NooO!  Guns are bad!  Extremist dhimmicrats are always right!  George W caused Sandy Hook!  Reagan is really the Aurora shooter and the third suspect of Oklahoma City bombing!  Cheney cloned himself then went back in time for Columbine!

I still can't decide why the American Left decries gun ownership. I strongly support arming every minority. Let gays, blacks, the disabled, the aged and everyone else who is being oppressed own and learn to use a gun. It's hard to bash an armed gay, rob an armed wheelchair user or home invade a little old lady with a pistol. I'm not saying it can be done, but lets just say your life insurance agent wouldn't want you to do it. Denying someone the right to arm themselves in the face of danger is as much a civil rights violation as preventing voting or access to education.

Just ask the likes of Chilly Willy and Fanny Lou and they would tell you that carrying arms is the one activity denied a slave.

But being armed and capable kind of flies in the Cult of Victimization that the current party has built as it's foundation. You can't get headlines for riding to the rescue of the downtrodden and oppressed if they can defend themselves, can you?

GooberMcNutly wrote:

I still can't decide why the American Left decries gun ownership. I strongly support arming every minority. Let gays, blacks, the disabled, the aged and everyone else who is being oppressed own and learn to use a gun. It's hard to bash an armed gay, rob an armed wheelchair user or home invade a little old lady with a pistol. I'm not saying it can be done, but lets just say your life insurance agent wouldn't want you to do it. Denying someone the right to arm themselves in the face of danger is as much a civil rights violation as preventing voting or access to education.

Just ask the likes of Chilly Willy and Fanny Lou and they would tell you that carrying arms is the one activity denied a slave.

But being armed and capable kind of flies in the Cult of Victimization that the current party has built as it's foundation. You can't get headlines for riding to the rescue of the downtrodden and oppressed if they can defend themselves, can you?

Because the casual violence would then outweigh the criminal violence, again why did most towns in the "Wild West" ban guns?  The answer is casual and nonsensical gun violence.  Hell if nothing else road rage should give you a clue.

It's not about victimization, it's about avoiding spontaneous and basically unintentional violence.  What the fuck are you afraid no one - outside of a combat zone - has ever pointed a gun at me and I live in mother fucking Long Beach, California.  Paranoia will destroy ya.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

Do you really think that if someone put a pistol in your hand that you would immediately start resolving your road rage issues or someone giving you the stink eye with a hail of lead? Maybe that's the case for you, but certainly not for me or the millions of other gun owners that peacefully go about their business every day. That whole "the streets will run red" has been disproven in every state that has enacted concealed carry.

What am I afraid of? Have you read a newspaper that still prints the police blotter? Sure, the chances of violence are low, per capita. Better than they have ever been since my state enacted Shall Issue. But I also own home and health insurance. Does that make me paranoid that my house is going to burn down?

I'm not asking you to carry a gun, just don't decide that I'm not worthy of the right.

Get over your paranoia, it seriously demeans you.  This is an NRA/Corporate money grab via one of best advertising campaigns ever devised in the history of the world; they have convinced a third of the population of the richest country on the planet earth to buy multiple versions of their expensive products.  Even better is that these products are almost never used and do not in anyway increase productivity or enhance the richness of life.

The even bigger laugh is that 2/3rd's of the times the products are actually used against a human is in a form of self-destruction, usually fatal to the owner or a member of the owners family.  (of the 30,000 deaths by gunfire in America in 2010, 20,000 were suicide: Ref: CDC)

Storytime:  Mine is a Winchester model 1300 and it is very nice.  I didn't actually buy the weapon, I took it off of a young Marine in my Platoon who had foolishly brought it on to base, the MP's caught him with it but allowed me (as his senior SNCO) to hold the weapon for him at my home off-base.  He was drive-by'd a few weeks later and never returned to pick it up; I've only heard info regarding him a few times over the years, it seems his brain will never work correctly again.  Prior to that I had an Enfield .303 and naturally a .22LR, I've never much been taken with hand guns as they seem to cause more trouble than good.  As I have pointed out earlier I have been salivating over a match grade .223 - it's a bit foolish I know but I've had so many years experience with the device I tend to prefer it.  I just can't seem to find a decent one that won't make me look like a Rambo-wannabe.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

Em, I give you some credit. I thought that I had heard every argument, pro or con, on the gun topic. But I don't think I shave ever heard that the whole topic is really just a carefully orchestrated marketing plan between the gun manufacturers, the NRA, the legislature and a bunch of bug nutty homicidal maniacs. Or am I misreading you?

There are a couple of good articles on the subject of how the NRA has shifted from being the "National Rifle Association" to the "National Assault Rifle Association" over the last few decades.  25 years ago the NRA was a hunters club and actually endorsed the assault weapon ban, they focused on hunting and target shooting as past-times or hobbies not whatever this is now. I'll try to dredge those articles up for you.

I have owned my own weapon ever since I was old enough to keep both ends off of the ground at the same time, family tradition had each of us receiving their own rifle on their 8th birthday (normally a .22).  Since my birthday was four days after Christmas I have a very clear memory of the only present not opened on Christmas day - it was a long thin box and eventually proved to be a bolt action .22 Long Rifle.  To me a weapon is simply a tool, I have axes and machetes and other dangerous tools also.  Maybe I'm just old fashioned but I can't get my brain around this strange fervor and craziness for military grade weapons; I have to assume the internet has a lot to do with it.  The emails I receive from my mother these days can be just scary.

There is additional background here, besides being a farm boy from Nebraska my family has a strong military history on both sides.  Interestingly enough my mother was the Women's Jr. Nat'l Pistol Champ back in the early sixties, I have pictures around here somewhere of her receiving the medal and having dinner with JFK at the White House. 

Now I'm a very good shooter, 16 years in the Marines saw to that - but that mother of mine can shoot better with sights down than I can with sights up - just fucking amazing.

I'm not anti-gun, I'm just anti-silliness.


**Edit:  It appears to me that someone somewhere who had a lot to gain turned gun ownership into a political issue, in reality Democrats/Independents & Republicans alike have been hunters and shooters for years without thinking they needed an assault rifle to protect their precious little piece of the earth.  Perhaps we have become so secure and insulated from extreme travesty (such as invasion) that we have become paranoid?  I'm not afraid - are you?

Last edited by Emmeran (2013-03-20 13:40:31)

phreddy wrote:

That would have been the framers of the Constitution.

The constitutional question is seriously up for discussion, none of framers could have possibly imagined it would come to be this.  Remember in that time period a military grade musket would cost the equivalent of $20k in todays money at the very least. Hell each one was hand made!  However that particular issue has been decided by the courts so now we must simply figure how to manage the current situation; I agree that weapons are really not the ultimate core issue but they damn sure are exacerbating it.

The current proposed solution to the problem of bullets flying through the air and killing people is apparently to have more people make more bullets fly through the air; this is what the lobbyist for those who make those bullets and the devices that make them fly through the air and kill people seem to be proposing. 

Of course they feed their family by selling that story so they do their very best to find ways to sell that story because hell - gotta feed the kids.  The NRA is no longer the organization I belonged to in my youth; they appear to have morphed into a corporate lobbyist machine and I can't see what the end game is.  At the end of the day the NRA would lobby against you or I owning RPG's but for AR-15 and .50 cal derivatives who's manufacturers write them checks - wow they are all in for those checks.  Under the 2nd Amendment argument I should be allowed to purchase Stinger missiles - correct?  But does the NRA support that?  Nope.  How about the Soviet era self-propelled 155mm Howitzer I can purchase at $8k now on the secondary market - doesn't that fall firmly into the right to bear arms?  Nope - because the manufacturers of that weapon doesn't write checks to the right people.

In the end:  I'm not sure how more bullets flying through the air benefits our society, it doesn't seem to make a bit of sense.  Where the fuck are we going with this dude, what do you think this will result in?

Last edited by Emmeran (2013-03-20 18:10:47)

Baywolfe wrote:

It doesn't matter   This is not about guns, it's about the state of mental health in this country. 

My son and daughter-in-law were both in the military and have armloads of weapons.  They have three kids who have all learned both gun safety, and gun respect.  I do not fear any of them.  Too many people with the Emotional IQ of a rat own guns.

But why do they have armloads? 

Do they have armloads of Axes, Swords and Knives also?  What is wrong with this scenario?

GooberMcNutly wrote:

Em, I give you some credit. I thought that I had heard every argument, pro or con, on the gun topic. But I don't think I shave ever heard that the whole topic is really just a carefully orchestrated marketing plan between the gun manufacturers, the NRA, the legislature and a bunch of bug nutty homicidal maniacs. Or am I misreading you?

It's actually much worse than that. The for-profit prison industry is also backing the NRA in marketing guns. They're also bankrolling the politicians pushing against any meaningful immigration reform and for gutting social services. Violent anarchy is good for their bottom line, and What's Good For Bushmaster Firearms International Is Good For America. Why else would Wayne LaDerriere push so hard for private security in schools? It will be a three-run homer for him if he's successful: Those guards will need weapons, the contractors who employ them will have fat government contracts that will never be canceled and kids acting out in class can be sent straight to jail.

phreddy wrote:

During your time in the Marines you were issued your own rifle, most likely an M-16.  You were never issued your own 155mm howitzer.  I rest my case.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Em, but you weren't allowed to carry your weapon AND ammunition around freely, were you?

phreddy wrote:

Em wrote:

The NRA is no longer the organization I belonged to in my youth; they appear to have morphed into a corporate lobbyist machine and I can't see what the end game is.

I can agree with this Em.  They are no longer your father's NRA.  However, I believe the reason they have morphed is because of the unrelenting pressure by anti-gun advocates to find a way around the 2nd amendment.  The NRA has taken up the challenge and they are receiving support from people like me who appreciate the voice they are giving us.

I liken them to groups like the National Organization for Women.  They started out as a women's rights group but, because of pressure from religious pro life groups, they have morphed into a primary role of defending abortion rights. 

As for your personal 155mm howitzer, I have already addressed that argument.  Most rational anti-gun advocates believe the 2nd amendment allows for a well-regulated militia.  A militia is a citizen army.  Army's need modern equipment, and that includes modern small arms.  During your time in the Marines you were issued your own rifle, most likely an M-16.  You were never issued your own 155mm howitzer.  I rest my case.

Actually I was issued and signed for an M60A1 Main Battle Tank, I was responsible for that weapon for a few years and then signed it over to someone else; I also signed for and was also responsible for an M16A1 service rifle and an M1911 Pistol.  It becomes a question of lines and where we draw them, a well-regulated militia when the constitution was penned constituted something entirely different than our current militia (now known as the National Guard), militia being defined as part-time warriors.

However I will state once again - that question has been decided by the Supreme Court and is not worth arguing.

So now it's a game of lines please explain to me why you propose to draw an arbitrary line which appears to keep moving towards more powerful and deadly weapons and so when do you propose to stop redrawing this line?

This isn't a matter of politics it is simply a matter of common sense.  Now we can go back and forth about statistics & polls and each side has their "data"; but common sense tells us that the more bullet delivery devices in any given area mathematically increases the chances that there will be a representative increase of number of bullets in the air.  The lobbyist love to twist this and publicize it - that's their job and as a result of the furor they have created gun sales (and prices) have sky-rocketed.

The telling part is that not a single bill has been passed or signed and yet the consumer market has ballooned out of control; simple manipulation via modern email marketing efforts. 

Come on dude - analyze the situation and look at the hard data and all of the variables - there is no reasonable point for the current market actions.  The secondary market contains more commercial firearms than our current populace actually requires but prices and demand are soaring based on political propaganda.

If that's not manipulation I'm not sure what is.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

But to say that the NRA is carefully orchestrating mass shootings to drive up the sales of guns puts you right into tinfoil hat territory.

I said nothing of the sort - I'm merely aghast regarding their theory that arming more people, particularly in schools is some how a good idea.

An armed citizenry is as we both know a double edged sword - we both know and admit that.  Criminals will be criminals whether with a club or an AK-47, the difference is only in the number and rapidity of the casualties.

For the record I'm strongly against concealed carry amongst the general populace and firmly believe in Drivers License like laws requiring training, annual testing and annual registration.  Naturally this would require an expansion of government to implement so the conservatives would fight it and try to de-fund it.  The (government) employees doing the training and registration should also be highly paid experts and trained to recognize a nutter when they interact with one.  In this day and age of drones, missiles and gun ships a well armed militia is completely pointless; ask the Palestinians how well that has worked out for them.

My question still stands of why did we allow the line to move again?  What have we gained and how specifically does it serve the greater good?  When will the line move again and who gets to choose where it moves to - some corporate board trying to increase profits?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … n-20130228

phreddy wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

For the record I'm strongly against concealed carry amongst the general populace and firmly believe in Drivers License like laws requiring training, annual testing and annual registration.

You're from California.  We have to take a 12 hour course and prove proficiency and marksmanship to obtain a CCW.  In addition, the law requires a full background check (not just the kind you get for purchase of a pistol), fingerprinting, and an interview with the Sheriff.  The permit is renewable every two years after a four hour refresher course.  To me this is overkill, but it fulfills your requirements.  California also prohibits open carry of a firearm, even if it's unloaded, which is unconstitutional and will probably eventually be shot down.

Nice to know, will come in handy over the next month before I leave for Mass.

Thanks for the down under perspective PBH.  But for diligent resistance, there goes the United States.  Those who think as I do believe it is important to resist those innocuous looking little bites out of our freedoms.  Why resist a bill to reduce magazine size to 10 rounds?  Or, who could complain about requiring trigger locks on guns stored in the home.  Five years later the same anti-gun organizations want us to require 5 round magazines and gun safes.  Eventually, we are locking our guns and ammunition in different safes and the weapons are useless for self defense.  It's all about the slippery slope.  We need to fight every little infringement on our freedoms, be it guns, Internet, surveillance, tracking of personal movements, and so on.  Going along with it because it appears innocuous and is sponsored by an administration we support displays ignorance of the historical consequences.

Emmeran wrote:

The refusal to sit down and have a well mannered and intelligent discussion is amazingly disappointing; trying to make a point with scary terms like "Home Invasion" is just silly.  At some point the grown ups in the room need to punt the extremists and lobbyists out of the way and take charge of the conversation.

If you had read the post to which I was commenting, you would have realized that defense against home invasion was the whole point.  I'm having difficulty understanding why you feel comfortable with the slow erosion of our civil rights.  You can't allow the federal government to trample those rights you personally feel are too broad and expect that same government to restrain from running over all that you hold dear.  With few exceptions, it's all or nothing. 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
E.B. Hall  - The Friends of Voltaire

Emmeran wrote:

Please tell me my friend: 

1. Where is the line and who decides where it is drawn?
2. Is our reaction to a nutter double-tapping a classroom of children simply arming everyone which essentially puts arms in the hands of more nutters?
3. Why can't our paid politicians sit down like adults and have real discussion on the issue - this is what we pay them for after all.

I don't see this as a political issue, I see it as an issue of societal responsibility however there are a lot of people who make a lot of money in this industry who really don't won't us to address this in a common sense manner as it might take a chunk out of their annual bonus check.

When it gets down to it, Phwedd thinks the killing of innocents is okay, because it keeps the status quo going.

G'day again fellas,
                               Seems that I'm irrelevant, no big news there.  I long ago ceased being shocked by the choices that other people make.  Certainly I don't confuse my views, with what actually eventuates in elections, or even which movie is the best choice for friends' video nights. 

I tried to make a couple of points, born out by personal experience, not just by possible outcomes.  Despite our observance of the Westminster system of governmence, Australia and the U.S. are similar in that democracy does not rule.  Rather, both places labor under a duocracy, with smaller special interest groups able to wield power above their right, by sheer dint of affiliation with one or the other main party.

You lot have had the Democrats and Republicans seemingly at each others throats for generations, here it is the Liberal National Party and the Australian Labor Party.  It stands that it doesn't matter here which main party is in power, because groups like 'Land Rights for Gay & Lesbian Whales' typically are vehemently anti-gun in outlook.  Tough shit for ordinary folk that the pollies are utter harlots when they make deals to retain their gravy train,  or usurp the other fellows.

Goober and Phred, don't waste time by seeking consensus with the anti's.  Emmeran seeks 'responsible' gun ownership, which is all utter bullshit as it always leads to outright confiscation, and loss of personal freedoms.  (Emm, that wasn't a personal attack.)  All of you, no matter your personal leanings, end up being viewed as domestic insurgents by the power elite.  Note I didn't say as 'potential' troublemakers, just ones not not yet found guilty!  Forget capacity bans, barrel lengths, numbers owned or a 'genuine reason' for obtaining or posessing guns, the anti's want the lot!

When the freedom-hating sheep rule, it's no joy being proven right, because you have been pulled down to their level.  Actively stop the rot, before you sink into their sea of mediocrity.
They will never give up, each concession allowed them is not accepted as being reasonable.  Only the heel of the jackboot for all seems to make 'em content.

Mass murders by armed psychos are not peculiar to America alone.  These tragedies are played out worldwide, in countries with all types of government and civil rule, all sorts of societies.  Neither are they a new phenomenon, they've occurred since cartridge firing guns became commonplace.  Don't just believe me, pick up a history book.

I wonder just why Americans all, don't fear the freedom-haters.  Surely it must be ignorance.  The Bloombergs and Soros of this globe have used the same tactics to win everywhere else.  Hey Emm, my government doesn't fear me with having a gun, because they confiscated them all.  So man, what the hell makes you so special?

Phreddy, Phreddy, Phreddy - you keep avoiding the question.  At this point it almost seems like you are a professional NRA Lobbyist.

phreddy wrote:

Where have you been Pussy?  There are dozens of cases of citizens being prosecuted for [url=http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123703&page=1#.UVBj8jed6So]defending their homes.

Now Phreddy this is a very bad example as the intruder didn't have and/or was not presenting a firearm, a fucking baseball bat would have been just a effective in those close quarters (having been on the receiving end of one of those at one point in my life I can guarun-fucking-tee you that unlike in the movies you ain't getting up).

But more to the point - the dude shot him twice - he didn't need a 15 round magazine to do that and if you are anything more than halfway competent a single shot weapon will do the job.

phreddy wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Where have you been Pussy?  There are dozens of cases of citizens being prosecuted for [url=http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123703&page=1#.UVBj8jed6So]defending their homes.

Now Phreddy this is a very bad example as the intruder didn't have and/or was not presenting a firearm, a fucking baseball bat would have been just a effective in those close quarters (having been on the receiving end of one of those at one point in my life I can guarun-fucking-tee you that unlike in the movies you ain't getting up).

But more to the point - the dude shot him twice - he didn't need a 15 round magazine to do that and if you are anything more than halfway competent a single shot weapon will do the job.

How sure are you that you could take out one or perhaps more intruders with a single shot weapon?  It is insane to limit one's capabilities when it is impossible to foresee the scope of the threat.  If you are going to make it legal to kill an intruder, why would you care how many pills you put into the fucker?

Admit it, Phed! You're really Al Gore coming in here to act out your rage at the Repugs, aren't you?

I do not aim with my hand.
He who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I aim with my Eye.

I do not shoot with my hand.
He who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I shoot with my Mind.

I do not kill with my hand.
He who kills with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I kill with my Heart.

Sorry... re-reading The Dark Tower series again.

Baywolfe wrote:

I do not aim with my hand.
He who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I aim with my Eye.

I do not shoot with my hand.
He who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I shoot with my Mind.

I do not kill with my hand.
He who kills with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I kill with my Heart.

Sorry... re-reading The Dark Tower series again.

Damn - Thank you so much - that series is perfect for a re-read on my journey.  And there is much truth regarding the killing with the heart.