuart
12-24-2006, 04:13 PM
...don't go there. That's not what this thread is about.

Do you know what this is a picture of?

http://www.toysoldierco.com/images/Full/NR155.jpg

**** Cheney's last hunting trip?

Mark

Sorry, I had to

Holy Cow! There's a filter.....it wouldn't spell ****

31stWisconsin
12-24-2006, 04:16 PM
We had a discussion about this video on another forum dedicated to firearms and decided 100% that this is a fake video, for the reasons stated above. The kid probably thought it would be cool for everyone to think he's an idiot.

MStuart
12-24-2006, 04:18 PM
The kid probably thought it would be cool for everyone to think he's an idiot.

If he's successful in one thing in life, it'll be that.

Mark

sbl
12-24-2006, 04:39 PM
Close..it's the vice presidential playset. It's from the New Ray American Hunters series, mistresses not included.

Rob Weaver
12-24-2006, 05:53 PM
Talk to any English reenactor about buying powder or carrying arms, and your support for gun control will wilt like a summer dandilion. I believe every gun accident is preventable. Every stupid thing I've ever done with a gun was in violation of good handling practices I had been taught. If you read this carefully, I guess what I'm advocating is responsibility.

flattop32355
12-24-2006, 07:04 PM
If you read this carefully, I guess what I'm advocating is responsibility.

Funny how it always seems to come down that, doesn't it. ;)

tompritchett
12-24-2006, 07:28 PM
And a kid of that age should no better. If a parent owns a gun, it's their pesponsability to educate thier children about that weapon.

Unfortunately, in some cities, kids much younger than that know far more about semi-automatic and automatic weapons than many of us here.

tompritchett
12-24-2006, 07:32 PM
If you read this carefully, I guess what I'm advocating is responsibility.

Personal responsibility - a concept that it seems is becoming more and more foreign in our society today.

MStuart
12-24-2006, 08:27 PM
Unfortunately, in some cities, kids much younger than that know far more about semi-automatic and automatic weapons than many of us here.

Sadly, that statement is very true.

Mark

Ohioreb1861
12-24-2006, 10:54 PM
Personal responsibility - a concept that it seems is becoming more and more foreign in our society today.

Tom,

I believe you have a point. I think Parental control is another foreign word as well.

Rob Weaver
12-25-2006, 07:08 AM
Wasn't it Franklin who said something like "Those who desire both liberty and security deserve neither."?

Sgt_Pepper
12-25-2006, 07:24 AM
The video is an obvious fake to anyone familiar with firearms.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - This statement was first used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759), published by Benjamin Franklin, who probably wrote the motto.

Fenian
12-25-2006, 11:35 AM
Two are my brothers are Police officers(both Det/LT's)Thus theprescence of guns beyond my muskets and hunting weapons was very real in my household.We were not taught to be afarid of guns but to respect them. My dad a WW2 Infantry Officer would have tolerated no shenigans so ther were none.We have weapons dating back to my GGgrandfather's musket(9th NJVI) and consider them family hierlooms.No apologies,no rationalizations just responsibilty and they are less dangerous than your car! Bud Scully 13th NJ and 69th NY:)

tompritchett
12-25-2006, 11:54 AM
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - This statement was first used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759), published by Benjamin Franklin, who probably wrote the motto.

Today, apt to much more than gun control.

Fenian
12-25-2006, 01:09 PM
Amen! Bud Scully 13th NJ and 69th Ny

TheBaldYankee
12-25-2006, 04:26 PM
We were not taught to be afarid of guns but to respect them.
BINGO! That kid in the video is showing niether fear nor respect. Even though it's fake, that kid is still extremeley stupid. I'm not for more gun control either. I'm for better parenting.

Gregg Hensley
12-25-2006, 09:30 PM
It's obvious that the video is fake. What also is obvious is that the kid hasn't been taught firearm safety or responsibility. My Pop would have kicked my rear for a stunt like that, provided one of my grandfathers didn't beat him to the punch.

In the last month 2 hunters have died in my county from gunshot wounds inflicted by hunting companions. Both victims were NOT wearing blaze orange clothing, which is required in N.C. A $5 orange hat would possibly have saved their lives. Hunter safety training would have taught their friends to never shoot until you positively identify your target. It is a requirement in N.C. to show your "graduation" certificate from a hunter safety course to get a hunting license. Neither of the men who fired the fatal shots had a valid license. That had a significant impact on the D.A.'s decision to pursue voluntary manslaughter charges against both. Oh yeah, one shooter is an illegal alien.

I grew up around rifles and shotguns. ALL the men in my family hunted, and they hunted most game. When the boys started acting like they wanted to join the hunt (at around 10 yrs. old), the men took them along and showed them how to load, handle and fire a rifle safely. It was just part of the way we were taught to be men. It kinda went along with how to cut wood without cutting yourself.

My home has several weapons in it. The only one that isn't loaded is my musket. I have a 9 yr. old son who has been around weapons from day 1. He understands that it will be some time before he can fire them and he understands that he is never to handle them. I have strong feelings about an unloaded weapon being a useless one in the case of a home invasion situation. Gun control starts with proper instruction, and without that you have no control.

One angle of this issue that worries me is that there are reenactors out there who have no more knowledge of gun safety than the kid in the video. I have a man in my unit whose first experience firing a weapon was an Enfield. We have worked him hard and feel that he is a safe soldier now. I wonder how many less than quality units pay too little attention to what is the most important aspect of this hobby?


Gregg Hensley
2nd Sgt. Company K, 22nd N.C. State Troops
The McDowell Boys

reb64
12-27-2006, 03:03 AM
as much as I hate the idea

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1519758545

Amazing how dumb people are eh?



Your video made me do a search. I typed in "bikinis" and "guns" on you tube and their are lots of videos with persuavive arguments for less gun control.

Rob Weaver
12-27-2006, 08:01 AM
One angle of this issue that worries me is that there are reenactors out there who have no more knowledge of gun safety than the kid in the video. I have a man in my unit whose first experience firing a weapon was an Enfield. We have worked him hard and feel that he is a safe soldier now. I wonder how many less than quality units pay too little attention to what is the most important aspect of this hobby?

This is a very good point. We have reenactors who have never handled a "real gun" before, and may never handle one apart from reenacting, and families who are irrationally scared of guns. They have been subtly conditioned to equate guns with immenent danger. It takes a lot of re-training to get beyond that mindset. I think there can be no higher priority for reenactors than gun safety - to include authenticity. (I believe the safest way to handle a gun is also the authentic one, but that's another thread.) Remember, the guns we play with are obsolete; they are not ineffective.

TheSignalCorpsGuy
12-27-2006, 08:48 AM
Rob,

RE the "MINDSET" of guns in America.

I was raised with hunting and gun handling from a very young age. RESPECT is the key for guns!

In the military I never had guns in my house due to the lack of money for them and the lack of time between family and work to USE them.

When I started reenacting I purchased an Enfield Rifle for Infantry and after a few months a Pistol for my Signal Corps impression.

My wife was NOT raised with guns and feared them - and what the kids would do with them. Most of that fear was due to lack of understanding of period firearms.

My guns are NOT locked up - however the projectiles are. The powder is very well hidden and the caps are in a different place. Of corse this makes things difficult finding all of them in the spring but you know the deal....... (oh - and I never bring projectiles to events other than ONE for display)

My sons and I took my wife to the firing range and I showed her how to load the pistol which she was MOST afraid of. After taking the 5 or so mins to load it and show her how it was loaded she was convinced that it was MUCH safer than a modern pistol that pretty much anybody could load. The rifle was easier to load - but still pretty difficult in comparison to modern weapons.

I enjoy guns - but kids and guns are a bad mix when left unsupervised. As I said - I dont lock up my guns - I lock my projectiles and hide in 2 places the powder and caps to make them shoot.


Well - just my 2 cents........

MStuart
12-27-2006, 09:30 AM
I know a guy who has a pistol in every room of his house "just in case". In case of what, I'm not sure, but I've washed my truck a hundred times without one and, except for the odd bird having target practice, never had a problem. Who knew?

Mark

Rob Weaver
12-27-2006, 05:02 PM
John:
It took my wife a long time to get used to the concept of a house full of guns, too. When we had children (3 of 'em) she was concerned about what they would do. Well, our oldest hunts with me, and drags a pistol around on her hip when reenacting. Our middle child displays no interest in them whatsoever, and the baby ... well, he got his first cowboy playset for Christmas. I can't get him to do right shoulder shift correctly, though. Maybe it's easier when you stop crawling. :D

MtVernon
12-27-2006, 05:32 PM
...don't go there. That's not what this thread is about.

A quick opinion and comment:

1. The quote you're commenting on was in keeping with the thread and topic, however strongly worded it may have been and/or however much you may disagree with the sentiments expressed.

2. Congratulations on becoming a moderator. Apparently your profile needs to be updated.

MtVernon
12-27-2006, 05:35 PM
mistresses not included.

Don't believe everything the Huffington post tells you.

sbl
12-27-2006, 06:01 PM
Mounty,

Most likely Pamela Willeford was the shooter and the VP was being chivalrous. But that's off topic.;)

Sgt_Pepper
12-27-2006, 07:31 PM
A quick opinion and comment:

1. The quote you're commenting on was in keeping with the thread and topic, however strongly worded it may have been and/or however much you may disagree with the sentiments expressed.

2. Congratulations on becoming a moderator. Apparently your profile needs to be updated.

:) :cool: Well said, sir.

bob 125th nysvi
01-04-2007, 12:12 PM
my very intelligent (going to George Washington to study International Relations INSTEAD of bio-engineering) and very liberal neice and I had this same discussion around the table after the meal (I cook she was helping me clean up).

She was aspousing gun control (actually banning) because that's what she had been taught in school and at home.

I took the ole .44 out of the cabinet (unloaded) and placed it on the table. I then asked her how many people that gun was going to hurt by itself. She thought for a moment and then said none.

I then asked her if I loaded the gun put it back on the table and no one touched it whom would it hurt. She thought again for a moment and then replied none.

I then asked her if she picked up the gun pointed it at me and pulled the trigger whom would the gun kill and what was the variable.

She thought for a moment and then said it was people not the gun that was the problem.

I congratulated her on her logical deduction and then casually mentioned that according to the AMA as many as 44,000 people die in the US annually from medical mistakes. 3 times as many as injured with guns. That 17,000 people die annually from drunk driving incidents.

Did any of her teachers advocate banning doctors, cars or alcohol?

Its people people people that cause the problem and until society learns to make people RESPONSIBLE for their actions it ain't going to change.

And some idiot will still advocate government imposed restrictions as the solution.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

flattop32355
01-04-2007, 01:34 PM
People will do stupid things, with or without guns, that endanger themselves and/or others. That's a given; always was, always will be.

You can argue that guns kill people. You can argue that people kill people. You can even argue that people with guns kill people.

In the end, most folks have to admit that guns, especially handguns, are the weapon of choice for killing other people in this country. Easy to carry and use. Just point and shoot. Banning them only works for honest people; the criminals and those committing crimes of passion would still figure out a way to get one.

Since they aren't going to go away, the best way to deal with it may be to train folks to respect them and understand their function, if not how to use them. Removing them from view only increases the "romance" and mystery of them.

hanktrent
01-04-2007, 02:53 PM
Did any of her teachers advocate banning doctors, cars or alcohol?

I wonder what people in the 1860s would think if they had to reach a certain age, pass a test and get a license before they could drive a buggy?

We know how they felt about regulating doctors. Many doctors were fighting for it, but plenty of people were fighting against it.

Alcohol regulation (Maine Laws) were common in the 1860s, but recreational drugs and medicines were for sale to all.

We've become so used to legal restrictions on many things, that it's hard to envision life without them.


Its people people people that cause the problem and until society learns to make people RESPONSIBLE for their actions it ain't going to change.

I wonder if the world is a better or worse place thanks to our current restrictions and regulations? I can see some advantages and some disadvantages.

Suppose drinking, driving and drug use (separately or together) at anytime by anyone were perfectly legal, but penalties were harsh and mandatory for any negative consequences? Better or worse? Not sure, myself. That's the parallel or having gun ownership unrestricted for all, but trying to make people responsible for the negative consequences.

Hank Trent
hankternt@voyager.net

Frenchie
01-04-2007, 03:05 PM
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his actions with his life." -- Robert A. Heinlein

http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/armed.html

http://www.onsyd.com/~alsobrsp/pages/paper2.htm

Malingerer
01-04-2007, 03:12 PM
The second amendment is conspicuously ambiguous about the limitations to placed on the citizens with regard to ownership of arms. Common sense tells us that the ownership of nuclear weapons or chemical weapons by private citizens is a bad idea yet the constitution does not specifically prohibit them (yes, I know that they were not available to the framers of the constitution). So, most of us would therefore agree to SOME sort of limitations - the question then becomes HOW MUCH of a limitation. Using straw men like Hillary Clinton to bolster an argument does little to advance reasonable discourse among reasonable men. Both sides have very valid points: Liberals point out that gun violence in the US is absurdly high compared to other western nations; Conservatives contend that gun ownership by responsible citizens should not be abridged due to the actions of a few bad actors. In the end, I think it is incumbant upon us, as reenactors to model responsible gun ownership and use so that our access is not further limited.

Peter Julius
Bryson City, NC

Frenchie
01-04-2007, 03:40 PM
The second amendment is conspicuously ambiguous about the limitations to placed on the citizens with regard to ownership of arms.

What's ambiguous about "... the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."?


Common sense tells us that the ownership of nuclear weapons or chemical weapons by private citizens is a bad idea yet the constitution does not specifically prohibit them (yes, I know that they were not available to the framers of the constitution).

Bingo! Common sense! The framers expected us to use it, not throw it out the window and decide everything based on emotion, ignorance and fear.


So, most of us would therefore agree to SOME sort of limitations - the question then becomes HOW MUCH of a limitation. Using straw men like Hillary Clinton to bolster an argument does little to advance reasonable discourse among reasonable men.

Common sense tells us that immature people (of any age), incompetents and criminals should not have access to arms. At the least they should be closely monitored and severely punished for infractions.


Both sides have very valid points: Liberals point out that gun violence in the US is absurdly high compared to other western nations;

Not true. Gun violence in certain places among certain groups is absurdly high, and they are distinctly in the minority. Take them out of the picture and the USA is among the most peaceful of all developed nations. The problem isn't guns, it's people. The liberals know that solving people problems is hard, so they choose the easy path and demand that the guns be banned. Of course, we know where the road paved with easily done good intentions leads, right?


Conservatives contend that gun ownership by responsible citizens should not be abridged due to the actions of a few bad actors. In the end, I think it is incumbent upon us, as reenactors to model responsible gun ownership and use so that our access is not further limited.

Agreed, and further we need to act to maintain our freedom and roll back the silly, evil, racist and un-Constitutional restrictions now on the books.

sbl
01-04-2007, 05:12 PM
[QUOTE=Frenchie]"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his actions with his life." -- Robert A. Heinlein

But Frenchie, Heinlein was a sci-fi writer...

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
- Monroe-Alpha in “Beyond This Horizon“ by Robert A. Heinlein

Maybe Monroe-Alpha was the jerk in the story.

MStuart
01-04-2007, 05:32 PM
Food for thought:

Guns are for only one purpose. The firearm was "invented" to do what?

Mark

Frenchie
01-04-2007, 05:50 PM
But Frenchie, Heinlein was a sci-fi writer...

Maybe Monroe-Alpha was the jerk in the story.

As if I didn't know any of these things. Writers have brains too, you know. So do I.

Dismissing a statement based on who said it is a logical fallacy known as ad hominum. It's easy to do because it requires no work to counter the point, it simply appeals to the emotions. Mao said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. He was right. That he was also a totalitarian butcher doesn't make the statement wrong.

Frenchie
01-04-2007, 05:53 PM
Food for thought:

Guns are for only one purpose. The firearm was "invented" to do what?

Mark

I've been arguing against gun control for almost three decades now. This is a blind alley. A gun is an artifact, a made thing. It isn't alive, let alone sentient. The man holding the gun determines its purpose.

MStuart
01-04-2007, 06:17 PM
The man holding the gun determines its purpose.

Yes, the man does. Guns don't think, man does. A gun would sit and rust away if left unattended. But, if you could see, first hand, what the plethora of guns on the street do (albeit in the wrong hands), you might rethink, just a little, some of the "bad" gun laws out there. Suburban, law abiding gun owners, see the effects of gun misuse for 30 seconds per bit on the nightly news, then get p-o'd when legislation is brought forward that inconveniences them when they want to go out and get that firearm "right now" and provide some I'D to get it.

I see what misudes guns do to people every freakin' day, and it ain't pretty. So, from one veteran street cop, some of those "racist and unconstitutional" rules ain't so bad. Ride with me for a month, you just might change your mind.

You ask the little old lady that lives in the ghetto, who can't go outside and manicure her 10'x12' lawn because of the guns on the street, what she thinks of guns, and she'll tell you that she wishes they were all gone. You go out to Nebraska, and Jed the rancher will tell you that the government will have to pry his guns from his cold, dead hands. Who's right? Who's wrong here?

Further, there's a whole slew of us "responsible" gun owners who are very responsible for guns being out on the street. Why, because Mr. Responsible, law-abiding gun owner doesn't lock them up when he leaves the house. Hence, his house is burglarized, and the burglar has hit paydirt because now he's got some big cash from the gun/s he's stolen. Or, Mr. Idiot law-abiding gun owner leaves his gun in the car or truck, and when that is broken into, there's more guns on the street. This kinda stuff happens more than you'd think.

There's no easy answer to "gun control" and the subject, as here, can be polarizing and heated. I don't have the answers, but I know the numbers of guns "out there" is cause for concern, at least in my world.

Mark

sbl
01-04-2007, 06:31 PM
As if I didn't know any of these things. Writers have brains too, you know. So do I.

OK..

"Dismissing a statement based on who said it is a logical fallacy known as ad hominum. It's easy to do because it requires no work to counter the point, it simply appeals to the emotions."

Yes Frenchie, I do go in for the cheap funny shot. But I did look up this quote on Google and I was surprised at the source. It could have been worst and been from Ayn Rand.

"Mao said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. He was right. That he was also a totalitarian butcher doesn't make the statement wrong.

But Frenchie, I'm not going to validate Mao or Heinlein's charector's philosophy by basing my life on these simplistic "truths."

What friggin' hope is there if Americans back up their freedoms with bumper sticker sayings or justify accepting horror by quoting monsters.

tompritchett
01-04-2007, 06:31 PM
I see what misudes guns do to people every freakin' day, and it ain't pretty. So, from one veteran street cop, some of those "racist and unconstitutional" rules ain't so bad. Ride with me for a month, you just might change your mind.

Mark, I can remember about 10 - 20 years ago when the statistics were that the majority of handgun murders were performed by people who knew or even were friends of the victim - often as the result of fits of rage. Is that still true today or has the randomn gang violence swamped these types of killings?

MStuart
01-04-2007, 06:41 PM
Mark, I can remember about 10 - 20 years ago when the statistics were that the majority of handgun murders were performed by people who knew or even were friends of the victim - often as the result of fits of rage. Is that still true today or has the randomn gang violence swamped these types of killings?

Tom:

I certainly don't have any stats handy to back this up, but I'll throw in my 2 cents from "experience". For the most part, those murdered do know their killers. Domestic violence, neighborhood disputes, even in drug and gang related killings, the victims know the murderer. Rival gangs have a darned good intelligence network, better than the police, I'd submit. The true "whodunit" murder is in the minority and many of these stem from a crime of opportunity, i.e carjackings, robberies, etc. Leaving out serial killers and such, who are in, despite the press they get, a very small minority.

Getting off-track, alcohol related issues constitute about 40% of police calls. I know this from promotional exams and the books we were required to read.

Mark

Trooper Graham
01-04-2007, 07:07 PM
five minutes ago on the STL news the 59 year old mother murdered on her doorstep five days ago was by her son, his girlfriend and a friend for inheritance money.

Gang driveby shootings and reprisals against gang members and their family still dominate the murder by guns method.

MStuart
01-04-2007, 07:33 PM
It seems to me that back eons ago, when Sam, Tom, me, and a few others were walking to school 10 miles uphill both ways, when you had a beef with another guy, the two of you duked it out and that was it. Nowadays, to be disrespected in front of one's peers requires a response with a gun. Case in point may be the shooting of the Denver Bronco's player. One among many.

Mark

Trooper Graham
01-04-2007, 07:48 PM
It seems to me that back eons ago, when Sam, Tom, me, and a few others were walking to school 10 miles uphill both ways, when you had a beef with another guy, the two of you duked it out and that was it. Nowadays, to be disrespected in front of one's peers requires a response with a gun. Case in point may be the shooting of the Denver Bronco's player. One among many.

Mark

Sorry Mark, I rode the family mule to school and then on past it down to the fishin hole. Edgamacation came later for me.

Frenchie
01-04-2007, 07:56 PM
Well, this is turning into the usual chaotic mess that gun control discussions always become. Too much misinformation to deal with. I'll leave with these:

History knows no instance where a population was disarmed and was not decimated by genocide in less than a generation. Think about that the next time you want to say, "Let's just get rid of all the guns."

You want to get rid of guns? Fine, go ahead; muster the votes, get the Second Amendment repealed, survive the ensuing civil war - and you still won't be able to get rid of guns.

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder

MStuart
01-04-2007, 08:05 PM
Frenchie:

I'm sure I never said we need to get rid of them. I spoke from experience in my profession. One where I HAVE to have a firearm. "Misinformation"? Hardly. I don't know the answer....but I know the questions. I do find it kind of odd that, for someone who's dealt with and carried firearms for a profession since age 17, I don't really care that much for them. I guess it's because I see what they do....in the wrong hands.

Mark

toptimlrd
01-04-2007, 09:15 PM
I understand where Frenchie is coming from when he quotes that an armed society is a polite society. I wonder how many of these thugs would be so brazen if more people were carrying firearms as well. Think about it if you are going to rob someone would you rather A) rob an unarmed person with no way to defend themselves or B) rob someone who you think might be carrying a .357 and know how to use it?

I admire the police and the difficult job they do, and most of the friends I have who are officers agree that firearms are not the problem. Can someone please tell me one law on the books or suggested that would deter someone who by definition is a criminal? Or can anyone point to any law on the books that have reduced gun crimes anywhere? Actually I can answer that one there is one city in the 1980s that added a gun law to their books that did reduce crime; Kennesaw Georgia passed a nonbinding law that every home was to possess a firearm and crime went down. I don't have the specifics, but I would dare say that many if not most crimes committed with firearms are done so by people who are already legally illegible to have said firearms.

I also recall that when my home state of Florida made it easier to defend one's self and those around them, all the gun control advocates predicted it was going to be like the wild west (also a mythos) but is simply didn't happen. There are billboards put up by gun control advocates that state "Tourists beware, Florida residents can use lethal force" to which I say yes, thank goodness. It really should read "Criminals beware" since the only way we can use lethal force in in a defensive position.

Now the straw man was raised about the law abiding gun owner who doesn't lock up his guns and is broken into adding to the number of guns in the wrong hands. Does anyone really believe that if someone broke in to a house, they wouldn't break into wherever the gun was "locked away" at or steal whatever it is locked in. I have a firearm loaded and ready in my house, to me if a firearm is unloaded, has a trigger lock, and is itself locked away, what kind of protection does it provide? I was broken into once and it took the crook less than 10 seconds to get through my door (unfortunately I wasn't home or this would have been the deceased crook) as it was determined it only took two or three kicks before he was through my reinforced lock plate steel door. Fortunately something scared him off before he got through the second locked door but not before he did hundreds of dollars worth of damage to that door and took off with about $1000 worth of stuff I had in that entry room. If I or my wife had been home and had to go through the process of getting the weapon out of its locked whatever, removing the trigger lock, retrieving the ammuniton, loading it, etc. we would probably be dead if the perp also was carrying. Do not blame the owner if he or she has property stolen (an illegal act) by a criminal by definition for a crime that criminal commits with that stolen property. To say that a gun being stolen from a legal owner is partially that owner's fault is like saying that a car that is stolen in a car jacking and ultimately is in an accident killing an innocent person is partially the original owners fault because they didn't have their door locked.

Now understand that if the weapon is left at home unattended, I do place it in a small fire safe, but it would be real easy to walk off wih that small safe and drill the lock out later. Locks simply keep honest people honest. Yes we need to try to keep as many weapons out of the hands of the criminals as possible and yes I believe your right to own a firearm can be revoked based on criminal activity, but we keep passing laws whose only effect is to inconvenience people who are law abiding. By the way the reason I keep it in that safe is not to keep it out of anyone's hands, but to protect the neighbors and emergency crews if a fire were to break out and the rounds discharge

Now how do we control violent crime? Build more prisons, do away with parole, do away with early release, make a "life sentence" a life sentence (i.e. you get out when you are dead), go back to hard labor while in prison, allow people to defend themselves and their property without having to jump through the "was your life threatened" hoop, basically put the animals in cages where they belong.

Now what this has to do with the hobby I surely do not know and to the mods I apologize for this rant that has absolutely nothing to do with Civil War reenacting even though this is the whine cellar. I tried to stay out of this hunt but the framework of any constitutional right is always a hot button for me (had to get some historical perspective in here somehow). Now can we get back to a more appropriate topic? I will fully understand if this post is deleted along with most of this thread.

MStuart
01-04-2007, 09:45 PM
Robert:

Continuing our rants:

You misread my post. I could care less if anyone sleeps with a mountain howitzer under their pillow. If you're in your house, your guns are "secure" for the most part. But, if someone leaves his/her house, and does not secure their weapons (meaning not attempting to secret them in a safe and by securing a firing mechanism) they are an idiot and as reckless as those breaking in. They are not a responsible gun owner. Leaving it unsecured in a home is the same as in a vehicle. It's irresponsible and looking for trouble.

FWIW, the "common" burglar in an urban environment relies on speed. Quick in, quick out and they'll take things that are easy to walk away with. Computers, camera's, iPods and electronics that they can get 10 cents on the dollar for. Weapons are heavy duty items that bring in big cash on the street. Burglars hardly remove safes anymore, they're too heavy and unweildy. They'll go through your living room and bedrooms first, and they know where people leave their guns: in bureau's, closet shelves, etc. An urban residential burglar relies on speed, and "blending in" with the community. Carrying away a TV, stereo, or gun safe calls immediate attention to them, no matter the distance they're trying to go.

Those people who "secure" their firearms aren't near as likely to have them stolen as those who don't. In 20+ years of doing this, I have never listed a safe as an item stolen in a residential burglary. Computers, camera's, CD players, guns, even underwear.....but never a safe.

Mark

bob 125th nysvi
01-04-2007, 09:49 PM
and having a brother who is a cop. I am NOT for unrestricted access to guns.

Realistically I don't want to be in the woods with a guy who thinks he needs an automatic weapon to bag a deer. If he's that bad a shot I don't want him to have guns.

Working in a urban environment I also don't want everybody armed, quite honestly most people are not good shots particuarly in a stress filled situation (for example is has been estimated that the US Army in WWI expended 10,000 of small arms ammo for each casuality it inflicted). Besides I wish to point out that most of these clowns shooting at each other in the urban environment are armed. Both sides are armed and it doesn't seem to slow them down.

Besides it is a mistaken impression that an automatic pistol is the best weapon for self or home defense. First if it jams it is useless till cleared where as a revolver you just pull the trigger and new round become available. Secondly since most people's aim is lousy a shotgun (requiring less precision) will provide a greater chance of hitting the target.

So flooding the streets with guns isn't a solution to anything.

Allowing unrestricted access to any type of gun doesn't provide a solution.

Also in reality the 2nd Admendment isn't a carte blanche.

It was written in a time when the US had either no or a small standing army. A "well" regulated government supported militia and hunting provided a fair amount of food for the table.

Additionally there was a fairly numerous armed group opposing European expansion on the continent.

So there was several good reasons to allow unrestricted access to guns.

Furthermore the weapons in question were extremely limited in their capabilities (what is it Howe said: 'A man hit at 100 paces with a musket is the unluckiest man in theworld. Provided of course his opponent was aiming at him.').

And as pointed out the Constitution was designed to be flexible (for example the conflict we are all committed to resulted in the end of slavery. A property right granted by the writers). So we can and should adapt it to our needs as a modern society.

That being said I don't think I want to give government the right to blanket ban guns.

But to reasonably restrict what we can own, have all owners prove that they know how to handle a gun, to have a waiting period while background checks are done, and to have a test fired bullet in the possession of the police for future comparison purposes. Is fine by me.

And to my survivalist friends who 'need' their guns to 'protect' them from the government. Boys the reality is you wouldn't last 10 minutes in a firefight with an infantry company

Trust me on that one.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

MStuart
01-04-2007, 09:53 PM
And to my survivalist friends who 'need' their guns to 'protect' them from the government. Boys the reality is you wouldn't last 10 minutes in a firefight with an infantry company Trust me on that one.

Bob:

Those are the folks who should scare us the most.

Mark

toptimlrd
01-04-2007, 10:14 PM
Robert:

Continuing our rants:

You misread my post. I could care less if anyone sleeps with a mountain howitzer under their pillow. If you're in your house, your guns are "secure" for the most part. But, if someone leaves his/her house, and does not secure their weapons (meaning not attempting to secret them in a safe and by securing a firing mechanism) they are an idiot and as reckless as those breaking in. They are not a responsible gun owner. Leaving it unsecured in a home is the same as in a vehicle. It's irresponsible and looking for trouble.

FWIW, the "common" burglar in an urban environment relies on speed. Quick in, quick out and they'll take things that are easy to walk away with. Computers, camera's, iPods and electronics that they can get 10 cents on the dollar for. Weapons are heavy duty items that bring in big cash on the street. Burglars hardly remove safes anymore, they're too heavy and unweildy. They'll go through your living room and bedrooms first, and they know where people leave their guns: in bureau's, closet shelves, etc. An urban residential burglar relies on speed, and "blending in" with the community. Carrying away a TV, stereo, or gun safe calls immediate attention to them, no matter the distance they're trying to go.

Those people who "secure" their firearms aren't near as likely to have them stolen as those who don't. In 20+ years of doing this, I have never listed a safe as an item stolen in a residential burglary. Computers, camera's, CD players, guns, even underwear.....but never a safe.

Mark


Mark,

I really wasn't directing that at you per se, nor do I have any specific beef with your perspective but there is a slippery slope here as there are those who do want to restrict what we have in our homes. (I also agree that as long as I do not use it in any criminal activity, why can't I have a howitzer). It also seems to me that anytime someone uses a gun in a crime people immediately jump on the no more gun bandwagon and what I was trying to point out in my post was that what we really need to do is make the criminal system a deterrent to crime. I think we have to face the fact that our criminal system is not much of a deterrent at all and that with the light sentences many get along with the overburdened court system leads to an attitude by the criminals that the price is well worth the crime.

As to securing in a vehicle, I may be guilty there as when I do carry in a vehicle I usually place it in either the glove compartment or console out of sight and lock the doors, but I'm not sure what else I could do. Actually the "safe" I use is a fire box many have to keep important papers in so it would not be difficult to carry away undetected. As to hauling away large items, I once had my rollaway tool chest stolen out of my storage room behind my house in broad daylight so there are some brazen ones out there.

Also I forgot to mention in my earlier post ......... Thank you for your service on those streets. You have a difficult job that is often very thankless.

MStuart
01-04-2007, 10:30 PM
I think we have to face the fact that our criminal system is not much of a deterrent at all and that with the light sentences many get along with the overburdened court system leads to an attitude by the criminals that the price is well worth the crime.

Amen! There is (at least to me and my comrades in the "big city") a marked difference in penalties for crimes in counties away from urban area's. Lower case load, less cost and more room to house prisoner's, harsher sentences. Pleas bargains are alive and well. That adds to the shame of it all.

Enough of this depressing stuff.......I'm with you, let's get back to our hobby.

Mark

bill watson
01-04-2007, 10:37 PM
For a discussion that started with what is at least a quasi-facetious comment delivered in an offhand matter, this is getting pretty deep.

To bring it back to why the Second Amendment is written the way it is: Context might matter. The custom of the time was for militias to form in response to local needs to restore social order. For local affairs, the men were supposed to bring their own private weapons. They were expected to provide the means to enforce the law or protect the community. Only when a militia was sworn to service as part of a royal or colonial military force would they be issued weapons from the government's military arsenal.

Remember why the British were going to Concord? To seize the weapons in that government arsenal.

And the men who formed on Lexington green fell in with their own private weapons to stop them from taking that wealth of military weapons.

But it illustrates the difference very nicely. Some of the men on Lexington green undoubtedly went on to be part of the colonial military, although I don't know if the Lexington militia itself ever "crossed over" as a body.

And the underlying expectation is that there can be no effective militia, to carry out limited duties of an emergency and public-purposed nature, without private ownership of weapons. At least, not in the time and circumstances under which our Constitution was written.

You can go in many directions from there, but sometimes -- since we are all interested in history -- it's interesting to see where all this came from.

My own thought processes suggest to me that we have largely substituted police for militia -- there were none for many decades after our independence -- and that the original purpose for expecting private ownership of weapons is only slightly changed if we come to believe that police in fact will not protect us from the kind of violence that's out there today. We may not start forming militias for local thug control, but surely the underlying purpose -- protection of life and property from those who do not embrace a society of laws -- comes back into play when the paid-for solution to protection is perceived as losing its effectiveness.

Where we have parted course from our ancestors is in expecting that if we band together as citizens in response to criminal acts, the result will be less controllable and just than leaving it to the paid-for police services. That's surely true if we continue to fail to make such banding together an unplanned, uncontrolled emotional response (can anyone say vigilante?) Remember, the other part of this is that when a militia was called out, it was by local authorities and men responded expecting to be the tool of justice directed by their community leaders, not a rabid mob dangerous to everyone.

Anyway. I'll call that three cents worth, given the hour. :-)

Is everyone registered for McDowell?? There's a cap this year of 1,000..... register now while you're broke from Christmas and another $25 or so is meaningless against your mountain of debt. :-) :-)

toptimlrd
01-04-2007, 11:09 PM
Bill,

Well stated. Imagine if there had been such a militia when Katrina hit and even the Police force was difficult to find. Or when the LA riots broke out. I'm sure that if there was a militia that did train on a regular basis like our forefathers did with a distinct order to it with people in charge that worked with the local authorities the local authorites would have had a much easier time. Unfortunately many have tried to associate these militias with the National Guard which is not at all what they were. Speaking of the LA riots, I recall an interview with Charleton Heston not long after the riots when he got a call from one of his "Hollywood" friends. The conversation went something like this:

Friend: "Chuck you have some ..... um ...... guns dont you?"

Heston: "Yes ......... why?"

Friend: "Well I was wondering if you could loan me one, things are getting a little scary out here and there is a 7 day waiting period for all firearms"

Heston: "Yes, and if I recall you voted for that. Do you know how to use a gun?"

Friend: "No but I thought maybe you could show me."

Heston: "I might be able to show you how to use a shotgun, but I think the best thing you can do is lock your doors, stay inside, and sit tight; it's almost over"

In this brief exchange I think we can see why owning arms needs to be protected and as Mr. Heston alluded to it is our responsibility to know how to use them safely.

I agree that we have lost much of the significance of the militia aspect but I do not think that this fact in any way detracts from the overall message of the right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed. It was not written so the government had control over the militia but the local communities under the direction of its citizens. Angry mobs are one thing but a well armed citizenry with the necessary skills is another. As to an earlier post about the violence on the street where both sides have guns, these people were once called outlaws and were therefore not bound by the law or protected by it. Call it vigilante if you want but there are reasons bountys were and are put on people. I just kind of miss the "dead or alive" clause for the most vile. I agree we should always presume innocent until proven guilty, but there are times it doesn't take a court hearing to prove guilt. If I have a video tape of you pulling out a gun, shooting a store clerk, then emptying a register, not a lot doubt is left.

Trooper Graham
01-04-2007, 11:22 PM
Bill,


If I have a video tape of you pulling out a gun, shooting a store clerk, then emptying a register, not a lot doubt is left.




Not if I'm OJ Simpson.:rolleyes:

toptimlrd
01-04-2007, 11:40 PM
Not if I'm OJ Simpson.:rolleyes:


Touche mon ami.

tompritchett
01-05-2007, 07:11 AM
It was written in a time when the US had either no or a small standing army. A "well" regulated government supported militia and hunting provided a fair amount of food for the table.

It was also written at a time when, on the frontiers, guns were essential for self-defense because the Indians might be getting riled about being pushed off their native lands.

As to Frenchie's earlier rant about misinformation, how does one asking a question about homocide statistics from a policeman constitute misinformation. If anything, I would consider your apparent knee-jerk reaction to my legitmate question to be more misinformation than my original request. Sorry, I have seen too much of such reactions from within my own family. And BTW, it appears that based upon my question, you automatically assumed that I was advocating banning of all guns. Wrong. What I do advocate is reasonable, unemotional dialog by both sides in coming up with solutions that protect both our 2nd Amendment rights as well as the lives of innocent by-standers in the inner cities and the lives of those that our society entrusts to enforce our law.

I would also like to comment on places like Fl and Az with loose gun carrying laws. Yes, in suburbian environments these laws do indeed reduce the overall crime rate as thiefs are less likely to target someone if they know that there is a risk that the person may be carrying a concealed handgun. My brother-in-law had a concealed gun permit when he lived in Fl just for this reason. However, as has been pointed by several others, this deterence does not appear to work with inner city gang warfare where both sides know that the other is carrying - often carrying fully automatic weapons. But then many of these youths realistically do not expect to reach their 30th birthday anyway - or at least not as free men outside of a prison environment. Rather, they have a true carpe diem attitude because literally tomorrow they may die. When people have that type of mind-set, deterence is rarely effective

toptimlrd
01-05-2007, 08:50 AM
I would also like to comment on places like Fl and Az with loose gun carrying laws. Yes, in suburbian environments these laws do indeed reduce the overall crime rate as thiefs are less likely to target someone if they know that there is a risk that the person may be carrying a concealed handgun. My brother-in-law had a concealed gun permit when he lived in Fl just for this reason. However, as has been pointed by several others, this deterence does not appear to work with inner city gang warfare where both sides know that the other is carrying - often carrying fully automatic weapons. But then many of these youths realistically do not expect to reach their 30th birthday anyway - or at least not as free men outside of a prison environment. Rather, they have a true carpe diem attitude because literally tomorrow they may die. When people have that type of mind-set, deterence is rarely effective


Tom well said. And to expand my opinion on the gang problem, no amount of legislation or bans, or anything is going to stop that except getting the perps off the street and into incarceration or a change in the inner city culture. I think this is where we have the impass with the anti 2nd ammendment crowd, many of them think that if we ban guns that problem will go away when that is simply not true. They are already using weapons that are banned such as fully automatic rifles.

tompritchett
01-05-2007, 10:22 AM
And to expand my opinion on the gang problem, no amount of legislation or bans, or anything is going to stop that except getting the perps off the street and into incarceration or a change in the inner city culture.

I agree. Personally, I think that all indications are that "getting the perps off the street and into incarceration" has not worked to date even though many of our prisons and jails are close to compacity. Unfortunately, I think the best solution is the latter - unfortunately because it is the most difficult and complex solution to address. Somehow, we as a society must be able to re-instill a hope for many of these youths that there is a possibility for them to also achieve the American dream by some other means besides the gangs and drug-related environments - a goal that is often shot down as being "liberal" by many in our country. It is so much easier to just send them to jail - even though for many jail might be the only hope that they have to live past the age of 30.

Malingerer
01-05-2007, 10:47 AM
Tom,
How dare you suggest that the answers to the controversies surrounding gun control issues may be more complex than would normally fit on a bumper sticker! LOL. Simple platitudes may placate simple minds but rarely offer much in the way of real solutions.
Peter Julius
Bryson City, NC

Sgt_Pepper
01-05-2007, 07:48 PM
Gentlemen, I am pleased to see this conversation proceeding in such a calm and respectful manner. I thank you for that. Gun control is a highly charged subject and it does you proudly to maintain such décorum.

The "I'm a Farb and Proud Of It!" thread, on the other hand... :D

31stWisconsin
01-05-2007, 09:47 PM
They are already using weapons that are banned such as fully automatic rifles.

You are wrong in this assumptions. Fully automatic weapons, that were registered with the NFA before 1986 are legal. Aslo dealers have access to fully select-fire weapons. However, the government-induced limit of supply means that the price of weapons, even cheap weapons like MAC-10's, cost at least $10,000. This means that only the rich can afford fully auto weapons legally. To me this is an outrage that I should have to pay $15,000 for a small auto sear for an AK.

The reason why the American Revolution was successful was because the common man was able to keep and use arms that were similar to the government. On thing Hitler, Stalin, Mao, had in common was to take firearms from the people. In 1938, Jews and Gypsies were banned from gun ownership. Some of America's fired firearms laws were to prevent freed slaves from gun ownership. To me the case is clear; the people need to be armed to insure democracy because if the government were to become tyrannical the people should have a ability to resist with the same weapons as the government.

Now some of you may think I'm one of those crazy people who has a massive aresenal (I don't) who wears tin-foil caps (blue wool, actually) and owns guns in order to shoot blue-helmented invaders (I own then for target shooting) and I thought this way too. But after thinking past what common acceptance has thought me to beleive, citizens who are not criminals or otherwise incapciated should have access to all types of weapons because this is the major thing, and the main idea behind the 2nd amendment, which keeps a tyrannical government at bay and a government for the people.

bob 125th nysvi
01-06-2007, 12:26 AM
You are wrong in this assumptions. Fully automatic weapons, that were registered with the NFA before 1986 are legal. Aslo dealers have access to fully select-fire weapons. However, the government-induced limit of supply means that the price of weapons, even cheap weapons like MAC-10's, cost at least $10,000. This means that only the rich can afford fully auto weapons legally. To me this is an outrage that I should have to pay $15,000 for a small auto sear for an AK.

The reason why the American Revolution was successful was because the common man was able to keep and use arms that were similar to the government. On thing Hitler, Stalin, Mao, had in common was to take firearms from the people. In 1938, Jews and Gypsies were banned from gun ownership. Some of America's fired firearms laws were to prevent freed slaves from gun ownership. To me the case is clear; the people need to be armed to insure democracy because if the government were to become tyrannical the people should have a ability to resist with the same weapons as the government.

Now some of you may think I'm one of those crazy people who has a massive aresenal (I don't) who wears tin-foil caps (blue wool, actually) and owns guns in order to shoot blue-helmented invaders (I own then for target shooting) and I thought this way too. But after thinking past what common acceptance has thought me to beleive, citizens who are not criminals or otherwise incapciated should have access to all types of weapons because this is the major thing, and the main idea behind the 2nd amendment, which keeps a tyrannical government at bay and a government for the people.

But your assumptions are vastly wrong.

First in NYS is it illegal to own ANY fully automatic weapon.

Secondly the American revolution succeeded due to British Blundering and an enormous influx of French soldiers and arms. There were three times as many French soldiers at Yorktown as American for example. At best the 'armed' Americans were about in a draw with the British before French/Spanish intevention.

So a citizen should be able to buy a nuclear bomb? It's a weapon and the government has them. We have access to weapons the founding fathers never dreamed of and would be horrified if they knew about them.

In reality the founding fathers expected the citizens (which they only defined as free white males) to protect their freedoms by VOTING.

Believe me they'd be much more appalled that the President is elected and considered to have a 'mandate' by 26% of the eligable voters than by you not being able to own a MAC-10. Or for that matter by the existance of professional politicians.

Bob Sandusky
Co C 125th NYSVI
Esperance, NY

And remember - Hitler was FREELY elected by the German people and the Communists came to power in Russia through armed insurrection by the populace. Neither government was STOPPED by an armed populace.

31stWisconsin
01-06-2007, 11:08 PM
First in many states it's legal to buy automatic weapons, you can buy one online and have it shipped to an FFL. I know several people who own several NFA weapons like MP5's, etc. I could own a fully automatic weapon. I just don't have $28,000 lying around for that 1928 Thompson I saw for auction on the internet the other day.

While the French were vital in the American victory, that doesn't take away the fact that American militias were able to arm themselves with similar weapons to the British right at the beginning. Sure the training or numbers weren't there, but they had the same access to the same weapons, militias (not conected to the government) exsisted with military weapons. People could by cannons if they wanted to.

The international community is preventing soveriegn states from nuclear weapons, and I don't think citizens should have a WMD in the same vein, but I think citizens should have access to conventional weapons. It's a grey line I know.

And you know why the governments of Germany and Russia weren't disarmed my the populance? Because they disarmed the people after taking power and ruling with a police state, that's why.

Ohioreb1861
01-07-2007, 10:17 AM
**** Cheney's last hunting trip?

Mark

Sorry, I had to

Holy Cow! There's a filter.....it wouldn't spell ****


You beat me to it...

Malingerer
01-08-2007, 10:11 AM
[QUOTE= I don't think citizens should have a WMD QUOTE]

So, you would then agree that there should be SOME limits on the second ammendment - reasonable men can disagree on just where those limits should rest. Just because some soccer mom dosent want her children to go to school in some free fire zone dosent neccessarily mean she is a stooge for some nefarious plot by the goverment to seize our guns.

Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

cavgirl
01-08-2007, 02:47 PM
I could not have said it better myself! It IS people, people, people who kill, not the guns! I've had this discussion, or should I say, argument with folks all the time who have NO clue about gun control vs. people accountability. If our illustrious judicial system wouldn't let these guys get off all the time, people would think twice before committing a crime with a gun. I realize that we, the US, are probably the most powerful and "free" country on the face of the earth, but perhaps we should take a page out of Europe's punishment for crimes committed instead of always worrying about what our ACLU will think if we throw someone on death row and carry out the sentence once in while. Ooohhhh, please stop me before I get started.

CivilWarBuff1863
01-08-2007, 07:46 PM
You want to talk about gun control, check this .98 caliber wall gun this guy has:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jEArQu_53SI

csuppelsa
01-17-2007, 06:37 AM
The kid probably thought it would be cool for everyone to think he's an idiot.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Even thought I never understood the reasoning behind this.

Frenchie
01-17-2007, 11:22 AM
Mark, I can remember about 10 - 20 years ago when the statistics were that the majority of handgun murders were performed by people who knew or even were friends of the victim - often as the result of fits of rage. Is that still true today or has the random gang violence swamped these types of killings?

"Random gang violence" is a mainstream media myth. Gang members who shoot each other know each other - that's why they shoot each other. And the anti-gunners include this in their "statistics" when they say most "victims" are killed by people they know, along with including people as old as 24 under the category of "children".

MStuart
01-17-2007, 12:45 PM
"Random gang violence" is a mainstream media myth.

Only if you live in the lilly white suburbs. Try convincing those respectable folks in the poorer neighborhoods who listen to the sound of gunfire on a continuous basis. The folks that need to be inside before dark, when the monsters come out. It's rarely that big of a problem to those it doesn't affect.

Non-smokers don't care about the high price of cigarettes...it doesn't affect them. Me, on the other hand....I'm livid.

The big question just might be....How do you keep the guns out of the hands of "bad" people? It's pretty obvious firearms, in the wrong hands, do lots of damage.....to you, me, and "society" in general. How do you keep them out of the "wrong" hands? That's the question we should be arguing.

Mark

csuppelsa
01-17-2007, 02:56 PM
I'm not worried about keeping firearms away from BGs, but rather from kids.

toptimlrd
01-18-2007, 12:09 AM
The big question just might be....How do you keep the guns out of the hands of "bad" people? It's pretty obvious firearms, in the wrong hands, do lots of damage.....to you, me, and "society" in general. How do you keep them out of the "wrong" hands? That's the question we should be arguing.

Mark

How about we borrow and tweak a little justice from the middle east: get caught using a gun in a violent crime, hands come off. Brutal yes, barbaric yes, illegal definitely, effective most likely.

MStuart
01-18-2007, 12:16 AM
How about we borrow and tweak a little justice from the middle east: get caught using a gun in a violent crime, hands come off. Brutal yes, barbaric yes, illegal definitely, effective most likely.

Bob:

We're too civilized for that. After all, don't you know that it's society that is responsible for people doing bad things? It's never the person's own fault. The individual is never at fault, someone or something made him do it and we must all share that responsibility. Little Johnny robbed you because his dad didn't play catch with him. So we should give him a hug and tell him not to do it again or there'll be more negative reinforcement.

Mark

Frenchie
01-18-2007, 12:34 AM
Only if you live in the lilly white suburbs. Try convincing those respectable folks in the poorer neighborhoods who listen to the sound of gunfire on a continuous basis. The folks that need to be inside before dark, when the monsters come out. It's rarely that big of a problem to those it doesn't affect.

Funny you should mention that. Did you know the first American gun control laws were written to keep guns out of the hands of slaves and free blacks? You know, those people whose descendents make up most of the population of many of today's poorer neighborhoods. And then there are the laws against "Saturday Night Specials", cheap guns that are often the only effective protection poor people can afford. The origin of the term is the phrase "Niggertown Saturday night". Most gun control laws are racist in their basic intention. They are also sexist, advancing the theory that a 110 pound woman can defeat a 185 pound man in a fistfight.

MStuart
01-18-2007, 12:47 AM
Are you advocating the rescinding of the "cheap" gun laws, along with the background checks so that everyone can get more guns and the ghetto's can be flooded with them?

Moreso, has any gun law on the books today prevented you from obtaining a firearm?

Why are you concerned your guns are going to be taken away? Is there any serious legislation out there right now that will take any of your guns away from you?

This just in:

After-school fight turns to gunfire in McKees Rocks
Thursday, January 18, 2007

By Moustafa Ayad, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Annie O'Neill, Post-Gazette

Two Sto-Rox High School students were wounded yesterday when an after-school fistfight involving two pairs of teenagers escalated into gunfire.

The school district canceled classes for today.

Two 17-year-old boys, who were not identified by police, were shot around 2:30 p.m. after they confronted other teenagers in the 400 block of Broadway shortly after school.

The shooting happened about four blocks from the high school.

Allegheny County police Assistant Superintendent Jim Morton said the two victims were angry about a robbery on Tuesday night. The two other boys, who were also believed to be 17, may have robbed the victims, Mr. Morton said.

"It started as a verbal confrontation and escalated quickly into a physical confrontation," said Superintendent Morton.

The group exchanged punches and one of the boys pulled a handgun, firing at least six shots at the victims, hitting one in the stomach and the other in the leg. The victims were taken to Allegheny General Hospital and were in stable condition, police said.

Police said the suspects were black males and the victims were white, but they would not say if they believed the shooting was racially motivated. Detectives expected to have better descriptions of the suspects after talking to the victims.

The school posted signs on its doors announcing postponement of yesterday's scheduled basketball game with South Allegheny.

Near the shooting scene, bloodied paper towels lay strewn in the street and blood stained the pavement and the sidewalk.

The owner of a nearby convenience store, who did not want to be identified, said he heard loud shouting followed by gunfire.

"I ran out of the shop and saw two kids, one bleeding from the stomach. They said they had been shot. I grabbed some paper towels and gave it to them. They were very scared," he said.

Gary Bowser of 406 Broadway ran out of his street-level apartment when he heard the shots. He said life in the neighborhood in recent months has been difficult.

"It's getting so that you can't walk out of your front door anymore without being scared that you could get stabbed or shot," he said. "These kids can get their hands on weapons and the cops can't do anything about it."
-----------------------------

This would be the "mainstream media myth" you were talking about? I'm betting the folks in the neighborhood would call this "random violence". I'll bet that today's gun laws didn't prevent these "yutes" from getting their roscoe.

Mark

Trooper Graham
01-18-2007, 12:55 AM
Was there not a town in Florida a few years back that a new ordnance came in to effect that 'all' residence 'will' carry a firearm? What became of it? I remember it was all over the news.

csuppelsa
01-19-2007, 06:13 AM
Was there not a town in Florida a few years back that a new ordnance came in to effect that 'all' residence 'will' carry a firearm? What became of it? I remember it was all over the news.

I think that was in bowling for columbine.

RC DeRemer
01-19-2007, 09:46 AM
Check this out:
http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070119/COMMUNITIES/701190355/1203/NEWS01

Bob

MStuart
01-19-2007, 10:01 AM
Check this out:
http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070119/COMMUNITIES/701190355/1203/NEWS01

Bob

Gun safety is the issue there. While a whole 'nother thread, it should be a wake-up call to all of us the check, check some more, then check again. After that, then the unit safety officer should check, too.

Mark

brown30741
01-19-2007, 10:12 AM
I believe Kennesaw, GA passed a law several years ago requiring each household to own a firearm, but allowing people to exempt themselves from doing so...
And Mark, I don't know anyone who has been denied the chance to purchase a firearm under current laws.

tompritchett
01-19-2007, 10:17 AM
Funny you should mention that. Did you know the first American gun control laws were written to keep guns out of the hands of slaves and free blacks?

Actually, I thought the first attempt was by the British to help keep us unruly colonists under better control.

tompritchett
01-19-2007, 10:24 AM
And Mark, I don't know anyone who has been denied the chance to purchase a firearm under current laws.

I do. Some for valid reasons (history of mental instability) and others for reasons that are no longer applicable (restraining order against a spouse that has since died of natural causes).

Trooper Graham
01-19-2007, 10:27 AM
Actually, I thought the first attempt was by the British to help keep us unruly colonists under better control.

It was Tom. Their march (one if by land) to Concord was to sieze the militia arsenal and probably the main basis for The Right to Keep and Bear Arms but as the Constitution did not specifically name the blacks both free and slave they were not included in the Bill of Rights in regards to guns.

tompritchett
01-19-2007, 10:34 AM
Gun safety is the issue there. While a whole 'nother thread, it should be a wake-up call to all of us the check, check some more, then check again.

This should be a wake-up call for us on a variety of issues in reenacting that, with just one bad occurrence in the wrong state, could result in similar proposed legislation governing the practice of reenacting in general. Obviously, gun safety is one area of concern but so are other issues such as under-age drinking, heavy drinking the night prior to mock battles, late night parties on Saturday nights when reenactors have long drives back on Sunday afternoon, etc. If any of these result in a death or rape in the wrong state, we could easily see similar proposed legislation targeting our hobby.

However, Mark you are also right that this is a whole new topic and probably is worth its own thread, possibly even in the Military Discussion conference.

Frenchie
01-19-2007, 10:35 AM
Are you advocating the rescinding of the "cheap" gun laws, along with the background checks so that everyone can get more guns and the ghetto's can be flooded with them?

Basically, yes. Poor people need protection more than you and me in our "lilly white suburbs" (oh, by the way, North Street in Baltimore is only a short ride away from here - I'm not all that safe). State background checks for age, criminal record, and mental incompetence are fine, but the Feds have no business getting their grubby fingers into it. Did you know the law requires those records to be destroyed within 24 hours and the BATFE has defied that order for years now?


Moreso, has any gun law on the books today prevented you from obtaining a firearm?

I'm so glad you asked, because the answer is yes. I had a chance to trade for three handguns once, but the law in Maryland allows for only one per month.


Why are you concerned your guns are going to be taken away? Is there any serious legislation out there right now that will take any of your guns away from you?

Uh, because the people who keep trying to pass more restrictive gun control laws have said their intention is to take away ALL guns?

Thanks for making my case at the end there. The cops can't do anything because they're not allowed to. Bad guys can get guns anytime. Only an armed citizenry can stop violent crime. Why do you think the highest levels of crime with guns happens where the people aren't allowed to have them? If you really believe that armed citizens is a bad idea, consider this: In 1985, only eight states had laws that automatically granted permits to carry a concealed weapon once applicants passed a criminal background check, paid the fees and, when required, completed a training class. Today the total is thirty-eight and in every one of those states the rates of violent crime are decreasing. Given these facts, perhaps you should reconsider what you believe.

Know what, Mark? You're not paying attention. You don't know anything, and this is not unintentional - not knowing anything means you can just spew whatever the Brady Bunch says and not have to back it up or confront evidence to the contrary. Talking to you is a waste of time. Reading your anecdote is pointless. I can post thousands - thousands - of stories of how having a gun saved someone from robbery, rape, injury or death (I have three of my own), but you wouldn't care. You've swallowed the mainstream liberal media version of the truth and that hook is in deep.

And I've just reminded myself that talking to you is a waste of time. 'Bye.

MStuart
01-19-2007, 10:41 AM
Basically, yes. Poor people need protection more than you and me in our "lilly white suburbs" (oh, by the way, North Street in Baltimore is only a short ride away from here - I'm not all that safe). State background checks for age, criminal record, and mental incompetence are fine, but the Feds have no business getting their grubby fingers into it. Did you know the law requires those records to be destroyed within 24 hours and the BATFE has defied that order for years now?



I'm so glad you asked, because the answer is yes. I had a chance to trade for three handguns once, but the law in Maryland allows for only one per month.



Uh, because the people who keep trying to pass more restrictive gun control laws have said their intention is to take away ALL guns?

Thanks for making my case at the end there. The cops can't do anything because they're not allowed to. Bad guys can get guns anytime. Only an armed citizenry can stop violent crime. Why do you think the highest levels of crime with guns happens where the people aren't allowed to have them? If you really believe that armed citizens is a bad idea, consider this: In 1985, only eight states had laws that automatically granted permits to carry a concealed weapon once applicants passed a criminal background check, paid the fees and, when required, completed a training class. Today the total is thirty-eight and in every one of those states the rates of violent crime are decreasing. Given these facts, perhaps you should reconsider what you believe.

Know what, Mark? You're not paying attention. You don't know anything, and this is not unintentional - not knowing anything means you can just spew whatever the Brady Bunch says and not have to back it up or confront evidence to the contrary. Talking to you is a waste of time. Reading your anecdote is pointless. I can post thousands - thousands - of stories of how having a gun saved someone from robbery, rape, injury or death (I have three of my own), but you wouldn't care. You've swallowed the mainstream liberal media version of the truth and that hook is in deep.

And I've just reminded myself that talking to you is a waste of time. 'Bye.

And here I thought we were enjoying a respectful debate of issues?

Mark

Army30th
01-19-2007, 11:24 AM
Mr. Prichett is correct in stating that an occurance of an event like this in the wrong state, could be the beginning of the end. NJ is a state that absolutely hates guns, period. However, I've never noticed a lack of guns for criminals.

Part of NJ's gun law for certain types of guns, but not all guns, requires it to "benefit the greater good of society" for you to possess it. To even hold a gun in a gunshop here, you must have a permit to purchase.

MStuart
01-19-2007, 11:28 AM
Part of NJ's gun law for certain types of guns, but not all guns, requires it to "benefit the greater good of society" for you to possess it. To even hold a gun in a gunshop here, you must have a permit to purchase.

Which firearms would that be, if you know?

Mark

Army30th
01-19-2007, 04:16 PM
Right now those guns are collectible assault weapons such as carbines, & machine guns. Many reenactors that I know from other time periods that have these, have them stored elsewhere.

As far as I know, CW period guns are ok, but you still have to have a Firearms Purchaser ID card to get them.

reb64
01-21-2007, 03:00 PM
Are you advocating the rescinding of the "cheap" gun laws, along with the background checks so that everyone can get more guns and the ghetto's can be flooded with them?

Moreso, has any gun law on the books today prevented you from obtaining a firearm?

Why are you concerned your guns are going to be taken away? Is there any serious legislation out there right now that will take any of your guns away from you?

This just in:

After-school fight turns to gunfire in McKees Rocks
Thursday, January 18, 2007

By Moustafa Ayad, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Annie O'Neill, Post-Gazette

Two Sto-Rox High School students were wounded yesterday when an after-school fistfight involving two pairs of teenagers escalated into gunfire.

The school district canceled classes for today.

Two 17-year-old boys, who were not identified by police, were shot around 2:30 p.m. after they confronted other teenagers in the 400 block of Broadway shortly after school.

The shooting happened about four blocks from the high school.

Allegheny County police Assistant Superintendent Jim Morton said the two victims were angry about a robbery on Tuesday night. The two other boys, who were also believed to be 17, may have robbed the victims, Mr. Morton said.

"It started as a verbal confrontation and escalated quickly into a physical confrontation," said Superintendent Morton.

The group exchanged punches and one of the boys pulled a handgun, firing at least six shots at the victims, hitting one in the stomach and the other in the leg. The victims were taken to Allegheny General Hospital and were in stable condition, police said.

Police said the suspects were black males and the victims were white, but they would not say if they believed the shooting was racially motivated. Detectives expected to have better descriptions of the suspects after talking to the victims.

The school posted signs on its doors announcing postponement of yesterday's scheduled basketball game with South Allegheny.

Near the shooting scene, bloodied paper towels lay strewn in the street and blood stained the pavement and the sidewalk.

The owner of a nearby convenience store, who did not want to be identified, said he heard loud shouting followed by gunfire.

"I ran out of the shop and saw two kids, one bleeding from the stomach. They said they had been shot. I grabbed some paper towels and gave it to them. They were very scared," he said.

Gary Bowser of 406 Broadway ran out of his street-level apartment when he heard the shots. He said life in the neighborhood in recent months has been difficult.

"It's getting so that you can't walk out of your front door anymore without being scared that you could get stabbed or shot," he said. "These kids can get their hands on weapons and the cops can't do anything about it."
-----------------------------

This would be the "mainstream media myth" you were talking about? I'm betting the folks in the neighborhood would call this "random violence". I'll bet that today's gun laws didn't prevent these "yutes" from getting their roscoe.

Mark

Give some retired vets jobs as school enforcers with 45's, that cure these sickos.

toptimlrd
01-22-2007, 11:33 AM
Was there not a town in Florida a few years back that a new ordnance came in to effect that 'all' residence 'will' carry a firearm? What became of it? I remember it was all over the news.


Sam,

It was back in the 80's in Kennesaw GA. I don't know what the stats are now, but in the few years following it, the crime rate plummeted. (I was living just South of there at the time).

As to Florida, the "new" legislation made it easier for a citizen to use deadly force in defense.