Why a Gun?

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Gun Control...

Does paranoia have any better definition?

This fear of "guvmint" is stupid. Who is going to come knocking on your door demanding your weapons? Look at how hard it was for Bushie to get his security measures passed...there is no shortage of civil liberties watchdogs out there defending your rights. Before any confiscation could take place you would need a majrity in congress to pass it and a president to sign it...fat chance. Unles of course martial law is declared. Anyone see that happening?

The "FEAR" fo government is to be cultivated by a freedom loving society.

"Government is like fire, a useful tool but a fearsome master" - George Washinton

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original
right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national
rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a
single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of
which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush
tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers,
clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory,
the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to
defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military
force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this
situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.

The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the
citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in
proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle
with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be
said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will
at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards
the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their
rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by
cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!"

Federalist Papers #28

To presume that government is any less a danger to the citizenry than it was 200, or 2000 years ago is to ignore history. Further it is an abrogation as your duty as a citizen to stand ready to defend not only your own rights, but the rights of others that you may not personally agree with. In allowing the goverment to deprive one group of it's rights is to loose the ability to make common cause with that party when the government comes to take your rights away. So is sold the road to despotism.

Ishmael

 

[SINthysist]

YEAH!

And if you don't like what he said, why, I'll shoot ya!



















I know how to make my hand look like a gun that shoots a rubber band. It is sooo cool.

 

[talk2024]

When you first see one, will you be happier,

Seeing it pointed at you, or

Seeing it pointed at Mr. Bad Guy....

That's a paranoid thought. What bad guy? I'm not being a Pollyanna. Yeah, shootings happen... rarely, and in the kind of places where you expect it to happen... usually. It's not worth my time or trouble to register a gun because just about everyone else isn't carrying.

Tell me where you would rather live?

 

[scylis]

Re: Re: Gun Control...

Unles of course martial law is declared. Anyone see that happening?

i do. soon, too. hell, i've been expecting it for exactly 7 months, 1 day, and 10 hours (being the time i was woken up that morning) as of this instant.

you do the math.

 

[Northern Lights]

All I've got to say is that Canada is looking pretty good right now considering their ban on handguns. There's some scary people out there.

 

[JazzManJim]

That's a paranoid thought. What bad guy? I'm not being a Pollyanna. Yeah, shootings happen... rarely, and in the kind of places where you expect it to happen... usually. It's not worth my time or trouble to register a gun because just about everyone else isn't carrying.

Tell me where you would rather live?

Since Canada imposed its latest gun control law in 1998, the rate of firearm ownership has declined by 19 percent. In that same amount of time, the number of robberies by firearm has more than doubled. The violent crime rate itself has increased by 29 percent.

Registering handguns in Canada has been required since 1934. In the years between 1961 and 1990 (with 1961 as the earliest year I could find in my brief seach), there were an average of 130 handgun homicides committed per year. Less than four per year were committed with registered handguns.

The crime rates are rising - quickly.

 

[Northern Lights]

Since Canada imposed its latest gun control law in 1998, the rate of firearm ownership has declined by 19 percent. In that same amount of time, the number of robberies by firearm has more than doubled. The violent crime rate itself has increased by 29 percent.

Registering handguns in Canada has been required since 1934. In the years between 1961 and 1990 (with 1961 as the earliest year I could find in my brief seach), there were an average of 130 handgun homicides committed per year. Less than four per year were committed with registered handguns.

The crime rates are rising - quickly.

Gosh, JazzMan, if your figures are correct, it will only take 1,000,000 years for Canada to catch up with the United States in violent crimes.

 

[WhiteRose]

When the rapist comes, acquiesce.

Ask yourself what you'd do if the rapist had his filthy hands all over your 13-year old daughter. Sit back and "acquiesce"? Like bloody hell.

 

[Lost Cause]

In the 2nd Amendment where it states, "shall not be infringed", how can anyone defend the slightest attempt at binding law-abiding citizens from owning what the hell they want? Is the assumption that if you have a weapon, you'll use it in a crime?
Does anyone out there see the absolute stupidity in placing responsibility for human action on an inanimate object? Don't give me the "save the children" diatribe. The weapons I have in my home that I don't intend to use have no firing pins, or upper reciever "guts". The primary self defense weapon is always with me, even at work. (They make a day timer that has a holster concealed with your appointment list)
I don't care about the "if" factor when it comes to the freedom in my country, the rest of you slaves can deal with your tyrants in your own way.
**Stalin, Mao, and Hitler knew the value of gun registration/confiscation.

 

[Northern Lights]

Weevil, you speak volumes of truth.

 

[Route66Girl]

Okay

I haven't gotten involved in any of the more political threads yet, but this is an issue that I care about a great deal.

I abhor violence, and strive to keep any element of it out of my life. But no matter how well I live, there's no way to guarantee my safety. There are, however, some measures I can take to improve my chances, which is why I am not in favor of any more restrictions on our right to bear arms.

But before explaining why, there's one argument in this thread in defense of the 2cd amendment that's faulty: that we can expect to defend ourselves against the U.S. Government should it decide to choke us with violent oppression.

Yes, it should be conceded that it's possible, however unlikely or even ridiculous, that the U.S. Govt. might morph into some ruthless, oppressive regime. But if that were to happen we would have no real chance of defeating it. Okay, maybe if we were fighting the same odds as we did in the revolution, but that's not today's reality. Our massive, very well-trained military has got all sorts of evil goodies at their disposal. And here we sit with our rifles and handguns? (chuckle) That would be one hell of a nasty thumping we'd take.

Of course, I'm not factoring in all the possibilities the REALITY of such a conflict would entail: other countries getting involved, whether or not we'd be able to improvise and make our own nasty weapons, the role of computers, economic details, how different states would react, whether or not the military would break apart, etc. It would be really funky. Frankly, I don't see it ever happening, either.

So, in defending the right to bear arms, I'm not thinking in terms of defending myself against my own government, which is far-fetched at best. It's primarily about defending myself against criminals. I stand a much better chance of coming out of a confrontation with a violent criminal if I'm armed. Also, my backyard is a wilderness. Going out for a hike, there's a very real chance of running across a bear. Sorry, but pepper spray won't do if it looks like I'm going to get mauled.

The other thing that bugs me about the abolition of private gun ownership is the inevitable outcome. All law-abiding citizens, myself included, would turn in our guns. Guess who wouldn't? Criminals.

Making them illegal is also like throwing down a gauntlet: "Okay, you can't use guns anymore, you twisted psychos! You're going to have to get REALLY creative now." Assuming, of course, that they'd take the trouble to use other means, or just go buy one off the black market. I bet a smart person with enough time on their hands could build a nasty gun or two without having to buy one, as well.

Domestic violence? In the heat of the moment murders? Knives are handy. Big fists. Looking around the room I'm sitting in now, I can see at least a dozen objects that could maim and kill. Lighter and hairspray. Kitchen knives. Scissors. That heavy bar of steel over there with that weight attached at the end. That's just part of my telescope, but it could bash someone's head in real good, I'm sure. Fork in the eye, anyone? The absence of a gun won't stop someone who's that incensed.

For those who think that getting rid of guns is going to get rid of or significantly decrease violent crime, or accidental deaths... well, I have sympathy for that line of thought. It's understable, but it's still wrong. Sometimes I think that when some very sensitive people see something horrible happen, like Columbine, or a kid who blows himself away while playing with their parent's handgun, the gun becomes some evil cause for it all in their mind. Guns are heavily romanticized, and I think the people who shun them, horrified, are as much a victim of that Hollywood glorification as those who pick them up thinking they're in the middle of a Tarantino film. They're just reacting in the opposite extreme.

What those people forget is that children fall down wells and drown in canals or even just a bathtub. They burn themselves on hot stoves and swallow Drano. They tip a bookcase and get crushed, or wander into streets and get run over. They fall down and get stabbed while carrying scissors. And, yes... some get shot playing with guns. But it's not the gun's fault anymore than it's Drano's fault. The only reason the gun is demonized is because it's actually designed to cause bodily harm, which is somehow supposed to make the child's death more horrific. It doesn't.

They also forget that the weapons of Sept. 11th were pocket knives and planes. Oklahoma City was, what... fertilizer? Those are the two most bloody acts of the modern age in the U.S. Not a gun in sight. People who want to take life don't need guns.

Domestic violence, abhorrent criminality, dangers posed to children: I don't see how making guns illegal is going to solve any of those issues.


Good grief, did I really just type all that? Okay Time to get off the soap-box. Hope I didn't offend anyone.

 

[Lost Cause]

Another guarantee of a armed populance is if a terrorist coordinated with an enemy nation and detonated a nuke in DC, timed with an invasion, we have a chance. One in nine people have had military experience, plus two hundred million weapons, equals putting up a formidable defense to any aggressor.
In WW2, England had to be loaned weapons by the USA for homeland defense because England had prohibited private ownership of those weapons!! The idiots are walking the same path again, only worldwide!

 

[Thumper]

Just one ?

When did England need those weapons to defend their homeland? If history serves me correctly The Battle for Britain was fought in the air.

Invade us? How? A million chinese soldiers on oar driven junks? How could we not see that one coming?

Fear is such an ugly thing. It will destroy us before any perceived enemy.

One more thing..big difference between guns and all those other potential weapons mentioned...ya gotta be up close and personal with all the others..a gun can do it from a distance... a subtle difference maybe..but if I can get out of arms reach with any of the others then I stand a bit of a chance...

Either way..they ain't gonna take your guns away so relax ferchrissakes.

 

[Lost Cause]

I check out stuff before I talk about them.
"39,592 M1911 and M1911A1 pistols were sent to the British Empire as lend lease material during WW2 (plus another 1,515 to Canada). England declared theirs surplus in 1952, and other parts of the Empire probably followed suit. Clawson shows pistols with English proofs circa 1952, 53 and 58. Other sources mention that Sam Cummings, of Interarmco, the largest surplus arms dealer in the world had a major storage operation in England. Per English law, everything shipped out of there had to be proofed. Thus your gun may have been lend lease direct to England, then proofed prior to return to U.S.. Or, it may have taken a longer journey and passed through England while part of a lot of surplus arms circa 1954 or more recently. My experience has been that most of the Lend Lease guns came back in near new condition "(both .45s and the superb late 1941 M1 rifles sometimes found)... John Spangler

To say things may happen is paranoid is not acknowledging reality. Why have insurance? Why have an umbrella? Why bring a jacket? Because things are unpredictable, and you want to be prepared. I live my life, I'm not hunkered in a bomb shelter. I look for the best in people, if they attack me, I'll do everything in my power to terminate their existence depending on the threat. Opposite attitudes have led to unarmed millions killed by invasions and tyrants. I knew a man from Germany who said Hitler came to power so quickly, that noone could oppose him outright. The first thing he did was get control over the civilian weapons. The average German couldn't believe that their country could be totalitarian, since they were a Republic. A lot of Jews and other "undesirables" didn't learn until it was too late because , "it just can't happen here". The rest is a black mark on the World due to ignorance. Never Again!

 

[SINthysist]

“Tell me where you would rather live?”

I live in a world where the rifle is in the back window of the truck and the handgun is in the glove box and everyone knows it, and you know what lady? We don’t have a helluva lot of crime. Most of the time it’s petty, and most of the time you know who did it. People are polite.

Look at the aforementioned Swiss. Armed to the teeth and Damned polite to boot!


“Invade us? How? A million chinese soldiers on oar driven junks? How could we not see that one coming?”

I really hope this was TIC. The Chinese are modernizing and arming quickly. They are already prepared to fight, and win over Taiwan, but they are waiting for a very opportune time (one reason why they sow seeds in the Middle East and Russia) as well as aggressively pursuing a space program and nuclear missiles superior to ours. They will not invade with junks, but economically. But I digress…

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Okay

But before explaining why, there's one argument in this thread in defense of the 2cd amendment that's faulty: that we can expect to defend ourselves against the U.S. Government should it decide to choke us with violent oppression.

Yes, it should be conceded that it's possible, however unlikely or even ridiculous, that the U.S. Govt. might morph into some ruthless, oppressive regime. But if that were to happen we would have no real chance of defeating it. Okay, maybe if we were fighting the same odds as we did in the revolution, but that's not today's reality. Our massive, very well-trained military has got all sorts of evil goodies at their disposal. And here we sit with our rifles and handguns? (chuckle) That would be one hell of a nasty thumping we'd take.

There are a couple of points to this route666girl.

You are quite correct in you assesment that an armed citizeny could not take to the field against a modern army. That being said.

Any government that turns it's military against the civilian populace is for all intents and purposes, finished. They have lost their right to govern. While the governtment may prevail in the short term, the longer view will see their collapse.

The use of the military against civil insurrection is much like swatting a mosquito with a baseball bat. You may kill the mosquito, but the collateral damage to innocents will be far greater. And by doing so, you have created a new group of insurrectionists. The historical list of nations that have tried this and failed is to long to ennumerate here.

In 1991 (+/-) the Marine Corps commissioned at study of their officer corps. The questionaire was lengthy with all sorts of 'check' questions, etc. The gist of the study was simply "If ordered, would you lead your troops against American civilians?" While the majority said they would, a significant minority said "No". The Marine Corps is a branch with signiticant military training and a higher level of motivation than the rest of the branches. A similar study was NOT done with the Air Force or Army officer corps, but it was extrapolated that those officers that would lead their men against American civilians were 50% of less of the officer corps. So, what will the officers that wouldn't lead their troops against their own countrymen do? Pray we never have to find out.

Ishmael

 

[The Lion King]

Re: Okay

...

 

[JazzManJim]

Gosh, JazzMan, if your figures are correct, it will only take 1,000,000 years for Canada to catch up with the United States in violent crimes.

Not all that long. Looks more like a couple of decades, based on the crime statistics I've been seeing.

Either way, it's getting more dangerous to live north of the border. Y'all probably be better suited to trying to fix the problem before it gets bad then you would laughing at us.

 

[Weevil]

Weevil, you speak volumes of truth.

Hot diggity! I do!