Go ahead, Feinstein, MAKE MY DAY

[JMohegan]

Actually, no, but the problems of the inner city aren't a product of guns, they're a product of a larger cultural issue, and all the gun bans in the world aren't going to solve the problem.

Firearms education is something that we implement in conjunction with other issues, but fixing the inner city is a topic for a whole 'nother thread with a much broader scope than this one.



Very gracious of you.



Miss my references to the Koreans who had to defend themselves during the Rodney King riots? It's very much a concern for me, but on the gun aspect of what's wrong with our inner cities, the only help I can offer is that I'd like to see a lot more women and store owners packing heat in order to be able to protect themselves, because there's nothing that's keeping the fuckers who'll prey on them from being armed.



And you based that condescending statement on a complete ignorance of my life and circumstances.

Every murder in this country represents a failure, somewhere down the line. Every rape is a failure. Every child abused is a failure. Do I lose sleep over it? No, because you're right that we can't bleed heart for the entire world and we can't catch every sparrow that falls. But that doesn't mean that I don't care about the issue.



No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that in every instance I listed, which essentially is a list of anti-gun public crusades, the issue they chose was ill-founded and built on lies. I'm saying that they've largely ignored potential solutions such as Exile for their own gain.

I'm saying that they descend like vultures on every tragedy, because it makes them money and gains them power.

I'm saying they're despicable examples of the human race, basically.

But the only way -you- can state that to be my position is to ignore what I've said about self defense in this thread. Obviously if there wasn't a violence issue here, there wouldn't be a need for self defense. Shooters could bring home meat and drill holes in paper and nobody would care.

If you want to distill a point out of that, the point is that 'gun' violence isn't the problem, people violence is. It's a wordier version of 'guns don't kill, people do'. Look at the UK and their new thing about 'knife culture'. They attacked one aspect of a problem- shooting people is something we prefer to avoid, yeah, we all agree on that, without addressing the issue of 'why they're attacking each other and how we can fix that.' So the only thing that changed was the tool, not the overall problem.

ZRT, you are reading condescension into a statement that was delivered straight up.

There are people suffering all over the world, in thousands of different ways, for reasons that I neither focus on nor address. I don't fund efforts to relieve every victim's suffering, and I don't donate my time on every issue. One person can only do so much.

I have not been ignoring your statements on self defense. This is, essentially, the same point as Netzach's. I understand why people, who live in areas where they fear their neighbors, and can afford to purchase guns and ammo, would want to do so.

However, my personal view with regard to the areas of heaviest violence is that increasing the level of crossfire is unlikely to help those who are already caught up in, and dying from, existing crossfire levels.

As for your perspective on the motives of proponents of gun control, having worked with many of these people all I can say is that I find your view ill-informed and don't share it.

 

[Homburg]

I agree with some regulation in the sense that one can't shout fire in a crowded theater.

However, I see issues with licensing precisely the same way that literacy tests at polls are objectionable, because they discriminate against those most likely to have a pressing need for defensive armament.

Hence why I'd rather see mandatory firearms education than a licensing test scheme.

I have the same poll tax troubles with the concept. I've mentioned the idea in other places and included the poll tax as slippery slope. I just didn't go so far as mandatory safety education, as that would cause people's head to asplode. An opt-in is easier than an opt-out in this case.

Though I will say that the NRA does one thing very, very right. The Eddie Eagle courses really should be mandatory in elementary schools. I've seen no better method to prevent kid-related gun accidents than Eddie Eagle. It's damned good stuff, and the NRA should be proud of the program. I know I've used the ideas with my kids, and it works surprisingly well.

Heh. They can be fun. One of these days I'll have to see if I can dig up the scan of the letter where the ATF opinion was that, in light of using one to set up a bump-fire weapon, a shoelace was indeed a destructive device subject to Class II regulation.

Yeah, I would like to see that,. That's the sort of thinking that really shows what the ATF is capable of.

--

I grew up in the Bronx and lived in NYC my whole life prior to higher ed. Blue collar neighborhoods, albeit quiet old-people-filled ones.

The first time I heard urban gunfire was when I moved to Chicago. I got a good solid dose of the kind of "chaotic knife fight outside my window, hit the deck, could get weird kind" of thing. I don't have the energy to live like that at this point, but I can if I must, it's good to know.

I never met anyone who had guns for sport till I moved here.

I was held up with a box cutter in NYC. M was held up with a gun here, most definitely not by a gentleman who had a license.

The one time I had a knife pulled on me was in Germany. Every bit of violence that I've been part of here in the States were situations where I was an active component, and usually a (reluctantly) willing one (ie fistfights).

 

[Homburg]

As for your perspective on the motives of proponents of gun control, having worked with many of these people all I can say is that I find your view ill-informed and don't share it.

At the volunteer level, I don't doubt the motivations. At the "This is my job," level, I do. When you start making bank off your political lobbying, I am less likely to trust your involvement.

 

[ZRT]

However, my personal view with regard to the areas of heaviest violence is that increasing the level of crossfire is unlikely to help those who are already caught up in, and dying from, existing crossfire levels.

Taking the examples of places such as Chicago or D.C., the crossfire is between illegal owners and representative of the failure of bans in both cities.

The current solution is to disarm those who are trying to make a legitimate living in those areas, and has obviously resulted in failure. So do we continue to fail harder?

Furthermore, the self-defense issue isn't merely a gun against gun issue. Simple fact of the matter is that the typical urban predator is younger, stronger, and more violently inclined than your typical chosen victim. Take guns out of the equation, and you simply have might making right at closer ranges than it does currently.

As for your perspective on the motives of proponents of gun control, having worked with many of these people all I can say is that I find your view ill-informed and don't share it.

Fine then. By all means, go back to the laundry list of major 'gun problems' that I posted previously, all issues that have fallen under the consideration of proposed corrective gun control legislation, and explain to me the validity of the anti-gun position in any specific case there. Because when I see a movement that continually pushes an agenda built on fraud and emotion over facts, my conclusion tends to be that the proponents are either letting their emotion overrule any attachment to facts, or the proponents are in fact engaging in knowing fraud. At the ground level, I'll buy the former. At the top levels, I lean toward the latter.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

I like you.

lol I believe in an Assault Weapons Ban bill but not that one. One that is well thought out and will actually make a difference in saving peoples lives.

Alrighty. But really, it's just my argument with the whole 'we license drivers, why not shooters' that brings it up.

Do you not have to get a license to own/buy a gun where you live? I live in NY and here you need a pistol license.

Good god, you have so much more confidence in the NRA than I do. When I talk about the disease of advocacy groups, I include the NRA in that. At a time when we're doing better on the issue, what with having a Democratic party that's too scared to seriously move on the issue (and dependent on pro-gun westerners for their majority), the NRA still sends out monthly alerts to the effect that they're gonna come for our guns in the night ANY DAY NOW.

As for the licensing issue, that comes back to my argument that Constitutional rights should not be subject to this kind of government-controlled licensing scheme. At the risk of opening another cars/guns can of worms, let's take voting.

Again, you already need a license where I live to own a gun.

I don't have that much more confidence in the NRA. I just figured if they are going to be so out spoken and lobby so hard than they can have more control and power over gun rights and let's see what they can do.

Sort of like the government saying, "You think you know best? Then you deal with it.".

American voters, as a body, possess indirect control over the mightiest military machine in the world. By their selection, they could put in place a President who can bring about the end of civilization as we know it in the space of a few hours. We can bring war and destruction on the majority of nations of the world and kill hundreds of thousands or even millions with this power.

Should this not be subject to rigorous testing and training? Do we dare allow any schmuck over the age of eighteen possess a portion of this power simply by virtue of achieving an arbitrary age?

Would a justly and well-administered program make things better in either case? Probably so. Would you trust the government with that kind of power? I'm not keen on trusting my government, regardless of who's in charge.

If you read my political rant to Homburg a few posts back you would see I have little faith left in the whole political party system and politicians in general.

But I think voting is a personal thing. People vote for the candidate that best represents their personal views on issues (abortion, gun control, death penalty, etc.) so requiring training or rigorous testing wouldn't be all that helpful.

I'm not really sure what you would train or teach them anyway. Let's face it, even if you did there is no guarantee come election day all that training and teaching wouldn't get thrown out the window because one candidate is better looking than the other. *cough* JFK *cough*

How would arbitrary membership in the NRA by all gun owners suddenly make every gun owner a good citizen in this circumstance, or even the most of them?



It makes the NRA an arm of the Federal government, albeit a self-financed one. (Though I guarantee that in this scheme the NRA would be screaming for Federal subsidy in under a nanosecond, if nothing else to support the humongous infrastructure you're proposing.)



I agree it isn't plausible, but as I said before I'm always willing to wrestle an issue to produce the best answer.

Like I said, I pretty much just pulled that out of my ass. I'm really not against gun ownership/gun rights for law abiding citizens.

Where do people get these crazy ideas about Americans?

Sorry but I couldn't resist.

Actually, I do not own any guns. The only guns in my house are because of family members currently being in law enforcement.

My love affair with guns is from afar.

 

[ZRT]

lol I believe in an Assault Weapons Ban bill but not that one. One that is well thought out and will actually make a difference in saving peoples lives.

Okay, how and why? They represent a minuscule fraction of gun crimes, and have never been an issue beyond, well, hype and hysteria.

Do you not have to get a license to own/buy a gun where you live? I live in NY and here you need a pistol license.
Again, you already need a license where I live to own a gun.

God no, not in Texas. However, back in the day Texas had racially oriented gun laws designed specifically to keep blacks and latinos disarmed, hence why I'm leery of any licensing scheme due to potential abuse.

I don't have that much more confidence in the NRA. I just figured if they are going to be so out spoken and lobby so hard than they can have more control and power over gun rights and let's see what they can do.

Sort of like the government saying, "You think you know best? Then you deal with it.".

Only problem there is that the NRA has never proposed a national licensing system, beyond the continual push to expand shall-issue carry to as many states as possible. The NRA has continually advocated increased penalties for criminal misuse of firearms and increased education in a voluntary form. So it'd be horrendously unfair to say 'Well, we've got a new system, and you're administering it. Ta.'

If you read my political rant to Homburg a few posts back you would see I have little faith left in the whole political party system and politicians in general.

But I think voting is a personal thing. People vote for the candidate that best represents their personal views on issues (abortion, gun control, death penalty, etc.) so requiring training or rigorous testing wouldn't be all that helpful.

I'm not really sure what you would train or teach them anyway. Let's face it, even if you did there is no guarantee come election day all that training and teaching wouldn't get thrown out the window because one candidate is better looking than the other. *cough* JFK *cough*

My point is that such a system would be entirely undesirable, despite the consequences of American elections having a far greater effect on world stability and our own well-being than our guns ever have.

Basically, whenever you give the government power to regulate something, immediately look to the worst possible outcomes of potential abuses of that power, because inevitably it will be abused. Hence why the best course lay in minimizing governmental power and recognizing it for the necessary evil it is.

It probably wasn't the best example. But to dig up a real-world comparison, take my earlier statement about the War on Drugs. Well-intentioned, to be sure, but it's introduced some of the most grotesque abuses of civil rights in the past quarter century. Again, the solution being worse than the problem.

The problem here is that one cannot hide from the harsh reality of the world. Going back to my 'freedom is ugly' statement, freedom means that people are going to abuse the circumstances and do horrible things. It's how we choose to mitigate those losses, and I firmly believe that the best possible course is allowing people unfettered access to the means of self defense.

Like I said, I pretty much just pulled that out of my ass. I'm really not against gun ownership/gun rights for law abiding citizens.

I getcha. Some of the best ideas in history emerge from 'Hey, maybe we should...'

 

[JMohegan]

Where do people get these crazy ideas about Americans?

I don't know what you're talking about. This woman seems perfectly normal to me.

 

[Homburg]

I don't know what you're talking about. This woman seems perfectly normal to me.

Having taught many a woman to shoot a gun, that sort of reaction is not at all uncommon. Perhaps not that strong, but it is a movie.

What a lot of non-shooters don't get is that going to a range and putting a few bullets through a firearm can be a whole helluva a lot of harmless fun. Not some kind of whacked out power trip, or paranoid fantasy fulfillment. There is no psychological damage inherent to it. It's just fun to make it go bang.

And, wow, is she being bloody unsafe and law-breaking in having the piece resting on the passenger seat beside herself while driving. Then again, perhaps there is a plot reason. While I've heard it is a good film, I've not seen it.

 

[Keroin]

I don't know what you're talking about. This woman seems perfectly normal to me.

Sorry, JM, can't do any youtube stuff, my internet speed is ridiculously slow and I get charged for bandwidth, (1GB per month for $90 and huge charges for excess). But if it's the scene from American Beauty, I know it well. Very apropos and one of the most intelligent, cinematic commentaries on suburban America going.

Off topic: last night I watched, Crossing Over, which I think tried to do for illegal immigration what Crash did for racism, only not quite as successfully. Still, thought provoking. If you haven't seen it, you might enjoy it.

BTW, I love Americans. I love the big, in-your-face friendliness, the gumption, the weird combo of idealism-cynicism, the whole freedom of speech thing, etc. (And you're good tippers!) Lots to love about my neighbours. The gun infatuation unnerves me, though. It must be tough for anyone who speaks out in favour of regulation in your country.

 

[Netzach]

It must be tough for anyone who speaks out in favour of regulation in your country.

Absolutely depends where you are. I am definitely the only person in my immediate circle of very left-leaning friends who feels as I do about it. It's pretty much my only libertarian tendency. I'm also the only one that I can think of immediately with a blue collar background and experience in neighborhoods they weren't allowed to visit. Had my grandfather wanted a weapon at the dry cleaning place he ran, I can't imagine it being a bad idea, they were very vulnerable.

I do believe that gun ownership can stand to be somewhat regionally decided - when I was a kid Bernie Goetz was in the news. My stepdad was pissed because the idea of some vigilante throwing slugs around a crowded train car is fucking dumb. Take any common sense principle and you're going to have idiots.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

Okay, how and why? They represent a minuscule fraction of gun crimes, and have never been an issue beyond, well, hype and hysteria.

I don't necessarily mean assault weapons. I'm more for taking their time and putting together a bill that will make a difference rather than just throwing something together cause it will help them get re-elected.

Only problem there is that the NRA has never proposed a national licensing system, beyond the continual push to expand shall-issue carry to as many states as possible. The NRA has continually advocated increased penalties for criminal misuse of firearms and increased education in a voluntary form. So it'd be horrendously unfair to say 'Well, we've got a new system, and you're administering it. Ta.'

I didn't really mean that as the government washes their hands of the issue. More of, instead of the NRA butting heads with the government over the issue, they can take a bigger role in helping out. Tackle it from both sides.

The problem here is that one cannot hide from the harsh reality of the world. Going back to my 'freedom is ugly' statement, freedom means that people are going to abuse the circumstances and do horrible things. It's how we choose to mitigate those losses, and I firmly believe that the best possible course is allowing people unfettered access to the means of self defense.

I agree.

I getcha. Some of the best ideas in history emerge from 'Hey, maybe we should...'

Like, "Hey, maybe we should put something in here about the right to bear arms."

 

[Homburg]

It must be tough for anyone who speaks out in favour of regulation in your country.

Not really. While you see debate going here, you don't see abuse. People speak out in favour of it all the time. People speak out against it too. Freedom of speech, and all that.

People get more wound up about abortion and religion. Guns, while a very emotional issue, aren't as incendiary as those two.

--

I do believe that gun ownership can stand to be somewhat regionally decided - when I was a kid Bernie Goetz was in the news. My stepdad was pissed because the idea of some vigilante throwing slugs around a crowded train car is fucking dumb. Take any common sense principle and you're going to have idiots.

Very much so. The gun regs that make sense in Vermont (concealed carry for everyone, literally), make much less sense in NYC, where it is basically never safe to pull the trigger anywhere outside of a closed range.

 

[JMohegan]

Sorry, JM, can't do any youtube stuff, my internet speed is ridiculously slow and I get charged for bandwidth, (1GB per month for $90 and huge charges for excess). But if it's the scene from American Beauty, I know it well. Very apropos and one of the most intelligent, cinematic commentaries on suburban America going.

Off topic: last night I watched, Crossing Over, which I think tried to do for illegal immigration what Crash did for racism, only not quite as successfully. Still, thought provoking. If you haven't seen it, you might enjoy it.

BTW, I love Americans. I love the big, in-your-face friendliness, the gumption, the weird combo of idealism-cynicism, the whole freedom of speech thing, etc. (And you're good tippers!) Lots to love about my neighbours. The gun infatuation unnerves me, though. It must be tough for anyone who speaks out in favour of regulation in your country.

Yes, it was the scene from American Beauty, in which Annette Bening practices at the indoor range and then drives home singing "Don't Rain on My Parade." And I agree, that film is classic!

I haven't seen Crossing Over. It didn't get very good reviews here, but if you think it's worthwhile I might rent it.

I'm feeling a lot better about my fellow Americans now than I was 4 years ago. However, I definitely would not say "I love Americans." Like people everywhere, Americans run the gamut from good to evil, and reasonable to idiotic. I mean, I respect the right of someone who thinks the President was born in Kenya to express that opinion. But I don't respect the fact that he or she thinks a viral email is a legitimate source of information.

I do love the country itself, and the great, melting pot, arc-of-history-bending-toward-justice project that it represents. American democracy is a wonderful thing, even though at times it's quite messy.

I respect the work of the Founding Fathers, of course. But I don't share the cynicism for the present and nostalgia for 18th century America expressed on this thread. In my view, the country has gotten much better. For one thing, we no longer have slavery. For another, women can now own property and vote.

I also don't share the view that we all need to be prepared for armed insurrection. There are checks and balances in place, and I trust them to work.

As for gun control - no, it's not tough to speak out in favor of regulation. It may seem as if the anti-regulation folks comprise the overwhelming majority, but that's just because they shout louder. Polling data here may be of interest.

 

[Netzach]

I respect the work of the Founding Fathers, of course. But I don't share the cynicism for the present and nostalgia for 18th century America expressed on this thread.

Who said anything about that?

For one thing, the idea that things were less violent is crazy crazy. I remember my grandparents talking about how great everything was, and I was like "great? You practically went to school with Murder Inc." I would NOT like the time machine trip back to 1930 NYC, thank you, and certainly not 1810.

 

[Netzach]

Yes, it was the scene from American Beauty, in which Annette Bening practices at the indoor range and then drives home singing "Don't Rain on My Parade." And I agree, that film is classic!

I haven't seen Crossing Over. It didn't get very good reviews here, but if you think it's worthwhile I might rent it.

I'm feeling a lot better about my fellow Americans now than I was 4 years ago. However, I definitely would not say "I love Americans." Like people everywhere, Americans run the gamut from good to evil, and reasonable to idiotic. I mean, I respect the right of someone who thinks the President was born in Kenya to express that opinion. But I don't respect the fact that he or she thinks a viral email is a legitimate source of information.

I do love the country itself, and the great, melting pot, arc-of-history-bending-toward-justice project that it represents. American democracy is a wonderful thing, even though at times it's quite messy.

I respect the work of the Founding Fathers, of course. But I don't share the cynicism for the present and nostalgia for 18th century America expressed on this thread. In my view, the country has gotten much better. For one thing, we no longer have slavery. For another, women can now own property and vote.

I also don't share the view that we all need to be prepared for armed insurrection. There are checks and balances in place, and I trust them to work.

As for gun control - no, it's not tough to speak out in favor of regulation. It may seem as if the anti-regulation folks comprise the overwhelming majority, but that's just because they shout louder. Polling data here may be of interest.

Do note the seven percentage point jump in people who do not think that stricter gun laws will help lessen crime, at the same time that people are more in favor of stricter gun laws.

Polls make me love Americans, seriously. In a "you crazy people I love you" way.

 

[JMohegan]

Who said anything about that?

For one thing, the idea that things were less violent is crazy crazy. I remember my grandparents talking about how great everything was, and I was like "great? You practically went to school with Murder Inc." I would NOT like the time machine trip back to 1930 NYC, thank you, and certainly not 1810.

See the bottom here.

 

[WriterDom]

Meanwhile, this passed with little fanfare.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260178503028361.html#mod=djemEditorialPage



By 67-29, the Senate passed Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn's amendment to let law-abiding visitors carry legal firearms into national parks. This overturns a 1983 federal rule requiring that firearms be kept unloaded and in an inaccessible place such as a trunk of a car. The provision (now part of credit-card legislation) protects Second Amendment rights, and it preserves the right of states to pass firearm laws that apply consistently, even on federal lands.


Fine with me. Bad guys don't read the stickys anyway.

 

[Netzach]

See the bottom here.

Oh, that's silly. I mean, look at the campaigning, the press, the political machines, the corruption.

What we have here is as old as Rome.

 

[Netzach]

Meanwhile, this passed with little fanfare.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260178503028361.html#mod=djemEditorialPage



By 67-29, the Senate passed Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn's amendment to let law-abiding visitors carry legal firearms into national parks. This overturns a 1983 federal rule requiring that firearms be kept unloaded and in an inaccessible place such as a trunk of a car. The provision (now part of credit-card legislation) protects Second Amendment rights, and it preserves the right of states to pass firearm laws that apply consistently, even on federal lands.


Fine with me. Bad guys don't read the stickys anyway.

Regulations like those are almost like a "hey, steal guns here" sign.

 

[WriterDom]

Regulations like those are almost like a "hey, steal guns here" sign.

Surely there are easier ways to get guns than to try to disarm an armed person. That's a little suicidal. And the Mexican cartels gross 30 billion or so. They can afford boatloads from a long list of countries willing to sell them. The idea that they come from America is just silly. A lot of the ones that can be traced do, but that's a minority amount of the total. But it makes for good anti-gun press for the anti-gun media.

 

[Netzach]

Surely there are easier ways to get guns than to try to disarm an armed person. That's a little suicidal. And the Mexican cartels gross 30 billion or so. They can afford boatloads from a long list of countries willing to sell them. The idea that they come from America is just silly. A lot of the ones that can be traced do, but that's a minority amount of the total. But it makes for good anti-gun press for the anti-gun media.

No, I mean taking them out of the trunks of parked vehicles. Not wresting them from people barehanded.

 

[HidingOutinTX]

This story takes place in Richmond, Virginia.

Omar Samaha's ability to walk into a gun show and walk out one hour later, with 10 guns and no questions asked, is the issue.

Good luck with that? Though I find opposition to background checks totally disgusting, I'm not so stupid as to think pushing for this legislation makes any sense. I like Virginia blue, and want to keep that way. We can save more lives by reforming health care.

So what? If he wants to buy twenty guns, or one gun, so what? It's nobody's business but his. And, keep in mind -- he can only really use one gun at a time (movies and video games to the contrary). Why is buying twenty a problem?

At home, I have over a dozen guns I bought in the last six months. I have three handguns, two shotguns, two semi-automatic rifles, about six or so bolt action rifles and a lever action rifle. They sere different purposes -- one handgun is my concealed carry piece; another is for shooting at the range, and yet another is just a collector's piece. Similarly, I have different shotguns for different jobs, some rifles I will use in hunting, and some that I just bought because I like WWII era bolt action rifles. I am neither criminal nor crazy. I bought almost all of them at gun shows or through online auctions. Why in the world should I have to explain to some bureaucrat my reasons for owning these weapons? It is literally none of the government's business.

In fact, one should look at the remarks by the drafters of the second amendment. The second amendment was not drafted to preserve hunter's rights, nor for self defense (though those are incidental benefits of the amendment). It was drafted to arm the citizens in order to protect them from a tyrannical government.

Now, does that mean all purchasers of firearms are anti-government nuts like McVeigh? No. The overwhelming majority are decent, upstanding citizens. But, the fact that we have an armed citizenry is one of the things that does prevent overreaching by our government. If jackbooted thugs start showing up at houses in the middle of the night to haul people away (like what happened in Soviet Russia, Communist China and Nazi Germany), they will not encounter unarmed, frightened victims; rather, in any cases, they will meet armed citizens who can choose to fight back.

And that is as it should be. I'm not advocating illegal acts, but I am saying that just because the government undertakes an action does not mean that action is either moral or appropriate.

Just some food for thought (or gasoline for the fire, if you will).

S--

 

[JMohegan]

So what? If he wants to buy twenty guns, or one gun, so what? It's nobody's business but his. And, keep in mind -- he can only really use one gun at a time (movies and video games to the contrary). Why is buying twenty a problem?

At home, I have over a dozen guns I bought in the last six months. I have three handguns, two shotguns, two semi-automatic rifles, about six or so bolt action rifles and a lever action rifle. They sere different purposes -- one handgun is my concealed carry piece; another is for shooting at the range, and yet another is just a collector's piece. Similarly, I have different shotguns for different jobs, some rifles I will use in hunting, and some that I just bought because I like WWII era bolt action rifles. I am neither criminal nor crazy. I bought almost all of them at gun shows or through online auctions. Why in the world should I have to explain to some bureaucrat my reasons for owning these weapons? It is literally none of the government's business.

In fact, one should look at the remarks by the drafters of the second amendment. The second amendment was not drafted to preserve hunter's rights, nor for self defense (though those are incidental benefits of the amendment). It was drafted to arm the citizens in order to protect them from a tyrannical government.

Now, does that mean all purchasers of firearms are anti-government nuts like McVeigh? No. The overwhelming majority are decent, upstanding citizens. But, the fact that we have an armed citizenry is one of the things that does prevent overreaching by our government. If jackbooted thugs start showing up at houses in the middle of the night to haul people away (like what happened in Soviet Russia, Communist China and Nazi Germany), they will not encounter unarmed, frightened victims; rather, in any cases, they will meet armed citizens who can choose to fight back.

And that is as it should be. I'm not advocating illegal acts, but I am saying that just because the government undertakes an action does not mean that action is either moral or appropriate.

Just some food for thought (or gasoline for the fire, if you will).

S--

Considering the fact that you folks are planning for secession, I can understand the desire to be stocking up.

To answer your question - the point of 10 guns in one hour, no questions asked, is that ten sellers didn't give a fuck whether Omar was a convicted felon, mental patient, or on the terrorist watch list. They were just happy to take his cash.

 

[Keroin]

Yes, it was the scene from American Beauty, in which Annette Bening practices at the indoor range and then drives home singing "Don't Rain on My Parade." And I agree, that film is classic!

I haven't seen Crossing Over. It didn't get very good reviews here, but if you think it's worthwhile I might rent it.

I'm feeling a lot better about my fellow Americans now than I was 4 years ago. However, I definitely would not say "I love Americans." Like people everywhere, Americans run the gamut from good to evil, and reasonable to idiotic. I mean, I respect the right of someone who thinks the President was born in Kenya to express that opinion. But I don't respect the fact that he or she thinks a viral email is a legitimate source of information.

I do love the country itself, and the great, melting pot, arc-of-history-bending-toward-justice project that it represents. American democracy is a wonderful thing, even though at times it's quite messy.

I respect the work of the Founding Fathers, of course. But I don't share the cynicism for the present and nostalgia for 18th century America expressed on this thread. In my view, the country has gotten much better. For one thing, we no longer have slavery. For another, women can now own property and vote.

I also don't share the view that we all need to be prepared for armed insurrection. There are checks and balances in place, and I trust them to work. Yes, I always found that argument to be very silly.

As for gun control - no, it's not tough to speak out in favor of regulation. It may seem as if the anti-regulation folks comprise the overwhelming majority, but that's just because they shout louder. Polling data here may be of interest.

Well, the movie could very well be garbage. I should attach the caveat that, in the face of such limited entertainment options, my standards are now abysmally low. Here’s what I look for in a good film these days:

1. The guy filming the pirated copy holds the video camera still.
2. The people in front of the cameraman don’t get up to go to the bathroom too often.
3. The subtitles are not in Russian
4. The cameraman doesn’t get chased out before the final scene.

LOL. It wasn’t a brilliant film but it did deal with some interesting issues.

And I do love Americans. Mind you, I love a lot of cultures but, as a foreigner, I think my critiques can easily be interpreted as “anti-American sentiment” and you guys can be touchy about that, so I’m careful. I did think Netz’s comment on the stereotypes was interesting, though. As someone who spends a lot of time abroad, mixing with other nationalities, I know that cultural stereotypes don’t appear out of thin air. Germans, generally, really are stoic, precise and efficient. Brits, generally, do have a dry wit and skin so white it can blind a grown man. Canadians, generally, are annoyingly polite, dope smoking, quasi-communists, (well, on the west coast, anyway).

However, I can report that everyone I’ve spoken to since Obama’s election, has voiced a renewed faith and hope in your country. There is a pervasive sense of relief in the international community. (But they still can’t get over how huge the servings are at your restaurants. LOL)

 

[ZRT]

I don't necessarily mean assault weapons. I'm more for taking their time and putting together a bill that will make a difference rather than just throwing something together cause it will help them get re-elected.

Gotcha.

I didn't really mean that as the government washes their hands of the issue. More of, instead of the NRA butting heads with the government over the issue, they can take a bigger role in helping out. Tackle it from both sides.

The NRA isn't butting heads with the government so much as with anti-gun politicians. They've worked in the system to advocate Exile and provided various training programs. For example, the training requirement for Florida's concealed carry program is an NRA training course, taught by NRA-certified instructors.

As for gun control - no, it's not tough to speak out in favor of regulation. It may seem as if the anti-regulation folks comprise the overwhelming majority, but that's just because they shout louder.

Yeah, when you can't answer an argument, just slander your opponent. I'm still waiting for you to bring up an valid issue and actually answer points raised against you rather than ducking, weaving, tackling strawmen and making appeals to emotion. I suppose you might have missed my last post- I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there.

One of the reasons I rarely engage in political debates is because I despise how ideologues will stake everything on appearing to win an argument over actually settling a question. Some people approach a debate as an opportunity to present facts, discuss those facts, and produce something approaching a valid conclusion. Some people apparently just aren't interested in that kind of cognition, I guess.