Gun rights and social justice are not incompatible

[PS_Alexandria]

I think it's totally nonsensical how gun rights and civil rights of minorities are usually associated with opposite ends of the political spectrum. Gun rights, in my opinion, are very much compatible with social justice issues. For instance, if you happen to be black, and you exercise your right to bear arms, you're much more likely to be treated as if you have already committed a gun crime than a white person bearing arms. Also, guns serve to make physical strength less of a factor in people's vulnerability to violence, so a woman carrying a gun is empowering herself to not be afraid when doing things that women are typically more fearful of than men (like walking down the street at night, going into a bad neighborhood, etc.). Relationships between two women, or relationships where the man is a transman can lead to a sense of vulnerability both due to their minority status, and because cisgender men are usually associated with physical strength and protection. A gun can help people in these relationships feel secure. What if Brandon Teena had carried a gun? What if Matthew Shepard had carried a gun? They might still be alive.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

For the extremists gun owners like open carry it's all about fear of those uppity negroes.

Y'all didn't need dem guns when they knew their place.

 

[Aglaopheme]

This is what happens if you're a black man.

https://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...attempted-coverup-exposed?detail=emailclassic

 

[KingOrfeo]

A gun can help people in these relationships feel secure.

If you're in any relationship where having a gun would make you feel more secure, you don't need a gun, you need a new SO.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

For the extremists gun owners like open carry it's all about fear of those uppity negroes.

Y'all didn't need dem guns when they knew their place.

Yes, because no one needed a gun in the Wild West.

 

[badbabysitter]

Yes, because no one needed a gun in the Wild West.

yeah, thank god we all still live in 1880

 

[Sean Renaud]

I think it's totally nonsensical how gun rights and civil rights of minorities are usually associated with opposite ends of the political spectrum. Gun rights, in my opinion, are very much compatible with social justice issues. For instance, if you happen to be black, and you exercise your right to bear arms, you're much more likely to be treated as if you have already committed a gun crime than a white person bearing arms. Also, guns serve to make physical strength less of a factor in people's vulnerability to violence, so a woman carrying a gun is empowering herself to not be afraid when doing things that women are typically more fearful of than men (like walking down the street at night, going into a bad neighborhood, etc.). Relationships between two women, or relationships where the man is a transman can lead to a sense of vulnerability both due to their minority status, and because cisgender men are usually associated with physical strength and protection. A gun can help people in these relationships feel secure. What if Brandon Teena had carried a gun? What if Matthew Shepard had carried a gun? They might still be alive.

First you're point is bunk. I've yet to see a black who's not pro 2nd amendment (I'm sure one exists). Republicans are simply sufficiently toxic for a social and economic reasons and it's been years since a Democrat made any serious play at gun regulation that you go with the team that might help you not the once who are aiming to fuck you.

Second yes, blacks with guns don't look good no matter where they are. A woman carrying a gun is really only slightly less vulnerable in the real world. Even in the "wrong neighborhood" you're statistically unlikely to be attacked at random. It's not impossible mind you but it's not particularly common. More to the point is she going to pull it on every man who happens to be walking out on the street. Cus if I'm attacking a 98 lbs woman I'm not taking a 20 yard sprint to spear her. I'm gonna walk up all calm like and snatch the shit out of her.

You can say a lot of coulda woulda shoulda when it comes to what if scenarios. However first studies don't show it to be true. Remember the Charlie Hebdow (I thnk that's how it's spelled) terrorist shootings of drawing Muhammad? They decided to see if guns would have made the difference. Turns out they didn't, and those people had the advantage of knowing they were going to be attacked unlike in real life. I don't know about you but when I hear the door open at my office sure I look to see who it is but my first response isn't "holy shit I'm in trouble!" (Unless I'm watching porn) so if they were coming to shoot me they already have their weapon, i have to go for mine, turn off the safety. Unless I'm goddamn Jack Bauer I'm only fractionally less fucked than I was in the other scenario.

I'm not saying it would never help but the idea that it would instead of might is just naive.

Yes, because no one needed a gun in the Wild West.

First the Wild West is greatly exaggerated and romanticized and even was at the time. It's like the modern day James Bond and Bourne Identity. If spies were actually like that in real life you'd hear about it in the news. But I don't live in the 1880s. Indians aren't going to ride out of the mountains, wild animals are largely stuck in mountains and remote areas. I see coyotes and possums on occasion. Not bears and mountain lions. The only reason I wouldn't kick the wild animals is there is a slim chance they might be sick and I'd rather not risk it. Bandits don't ride through town. This argument is stupid as fuck.

I'm not really anti-gun, but I do hate stupid arguments and people thinking they are real points.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

First the Wild West is greatly exaggerated and romanticized and even was at the time. It's like the modern day James Bond and Bourne Identity. If spies were actually like that in real life you'd hear about it in the news. But I don't live in the 1880s. Indians aren't going to ride out of the mountains, wild animals are largely stuck in mountains and remote areas. I see coyotes and possums on occasion. Not bears and mountain lions. The only reason I wouldn't kick the wild animals is there is a slim chance they might be sick and I'd rather not risk it. Bandits don't ride through town. This argument is stupid as fuck.

I'm not really anti-gun, but I do hate stupid arguments and people thinking they are real points.

First, my comment was 90% sarcasm. If I wanted to make a real point about guns, I would mention that both my Father and Grandfather have used guns to actually shoot criminals. My Grandfather shot a Peeping Tom in the 50's and my Father shot a Guy who tried to mug my Mother in the 70's.

Both people lived, however the need for a gun was there and they had something to protect their families with.

I've never had to shoot anyone or ever scare someone off with a gun but I do reserve the right to own one in case the situation arises in which I do need one.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Shooting a peeping tom is not needed.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

Shooting a peeping tom is not needed.

I have to go with opinion of the guy who was there ( my Grandfather). He felt it was at the time and from the sounds of it he never came back. So it solved that problem permanently.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I have to go with opinion of the guy who was there ( my Grandfather). He felt it was at the time and from the sounds of it he never came back. So it solved that problem permanently.

I don't care what he felt. He should have been jailed for assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[homewa]

That depends on how much of a threat he believed the peeping tom to be. In most places deadly force is authorized in defense of one's home. So if he had reason to believe that the peeping tom might become a rapist, then it's definitely an acceptable reaction to shoot him, possibly not the best solution, but certainly not a completely unreasonable one.

I'm pro-social justice, and I'm pro 2nd Amendment rights, for two reasons. The first is that our constitution exists as it does for a reason, there are ways to change it, so if they can get a 2/3rds majority in congress then they can alter gun rights, to remove them without actually changing that is a dangerous precedent, and it's already been stated by the Supreme Court that this applied to the individual's right to arm themselves. The second is that I know a lot of farmers, and they need guns, a coyote isn't going to be scared off of murdering your livestock with any means we know of. And you probably eat a lot of livestock that farmers protect with guns.

Now I do think that people with guns are responsible for their reasonable use, for example if the peeping tom in the earlier scenario were running away and did not constitute a reasonable threat, then the grandfather should not have shot him. But if he was leering through a window at a woman, then there is certainly reason to believe that this behavior would have escalated.

I also agree about the stupid arguments bit, I just felt that in the peeping tom scenario, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, because as I pointed out, there may have been a legitimate reason to use deadly force in that instance.

 

[Sean Renaud]

There may have been but there probably wasn't. This was a guy who saw someone leering at his daughter and shot him. The overwhelming majority of fathers would do that.

As for the Constitution we've been ignoring for decades and decades because changing it is such an Herculean task that's is easier just to apply common sense in real life and ignore the damn thing. Whether or not I agree with that (I have kinda mixed feelings.) the Constitution argument is generally proof that one does not have a good point in the first place.

I don't know any farmers but I get that you might need to shoot a coyote (though I would think a large dog would do just fine for that.) that's an incredibly valid point however. It however only applies to a relatively small group of people. If for the sake of argument Russians were routinely sneaking into Alaska I would have no problems at all with Alaskans owning landmines .50 cal machineguns and for that matter a goddamn tank (which Constitutionally you have a right to own but the overwhelming majority of us basically say 'Fuck the Constiution I'm more worried about drunk Paris Hilton with an operational tank than I am my government is going to put me into a FEMA camp) exemptions can be made for anything if there is a pressing need.

Now personally I own several guns, I enjoy the right. I just hate stupid arguments. I've also worked in security and other training and despite the argument about women being safer with guns all the stats I've seen suggest that's dubious at best. I personally always recommend pepper spray for the majority of women and a large portion of men. See a lot of people don't have the stomach to kill and even in that situation they are going to stop and think about it instead of pulling the trigger and being done. Give em something nonlethal and they don't have to think about it just use it.

 

[homewa]

There may have been but there probably wasn't. This was a guy who saw someone leering at his daughter and shot him. The overwhelming majority of fathers would do that.

I doubt that's true, since most teenage boys remain unshot. Fuck, most of the teenage boys caught actually fucking teenage daughters remain unshot, if that wasn't the case the rate of teenage boys shot would be very nearly 100%. Not so high if we're only counting those who were caught, but even still I'd guess about fifty in that case.

As for the Constitution we've been ignoring for decades and decades because changing it is such an Herculean task that's is easier just to apply common sense in real life and ignore the damn thing. Whether or not I agree with that (I have kinda mixed feelings.) the Constitution argument is generally proof that one does not have a good point in the first place.

And it's supposed to be a herculean task to change it. It isn't supposed to be easy. The fact that literally ALL of our laws are held against it when challenged in court is a pretty good evidence that we're not ignoring it, but rather bending it, diluting slowly, and with less common sense and more political nuance and avarice. I'm not of the opinion that ignoring the constitution is wrong, but we should have transparency in that if we are to do it. Lack of transparency in politics favors only the politicians and those who have bought them.

I don't know any farmers but I get that you might need to shoot a coyote (though I would think a large dog would do just fine for that.) that's an incredibly valid point however. It however only applies to a relatively small group of people. If for the sake of argument Russians were routinely sneaking into Alaska I would have no problems at all with Alaskans owning landmines .50 cal machineguns and for that matter a goddamn tank (which Constitutionally you have a right to own but the overwhelming majority of us basically say 'Fuck the Constiution I'm more worried about drunk Paris Hilton with an operational tank than I am my government is going to put me into a FEMA camp) exemptions can be made for anything if there is a pressing need.

I do know farmers, and a large dog helps, but you really need both things in the end. A dog will alert you, but a dog can't beat a pack of coyotes, or a pack of wolves, or a bear. But a man with a gun can.

I'm not worried about people with tanks, for several reasons, a tank doesn't count as something that should be protected in the second amendment, it isn't a small arm, it's a vehicle, so Paris Hilton might have an argument for owning the canon, but not the whole thing. Now Paris Hilton with a tank would be scary, but the weapons the real military has, would end that World War 2 era tank (which are the type people generally can get their hands on) so fucking fast it would make your head spin.

Now personally I own several guns, I enjoy the right. I just hate stupid arguments. I've also worked in security and other training and despite the argument about women being safer with guns all the stats I've seen suggest that's dubious at best. I personally always recommend pepper spray for the majority of women and a large portion of men. See a lot of people don't have the stomach to kill and even in that situation they are going to stop and think about it instead of pulling the trigger and being done. Give em something nonlethal and they don't have to think about it just use it.

Well I've been in the military, and I disagree, when threatened with death almost everybody will respond with lethal means very quickly. The only study you can find that disputes this is the one that idiot LtCol Grossman quotes and that was based on interviews rather than actual data (like the presence of the dead).

Additionally I've been pepper-sprayed, as part of a training course, out of 200 people that were doing that, myself and one other guy, were almost completely not affected. Not because I'm teh hardcorez or insanely tough, but for whatever reason I won out on a genetic lottery in that case. A gun is effective against 100% of folks if used properly, that's (admittedly anecdotal, but I imagine it would carry out in other tests, and that's certainly a large enough sample size for rigor) pepper spray is ineffective against at least 1% of people, and the rest can learn to work through it with marginal practice and effort.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I doubt that's true, since most teenage boys remain unshot. Fuck, most of the teenage boys caught actually fucking teenage daughters remain unshot, if that wasn't the case the rate of teenage boys shot would be very nearly 100%. Not so high if we're only counting those who were caught, but even still I'd guess about fifty in that case.

Teenage boys with the permission of the daughter are an entirely different animal from someone leering in the window. The only similarity is seeing the woman undressed.

And it's supposed to be a herculean task to change it. It isn't supposed to be easy. The fact that literally ALL of our laws are held against it when challenged in court is a pretty good evidence that we're not ignoring it, but rather bending it, diluting slowly, and with less common sense and more political nuance and avarice. I'm not of the opinion that ignoring the constitution is wrong, but we should have transparency in that if we are to do it. Lack of transparency in politics favors only the politicians and those who have bought them.

Legally speaking there is no need for transparency. The way our checks and balances system functions Congress can write a law and the President can sign it with pretty much zero regard for the Constiution. Someone has to challenge it until the Supreme Court takes the case and decides. Until then it's perfectly Kosher. Given that the court isn't even legally obligated to take every case they can easily ignore shit.

And the difficulty of changing it is what makes us do it. It was a nice try but ultimately seems to be at best more annoying than it ought be and at worst outright harmful.

I do know farmers, and a large dog helps, but you really need both things in the end. A dog will alert you, but a dog can't beat a pack of coyotes, or a pack of wolves, or a bear. But a man with a gun can.

Wolves are virtually extinct in America as a bears so you're really talking about packs of coyotes. Again I have no problem at all with farmers and guns but it still sounds like a problem you could solve with a few dogs in the majority of cases.

I'm not worried about people with tanks, for several reasons, a tank doesn't count as something that should be protected in the second amendment, it isn't a small arm, it's a vehicle, so Paris Hilton might have an argument for owning the canon, but not the whole thing. Now Paris Hilton with a tank would be scary, but the weapons the real military has, would end that World War 2 era tank (which are the type people generally can get their hands on) so fucking fast it would make your head spin.

The Constitution does not say small arms. It says arms. You Constiutionally fully within your rights to own a nuclear missile. You could attempt to make the claim that a tank is a vehicle and not a weapon which lets be honest, is rules lawyer bullshit. That's the same order of shit you used to pull on you parents when they failed to phrase a question properly and when they found out you said "But you asked if I was a Billy's last night! I wasn't I was with Kate! Again Constitutionally you have a right to any weapon known to man, there are no provisos on it.

Now different people have different opinions but if the idea is to be able to fight the government should they turn on us we do need to be armed on equal terms. I think the time for that has passed and if you don't trust your government not to be that corrupt you need to immigrate someplace and yesterday but still.

Well I've been in the military, and I disagree, when threatened with death almost everybody will respond with lethal means very quickly. The only study you can find that disputes this is the one that idiot LtCol Grossman quotes and that was based on interviews rather than actual data (like the presence of the dead).

I've been in the military as well which for this means relatively little. That is far from the only study that disputes it. Though just going through combat training and seeing the sheer number of people who can't chamber a round and remove the safety in a timely fashion with someone shouting at them tells me that you're not talking civilians caught in the heat of the moment or even trained (if newly) actual members of the military. And again it's not that I would take away the right, but if you pull a gun someone should die 100% of the time. None of this "Get away from me." Once you point you pull the trigger. From a strictly legal standpoint it's nice if the only side of the story is yours and everything else has to be pieced together by witnesses (if any) and looking at the location.

Additionally I've been pepper-sprayed, as part of a training course, out of 200 people that were doing that, myself and one other guy, were almost completely not affected. Not because I'm teh hardcorez or insanely tough, but for whatever reason I won out on a genetic lottery in that case. A gun is effective against 100% of folks if used properly, that's (admittedly anecdotal, but I imagine it would carry out in other tests, and that's certainly a large enough sample size for rigor) pepper spray is ineffective against at least 1% of people, and the rest can learn to work through it with marginal practice and effort.

Oh some people are mostly immune to pepper spray, but lets assume your numbers are accurate across the board. 1% chance of failure and look if a guy has raped and mugged so many people that he's learned to work through it well enough to still be a threat he's the kind of person you're never gonna get the chance to shoot anyway because he knows how to close the gap before you feel threatened. But ignoring that Pepperspray is easier to wield.

Been peppersprayed as well mostly by accident, I can't imagine how anybody could breathe that junk, same with tear gas, sure I can bad ass my way to seeing through it but my lungs do require a certain ratio of oxygen to function and being able to see only does so much good when you can't breathe. Not saying you can't just saying I never saw anybody pull that crap and if I did I'd either start cloning him for a super soldier program or shoot him so he can't have super soldier kids. Whichever I deemed more appropriate at the second.

 

[homewa]

Teenage boys with the permission of the daughter are an entirely different animal from someone leering in the window. The only similarity is seeing the woman undressed.

You've clearly not met as many fathers as I have...

Legally speaking there is no need for transparency. The way our checks and balances system functions Congress can write a law and the President can sign it with pretty much zero regard for the Constiution. Someone has to challenge it until the Supreme Court takes the case and decides. Until then it's perfectly Kosher. Given that the court isn't even legally obligated to take every case they can easily ignore shit.

And the difficulty of changing it is what makes us do it. It was a nice try but ultimately seems to be at best more annoying than it ought be and at worst outright harmful.

Transparency isn't legally required, no. My argument was that lacking it is bad for us, the people. And good for the politicians and those who own them.

Wolves are virtually extinct in America as a bears so you're really talking about packs of coyotes. Again I have no problem at all with farmers and guns but it still sounds like a problem you could solve with a few dogs in the majority of cases.

Wrong-O,

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=594846&mode=2

http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/wolf/population.html

That's just two examples. And no coyotes cannot be solved with a "few dogs" they're fucking sneaky and smart, they know how to use one coyote to lure the dogs and another to grab what they're after. You need a gun to solve that.

The Constitution does not say small arms. It says arms. You Constiutionally fully within your rights to own a nuclear missile. You could attempt to make the claim that a tank is a vehicle and not a weapon which lets be honest, is rules lawyer bullshit. That's the same order of shit you used to pull on you parents when they failed to phrase a question properly and when they found out you said "But you asked if I was a Billy's last night! I wasn't I was with Kate! Again Constitutionally you have a right to any weapon known to man, there are no provisos on it.

Now different people have different opinions but if the idea is to be able to fight the government should they turn on us we do need to be armed on equal terms. I think the time for that has passed and if you don't trust your government not to be that corrupt you need to immigrate someplace and yesterday but still.

There are NO provisions explicit in the constitution but there are Supreme Court Precedents, which are legally as binding, which allow the government to restrict the type of arms.

I've been in the military as well which for this means relatively little. That is far from the only study that disputes it. Though just going through combat training and seeing the sheer number of people who can't chamber a round and remove the safety in a timely fashion with someone shouting at them tells me that you're not talking civilians caught in the heat of the moment or even trained (if newly) actual members of the military. And again it's not that I would take away the right, but if you pull a gun someone should die 100% of the time. None of this "Get away from me." Once you point you pull the trigger. From a strictly legal standpoint it's nice if the only side of the story is yours and everything else has to be pieced together by witnesses (if any) and looking at the location.

You were clearly not in the same branch as I was, I've never seen somebody unable to chamber a round quickly who had bade it through boot. Now I've seen people who couldn't shoot safely or worth a damn. But that's whatever. And I certainly wouldn't diss nonlethal means, but I imagine that most people would go to lethal force VERY quickly.

Edit: And I definitely think that people who guns should have to go through training, actually I think everybody in high school should have to learn how to use a gun, it's a good skill to have in a country where owning guns is a right we have no excuse not to everybody able to use them with a modicum of safety.

Oh some people are mostly immune to pepper spray, but lets assume your numbers are accurate across the board. 1% chance of failure and look if a guy has raped and mugged so many people that he's learned to work through it well enough to still be a threat he's the kind of person you're never gonna get the chance to shoot anyway because he knows how to close the gap before you feel threatened. But ignoring that Pepperspray is easier to wield.

Been peppersprayed as well mostly by accident, I can't imagine how anybody could breathe that junk, same with tear gas, sure I can bad ass my way to seeing through it but my lungs do require a certain ratio of oxygen to function and being able to see only does so much good when you can't breathe. Not saying you can't just saying I never saw anybody pull that crap and if I did I'd either start cloning him for a super soldier program or shoot him so he can't have super soldier kids. Whichever I deemed more appropriate at the second.

Eh, Tear Gas and I did not get along at all. Actually I've heard good things about Tazers, I would recommend them over paper spray in most cases. If you can get enough Pepper Spray for somebody to asphyxiate then you definitely aren't using a spray bottle. Neither I nor the other guy were Super Marines, we were just Marines who weren't bothered by Pepper Spray, and they did spray us good and decent, it wasn't "badassing" our way through it, it literally didn't really bother us. I mean you can't breath it any more than you can breath and liquid, but if drowning somebody in pepper spray would be like drowning them with a squirt gun.

 

[KUJACK]

True

I think it's totally nonsensical how gun rights and civil rights of minorities are usually associated with opposite ends of the political spectrum. Gun rights, in my opinion, are very much compatible with social justice issues. For instance, if you happen to be black, and you exercise your right to bear arms, you're much more likely to be treated as if you have already committed a gun crime than a white person bearing arms. Also, guns serve to make physical strength less of a factor in people's vulnerability to violence, so a woman carrying a gun is empowering herself to not be afraid when doing things that women are typically more fearful of than men (like walking down the street at night, going into a bad neighborhood, etc.). Relationships between two women, or relationships where the man is a transman can lead to a sense of vulnerability both due to their minority status, and because cisgender men are usually associated with physical strength and protection. A gun can help people in these relationships feel secure. What if Brandon Teena had carried a gun? What if Matthew Shepard had carried a gun? They might still be alive.

Without guns, the rights of every man would have not happened. The gun made the serf as powerful as the king. Women as powerfulsas a man. Equality is still preserved by the gun. The first thing a government does to take over a country is to ban guns, Ala Hitler, Stalin etc. If you find a stranger in your house at night, Call for a pizza and call for the police, see who shows up first.

 

[homewa]

Without guns, the rights of every man would have not happened. The gun made the serf as powerful as the king. Women as powerfulsas a man. Equality is still preserved by the gun. The first thing a government does to take over a country is to ban guns, Ala Hitler, Stalin etc. If you find a stranger in your house at night, Call for a pizza and call for the police, see who shows up first.

Eh, we were as powerful as kings. In the 16 and 1700s if only barely, and only because those kings were pissing themselves that they might have wars on their own continent (which they later did). Not hardly now, your peashooter, your assault rifle, you see how that holds up against mortars, or arty, or air support. The can kill you from so far away that you wouldn't even see them coming.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

I don't care what he felt. He should have been jailed for assault with a deadly weapon.

Well, He wasn't. The Police were called and they clapped him on the back, said nice shot and took the bad man away.

Even considering that it was the 1950's, people did still get arrested for shooting other people without a damn good reason. So if the Police let him go I believe it was a good shoot.

Keeping this in mind. My Grandfather wasn't in the habit of walking around the house strapped at all times. Someone saw this guy. My Grandfather went and got the gun and had enough time to find the guy again and then shoot him.

If and I say if, I was a Peeping Tom and I saw that the people I was peeping on saw me, I'd split. He didn't, his mistake.

 

[Sean Renaud]

People get away with shit all the time, doesn't make it right. Hell something being legal doesn't make it right.

Without guns, the rights of every man would have not happened. The gun made the serf as powerful as the king. Women as powerfulsas a man. Equality is still preserved by the gun. The first thing a government does to take over a country is to ban guns, Ala Hitler, Stalin etc. If you find a stranger in your house at night, Call for a pizza and call for the police, see who shows up first.

Guns made the serf as powerful as the king? On what fucking planet do you live? I'm serious. If you're talking a straight fist fight the serf was likely better than the king to begin with. If you're talking swords it depends on if this king decided to train or not. If you're talking reality the King had an army and you didn't.

Hitler banned guns? I must have missed that part. And you can look around history and the reality is if your government wants you dead weapons (guns or otherwise) very rarely make a difference in the long term.

Speaking from personal experience as a black man I better pray that I DON'T call the cops if I have a weapon in the house as they are liable to shoot me.

 

[dan_c00000]

Without guns, the rights of every man would have not happened. The gun made the serf as powerful as the king. Women as powerfulsas a man. Equality is still preserved by the gun. The first thing a government does to take over a country is to ban guns, Ala Hitler, Stalin etc.

All of this is so wrong it's hilarious. First, Hitler and Stalin didn't "ban guns".

I'd go through your shitty argument point by point but something tells me you're a dumbass.

 

[KUJACK]

Re: You

Did you bother to look it up? Hitler first register all firearms. Then later on close all the gun clubs in a rest of their leaders. Stalin allowed guns only for Communist Party members. Look it up a******

 

[BotanyBoy]

yeah, thank god we all still live in 1880

It's not really any better today, do you not watch the news???

Wolves are virtually extinct in America as a bears so you're really talking about packs of coyotes. Again I have no problem at all with farmers and guns but it still sounds like a problem you could solve with a few dogs in the majority of cases.

LOL who lives in LA??



No wolves or coyotes up here, we do have plenty of fox, lion and bear though. I've seen all 3 on property pretty much weekly and fresh tracks from all near daily.

Fortunately for the most part here in hippieland the only thing people try to shoot them with is cameras. Shit I've got chickens/fish/veggies/tubers/fruits/berries all over and they don't fuck with my gardens even and never took one shot at anything other than with a Nikon. Never needed to so far. No one has ever been hell bent to try and make it past the electric fencing into the gardens...couple zinggers and they all fuck off.

And I definitely think that people who guns should have to go through training, actually I think everybody in high school should have to learn how to use a gun, it's a good skill to have in a country where owning guns is a right we have no excuse not to everybody able to use them with a modicum of safety.

This ^^

Did you bother to look it up? Hitler first register all firearms. Then later on close all the gun clubs in a rest of their leaders. Stalin allowed guns only for Communist Party members. Look it up a******

Restrictions are not bans....regulation is not prohibition.

 

[mdbigdee]

Did you bother to look it up? Hitler first register all firearms. Then later on close all the gun clubs in a rest of their leaders. Stalin allowed guns only for Communist Party members. Look it up a******

You are the one who should do the looking up. According to a 2004 article published by Professor Bernard Harcourt in the Fordham Law Review it was the Treaty of Versailles signed on 28 June 1919 that imposed harsh gun control regulations on Germany. The vindictive Allies (England,France,Belgium,Japan) wanted to completely disarm Germany,so they forced the German legislature to pass a law in 1919 effectively banning the possession and sale of all firearms,leading to the governments confiscation of guns in circulation.
In 1928 the Reichstag relaxed the law a bit,placing a strict registration requiring citizens to aquire separate permits to own,sell,buy guns,as well as a permit to buy ammunition.
The 1938 revision signed by Adolf Hitler completely removed the requirement for a permit to buy long guns and shotguns as well as ammunition. Many categories of citizens,including Nazi Party members were exempt from ALL gun ownership regulations and the legal age to buy,sell and possess a firearm was lowered from 20 to 18. Gun clubs were not closed but allowed to flourish,mostly to train the Nazi Youth Organization in the use of firearms.
Jews and other ostracized groups were prohibited from owning firearms,but the private ownership of firearms increased not decreased during the Third Reich.

 

[Sean Renaud]

LOL who lives in LA??

No wolves or coyotes up here, we do have plenty of fox, lion and bear though. I've seen all 3 on property pretty much weekly and fresh tracks from all near daily.

Fortunately for the most part here in hippieland the only thing people try to shoot them with is cameras. Shit I've got chickens/fish/veggies/tubers/fruits/berries all over and they don't fuck with my gardens even and never took one shot at anything other than with a Nikon. Never needed to so far. No one has ever been hell bent to try and make it past the electric fencing into the gardens...couple zinggers and they all fuck off.

Okay, since this detail is pissing me off because of the fantastic ignorance floating around, since Bot's the second person (and usually is sane) to bring this up. Lets have a history lesson kiddies Wolves, once upon a time were found throughout virtually the entire country, most of Canada and straight up into Alaska. Then because they pissed off farmers we systematically hunted them down until there were pretty much none left.

Then in the 90's we reintroduced them to Yellowstone National Park and while yes they have spread beyond it's borders but they are still concentrated in one fucking region of the country.

Red Wolves are labeled as Critically endangered.

I know asking any of you to read an entire book is asking a lot but you know 60 minutes on the fucking Discovery Channel will get you farther along than you appear to be.