If anybody wants me, I'll be out hunting chipmunks with a hydrogen bomb.
Gun control is a very curious issue; living in Japan in the 90s opened my eyes to what a gunless society looks like, but getting from here to there may be impossible.
As a left-libertarian I have no great issue with people wanting to plink stuff on their property, or at a gun club, with most any sort of weapon.
Any cop, police chief, sheriff, or cop org are all pretty much more 'gun-grabbing' than the Dems right now.
I do think Dean had the right idea making this a state-level issue, along with the seminal Lopez decision in which the court finally drew the line at where the Commerce Clause ended wrt DC's power to restrict stuff.
I don't hate this country; I hate about half of the 2/3rds of the country to my right and about half of the 1/3 to my left.
Pams' ex, a guy I've gotten to know and respect, was born and has lived his entire life in northern Wisconsin, where huntin' and fishin' are religion.
He keeps his guns locked in one cabinet, the ammo locked in another, and HATES the NRA.
In fact, so do all his friends, who were all raised with guns and fishing tackle in their hands.
Good news is, he's sworn off his guns, and while he still enjoys fishing, can't bring himself to kill Bambi's mother any more.
And an email list I take part in has many "he-man" conservatarians who wax eloquently about the beauty of guns, and the 2nd Amendment.
To me, they are all empty scrotum shriveled dick creeps who need guns to bolster some sad sense of masculinity.
Or maybe they're sado-masochistic fuckers who enjoy watching animals bleed, and fantasize about shooting humans.
Either way, they're assholes.
What's so interesting is that Zumbo has been so gutless as to backtrack.
I'm so glad to live in a country where guns are strictly regulated and kept out of the hands of nuts and police. (Well, not ALL Police. And those that do have them have developed a habit of shooting Brazilians.)
My late father gave up his NRA membership in the late 60s, because he said it creeped him out when he couldn't tell whether his fellows at the gun club were talking about their wives or their weaponry. What's the antonym for "early adopter"?
My Ma's dad didn't hunt or fish, but he belonged to the "Rot 'n Gun Club" 'cause it was the only place you could get booze on a Sunday.
Guys who buy their factory farm meat (about which they choose to know nothing, like the ridiculous fools they are) at Safeway and go and hunt for "sport" make me sick. My wish for them is they'd shoot each other and then themselves in the foot.
Leave hunting to the very few people left who subsist on the land (they are few and far between and you sport huntin' morons aren't one of them).
Gotta love a url with "boobsbikesboomsticks" in it.
I know three men who hunt(ed), and all three regard the NRA as crazed. My brother regards their gun safety programs as useful (in part because he's introducing my nephews to hunting and my brother is all about the safety). If someone formed an organization that provided those kinds of programs without the crazy part, I suspect they'd get a lot of members quickly--and I bet the NRA would be left with the wackos, which, in turn, could reduce their power.
It's interesting how comparing something with terrorism makes gun nuts sure the next step is to have jack-booted thugs take your freedom away. Nice of some Republic Partygoers to finally admit what we left-leaning folk have been saying all along: the war on terrorism is a war on our civil liberties.
If only a Christian fundamentalist would call some Christians terrorists, there might be some real progress in the culture wars.
lee: Don't be so sure: here is an overview of the UK firearnms incident figures for this month.
One of the reasons I was glad to have moved to Amsterdam from the UK is that because in comparison to England it's quiet and safe - but not for much longer.
Our local late shop's owner in sleepy Noord-Amsterdam was shot and killed point blank last week and also last week a massive cache of arms headed for the UK was found by Amsterdam police.
Not even placid, dairyfed cloggieland is safe any more, and I have to blame a combination of too-rapid EU accession of new countries, the Schengen agreement that removed borders, the greedy British arms industry and the utter shitness of customs and excise under New Labour for that.
Down here in Alabama, we have a term for people who need an assault rifle to hunt: "shitty hunter."
I do want to thank the "boomsticks" blogger for doing me one favor, though: She pretty much disabused me of any notion that a chick holding a gun is sexy.
I don't mind if there's some private range or something where people can rent rocket launchers with which to shoot tied & tranquilized frogs.
But if they think that any firing weapon whatsoever is exempt from regulation because of their 2nd amendment fantasies, screw 'em.
On the other hand, it's often really technically quite tough to specify the differences between 'ordinary' hunting rifles (which can be pretty huge killing devices) and a very similar device which strikes us as a piece of equipment needing regulation.
Since the gun nut crowd always think that Hillary is going to take away all their guns and apply such cold water to their groins that their already tiny weenies will shrink further, no sane discussion is possible.
"I'm sure they'd love your little camouflage outfit and folksy wit. They'd find a place for you; after all, you're an 'Authentic Gun Guy'. *spit*."
Hell apparently hath no fury like a gun-nut scorned. Do you note the engaging sense of camaraderie and shared interests, of the give-and-take of reasoned discourse with a proven authority in the field? I know I do.
How comforting to know that this person--our neighbor and fellow citizen--votes, has a driver's license, and is armed to the teeth.
An argument could be made (and has been, by the Supreme Court in the Miller decision) that your hunting guns are not Constitutionally protected at all, except those that meet the requirements for militia service
in other words: Shhhh!! Not so loud, they're already onto us!!
One of Carl Hiaasen's first books, and pretty good, though maybe not his best, is The Double Whammy.
Written in 1989, it takes place in Florida and the South and talks about fishing, guns, Cable TV Shows about fishing and guns, hypocritical TV Preachers, corruption, and sex.
I listened to the unabridged audible version while driving across the country. Learned a lot, and as usual, very funny. I mean twisted.
As a side note, Carl Hiaasen is credited for the book that a 2001 movie called the Double Whammy was based on.
Wow! The book and the movie seem to have absolutely nothing in common. What the hell happened? Did they just buy the title? Did some auteur get in the middle?
I don't want to shoot the bunny!
So Lesley, explain to me why I shouldn't have any venison in my freezer. Explain to me why I should eat a hormone-fed breast-on-sticks factory turkey, instead of trying to get my own.
Or maybe you think that deer should be taken primarily with vehicles? Deer overpopulation is bad enough now. Throw in excessive human sprawl eating up their habitat and pushing them across roads all day and night... you can't imagine the human death toll that would result from sudden cessation of hunting. Then you have the rough winters up here, not enough food to go around, so the deer starve instead. That much better than a little harvesting, isn't it?
Sure, the NRA is nucking futs. But they're nicely balanced by the antis on the other side.
And then there's SteveAudio's open-minded comment, which doesn't deserve an erg of effort.
There are few things I look forward to more than opening day of rifle season in the fall. After a week of bow-hunting on my own, I can't wait to get together with the gang on Friday night, rehash our stories from last year, play cards, and have a few beers.
Thanks, Palau, for that UK link. The gun ban seems to be working!
On choosing the appropriate level of hunting weaponry, from the immortal words of Michael Maltese:
Bugs Bunny: For shame, doc. Hunting rabbits with an elephant gun!
Elmer Fudd: An elephant gun?
Bugs: That's right, doc. So why don't ya go find an elephant and shoot it?
Elephant: You do, and I'll give you SUCH a pinch!
WHAM!
Sorry, that should be:
Elmer Fudd: An ewephant gun?
I am trying so hard to feel sorry for Zumbo..., Oops, I can't. I don't care if he loses his career.
I don't hunt. (I also do not eat "hormone-fed" anything if I can avoid it. I try to buy grass fed or organic beef. I would not eat a Smithfield ham if you gave it to me.) I do not mind hunters, and know they need to keep some populations down. I have no trouble with them. But, if you need an assault weapon to hunt, or if you participate in canned hunts, like our VP Cheney, you are nothing but an "empty scrotum shriveled dick creep who need guns to bolster some sad sense of masculinity."
I once took the trouble to collect a bunch of data comparing the U.S to Europe with regards to regulation, crime rates and accidental deaths and show it to a wingnut gun-nut relative.
At one point, I said something to the effect that the overall strict gun control throughout Europe (minus Switzerland) and the resulting lack of, say, defenseless citizens cowering behind barricaded doors while rampaging criminals had their way with the towns should go some way towards showing the NRA's fear-mongering for what it was.
The response (and no I'm not paraphrasing, this is verbatim): "Yeah, well, they don't have the problem with the niggers like we do here."
Facts ain't got nothin' on the ol' lizard brain. Though it is nice to avoid all the dancing around and hear them just come right out with it.
Being ignorant of the gun culture, I had no idea people shot prarie dogs, especially with an assault weapon. They're so cute! Are they a pest out west and need to be culled? Forgive my ignorance on this (born and raisd in the urban East).
Too many gun owners where I live are complete assholes about it. It's a tool, you jerks, not a penis extender.
Fortunately, my next door neighbor is very low key about it, and still hunts occasionally. So I haven't had to swear off fresh venison completely.
As for me, I shot casually all the time growing up. Right now, though, I don't have any desire to be associated with the fraternity of armpit-sniffing neanderthals that own guns around here. At the moment, I've settled for a couple of air rifles that suit my inclination to pop beer cans and old glass bottles occasionally.
I grew up hunting deer, raccoon and various beasts of the air. I never really cared for it much - apart from running dogs - and was woefully bad at it. Actually, I'm a little proud of the fact that in 10 years of deer hunting, I never killed a thing. Only reason I went out was to have something to share with my father and to fit in with the rest of the boys, as the bookworm thing didn't cut it. For what it's worth, people hunt because killing something is one of the biggest rushes you'll ever get in your life. Whether you dig the rush or are disgusted by it, it's still a huge rush. Anyone who uses the "population" argument as why they hunt is, well...bullshitting you. It does do that, but no one goes out and freezes his ass off every morning to help keep the deer population down.
Still, these assault rifle people are friggin' looney. Every last one of them seems to think we're two weeks from a total facist takeover of jack-booted thugs who'll take away all your guns and....ummm...errr...ahhh...a lot of other bad things they never tell you about. Any hunter who uses an assault rifle to shoot anything is considered not only foolish and silly, but also pretty damn dangerous to be around. For my bunch, the same went for folks who were packin' pistols on their sides.
My old man quit the NRA ten years ago, gave a lifetime membership (fairly pricey), because of the assault rifle issue. He's got no problem with people owning them, but that's all the NRA seemed to care about.
The NRA is now controlled by Second Amendment zealots who oppose any control of arms. Having tried to discuss the difference between assult rifles and hunting rifles with a few of them, what I get is a bunch of rationalizations about how AK-47s are no different than a bolt-action hunting rifle, which would come as a suprise to the inventor of the AK-47, who deliberately designed a weapon that was suitable for killing human beings in combat.
I used to hunt pheasants with my dad, but while I no longer hunt I think those who hunt for sport are fine people who do take time to be careful and respect the safety of others. Hunting can be satisfying on a number of levels as a sport, and isn't just about meat or ego. Those who think hunters are all slobs are just woefully ignorant about the subject.
And here I thought Carl Spackler was supposed to be slapstick.
I don't hunt, but don't have any problem with (most) people who do. As Richard Rhodes wrote in "Farm," if you eat meat, you're just paying somebody else to do your killing for you. And I eat meat.
That said, I felt terrible for Mr. Zumbro, who I had never heard of before this incident. It's one thing to get criticized, even by strangers -- I've been through that. It's another to have your entire world, career, social relationships, etc. be taken away instantly. Instantly. It's a price that few have ever paid, and I don't think anyone here can really know what we would do if it happened to us -- if instantly, we became a complete pariah to everyone who mattered to us.
Anyway, I found myself in the odd position of wanting to send Mr. Zumbro a note of support. Does anyone know a good email address, or even a public blog, for that?
“Assault rifles” are being demonized by many politicians, media-types, and anti-gun folk who actually have no idea what it is they are demonizing. Most people who hear the truth are quite surprised to find out just how off-base and factually wrong these nay-sayers are.
Assault rifles such as the Sturmgewehr 44 were first developed by the Germans in WWII, and further refined by the Russians immediately post-war as defined by the AK-47. America’s version, the M-4, wasn’t too bad either.
They tried to meet the needs of the soldiers who were actually fighting so the weapons tended to be:
--lightweight
--of a smaller caliber
--easy to maintain
--rugged
--Shot from the hip if necessary
--fairly accurate out to a reasonable distance.
--Could be fired in three different modes, single, 3-shot, and full automatic.
Any extra metal or wood was left off the gun, and if the part wasn’t needed it wasn’t on the gun. This meant that often the stock (the part that goes against the shooter’s cheek) was just a bare outline of metal. This “look” is often consider bizarre by those who never thought about the “why” of it.
Now, being lightweight created it’s own set of problems.
The foremost problem is that the barrel was a skinny, short little thing, which meant that it got pretty hot quickly. This is not good. Even a little .22 rabbit-rifle heats up with enough shots fired just at the firing range, and a soldier didn’t want to be worrying about a hot barrel. That can cause many bad things to happen including ammo accidentally firing at random. To minimize that a “shroud” was used over the barrel, with ventilating holes to carry away the heat and protect the soldiers hands. It didn’t add anything to the gun except to keep the barrel cooler when firing multiple rounds in a short time.
Often a flash-suppressor was added, not to keep the enemy from knowing where the fire is coming from, but to keep the soldier’s nighttime eyesight protected. The enemy would have plenty of notice about where the fire is coming from since the bullets would be coming directly towards him.
Soldiers don’t like humping heavy things; they have enough to carry anyway so the smaller the rounds (bullets) the more the soldier could pack. One can never have too much ammo, but it doesn’t do any good if you’ve left it all back at the barracks.
This meant the majority of the assault riffles were chambered for the .223 round. That means the width of the bullet is only .223 of a full inch. The significance of this?
Well, the most popular round in the world, and the one that is used to take more rabbits and squirrels than any other (because that’s about all it’s powerful enough for) is the .22 Long Rifle.
The .22 LR bullet is a little thing. Itty bitty. Imagine something less than a quarter inch in diameter. And the dreaded assault riffle bullet is three one thousandth of an inch bigger in diameter. Think of it like this – you have to drive 220 miles to get t
When the Shooter gets back from his lecturing tour of Asia, Australia, etc., he'll want to track down Zumbo and finish him off with some of the WMD he found in Iraq.
TBogg,
Just out of curiosity, what do you suggest dusting prairie dogs with, if not an AR? A Garand? Something else in .30-06? .303? Maybe a 91/30? I'm sure 7.62 Russian would make an excellent varmint round.
Exit question to the group: What is an "assault rifle?"
The .22 LR bullet is a little thing. Itty bitty. Imagine something less than a quarter inch in diameter. And the dreaded assault riffle bullet is three one thousandth of an inch bigger in diameter. Think of it like this – you have to drive 220 miles to get to your friends house. But he’s moving three miles further away in a month. Will now driving 223 miles make much of a difference overall?
The actual .223 bullet really isn’t that much larger than a fat grain of rice.
So how does such a small bullet help the soldier? Because the .223 is put into a larger cartridge with more powder it comes out of the barrel much faster than a normal .22. That creates more energy when it hits someone, but the small size of the bullet has always kept it from being considered a sure mankiller. In Vietnam a Marine coined the term “poodle killer” for the .223 and that name has stuck even to today. That was okay with the soldiers because in reality a wounded soldier on the other side was better than a dead soldier. A dead soldier was forgotten about but a wounded one needed on average four other soldiers to take care of him.
Because of the way the gun was normally carried on patrol it was good to have a way to immediately bring it into play… thus the stock and grip were designed to fire, if necessary, from the hip. Couldn’t hit a darn thing with it that way but when in combat the enemy doesn’t necessarily stick their head up to check your accuracy. So it worked in a fashion. Kept the enemies heads down until a soldier could get into a better position behind cover.
The rifle didn’t have to be super accurate and it wasn’t. Especially at a distance. Combat between individual soldiers is just not that far apart. If you can barely see the guy it’s a job for artillery, not rifles.
The main distinguishing feature, though, was it’s ability to “select” fire. The shooter could choose between, with one pull of the trigger, to shoot one shot, three shots, or full automatic which meant the gun would fire all the rounds attached to it. Some magazines held five rounds, some ten, twenty, thirty, and even a hundred.
The truth is though, very few of the assault rifles are ever fired full auto by trained troops. The reason is because they just can’t hit anything. Inside a barn they would have trouble hitting the sides of the barn. The barrel wants to rise with every bullet fired, and unless one is a super-sized Rambo the barrel WILL rise into the air while it’s firing.
Virtually every company commander in Vietnam had a standing rule: an automatic $50.00 fine for any troop who shot his gun at full auto without an express order from the commander. This was the days when $50 was almost a months pay for these guys.
There were some extremely limited times when full auto was helpful, and then one was glad they had it.
Our guys in Iraq are under similar orders about firing full auto. It’s just not a productive way to fight a war or kill people.
Why is th
Our guys in Iraq are under similar orders about firing full auto. It’s just not a productive way to fight a war or kill people.
Why is the full auto bit stressed. Because these guns are NOT what is being sold today, but yet it is what every one screams about when they say “assault weapons.”
The guns sold to the civilian market that “look like” the military weapons all fire ONE SHOT at a time, just like virtually every other gun on the market. It’s nothing special, and it’s the way civilian rifles have been made for almost 140 years.
Buying a newly-manufactured full-fledged automatic assault weapon has been illegal since 1986, and unless one has jumped through sufficient federal government hoops it is also highly illegal to buy one that was made before 1986.
The process to obtain an older automatic weapon is complicated and expensive, and includes fingerprints by the Feds and an exorbitant federal transfer tax on each full auto weapon.
“Machine guns” and “automatic weapons” are simply not bought down at Walmart. Complaining about someone waking into a store and legally buying fully automatic weapons is akin to complaining about how circuses mistreat unicorns.
Those who talk about “machine guns” blasting away at rabbits or deer are either highly ignorant of the subject or just doing it to demagogue the discussion.
What the anti-gunners mean when they say "assault weapons" are guns that are made to “look like” the real ones. And that’s it. There are a number of variations in manufacturers, and model names, but not a single one of them would be found on a battlefield. The real soldiers would laugh at them.
One can take a little .22 rifle which looks like a harmless little plinking rifle that wouldn’t do any great damage to a armadillo and for a couple of hundred dollars buy all kinds of replacement parts and add-ons such as the barrel-shroud and flash-suppressor that would make it indistinguishable (from the outside) to an “assault rifle.” Yet, internally it would be the same little ol’ .22.
What many in the anti-gun movement are trying to do is to get one to believe that if you put racing stripes and decals on your dad’s Oldsmobile you can take it out to the NASCAR track and compete equally.
Yes, many of the look-alikes fire the same .223 round as the military ones do, but this is considered an underpowered round by the civilian world. It’s certainly less powerful than what Uncle Bob’s deer hunting rifle fires.
And, by the way, it does make a perfectly fine hunting gun if used on the right game. Many people think rifles chambered for the .223 cartridge are the absolute best for hunting varmints such as coyotes and other destructive pests, and it’s even popular for some small types of deer in parts of the country where the forest is thick and sight is only fifty yards or so.
Would they be used to take elk or mule deer out west where the animals are big and the shooting distance is measured by hundreds of
Would they be used to take elk or mule deer out west where the animals are big and the shooting distance is measured by hundreds of yards? No, that takes a much bigger gun and caliber bullet. But just because you don’t use a hammer in place of a screwdriver doesn’t mean that both hammers and screwdrivers have their proper uses.
These types of rifles are lightweight, rugged, and easy to maintain because many people, including tens of thousands of ranchers, farmers, and backpackers need this type of rifle while out in the fields. Many police departments in both big and little cities across the nation are converting to these guns for the same reasons.
A farmer friend of mine in northwest Arkansas carries one on the back of his tractor out in the fields. His bane is armadillos, which tear up his crops faster than anything else. When he sees one he shoots it. He needs something that can stand up to the abuse of being shaken for hours on the tractor, is lightweight and short enough not to get in his way, and is powerful enough to pierce the ‘dillo hide. His AR-15, the semi-auto civilian model of the M-4, is perfect for his use.
These rifles can use magazines that hold up to 30 rounds, but if one can shoot three 10 round mags in 30 seconds or one 30 round mag in 24 seconds it is not really any more dangerous. When the King riots were happening in L.A. there were many Koreans on their rooftops with their AR-15s and multiple round mags. They kept their neighborhood from burning down. That’s a pretty impressive reason for wanting any weapon.
The civilian models have been made more accurate than the military models because the majority of the guns sold are simply used as target rifles. It’s a huge sport and tens of thousands compete across the country to see who can maintain the most accurate rifle. Go to most outdoor ranges and you’ll see all kinds of guys with their AR-15s and others at the line. These guys are just average, everyday guys (and some women) who like to put little holes in paper with things that go bang.
Many of these folk are former military who hold fond memories of those days. Others just want to look cool, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. A lot of them consider the military as "heroes" and want to emulate them.
Again, these guns may “look” like a military weapon but they are the farthest thing from one… they fire just one bullet at a time the way every other civilian rifle is sold. There is fundamentally no difference between them and Uncle Bob’s hunting rifle except in they way they look, and a smaller type bullet.
Now that you know the truth of the matter you can spot when someone is ignorant about assault weapons and yet are still willing to give their opinion about something they know nothing about.
I've never had an NRA membership because they only seem to support Republican candidates on the whole. However, the gun laws in my state (CA) seem pretty ridiculous as well. The restrictions are often largely cosmetic (i.e. banning guns that "look" mean) and geared towards foreign manufacturers.
I do not hunt and so will defer to those more knowledgeable on the issue regarding which rifles are most suitable to the task.
However, the 2nd Amendment is NOT about the freedom to bear hunting arms. Though it's true that some would try to interpet it as meaning they have a right to own a tank or a nuke, I fear the confiscatory nature of most of the legislation. Some had to turn in historic collectables such as the Russian SKS assault rifle.
When the 2nd Amendment was written, what was in the hands of the people were the the most advanced firearms of their day. Obviously modern battle rifles make substantially increased firepower available to individuals, but that in and of itself is not enough to prohibit it entirely.
Where I feel the NRA gets it right is when looking at the gun confiscation of the UK and that proposed for Australia. Historical relics that had been in the family for years were taken and destroyed.
CA Sen. Diane Feinstein has pushed some overly-restrictive gun legislation, yet at the time she was involved, she also had her own concealed weapons permit. Guns were OK to ensure her safety, just not anyone else's. She has ceased to have her own permit, but I'm sure her bodyguards have CCW permits.
The problem I have with Dems (in general) though I doubt I'll ever vote Republican for anything is that they make so many bad laws from unique circumstances. It's as if they decided to ban cars that go fast because someone else drove fast and killed somebody (and driving is a priviledge and not a right).
~
Well, it's nice to finally find out where all of you "moderate" gun owners congregate. Those of you who seem to believe that there are "good" guns and "bad" guns, and that somehow you can compromise with the side that thinks that the U.S. needs to be like Japan.
I invite each and every one of you to come to my blog. I'd love to discuss the topic with you, since you don't apparently grasp the intent of the Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in specific.
Let me see if I can make you understand with the short version: The other side wants them all, and will do it in a death-by-a-thousand-cuts process if that's what it takes. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or "sporting use" and it never was. And if the gun ban groups are successful here, America will make Britain's experience look like a day in Disney World.
If you don't believe this, if you aren't informed as to what's going on, if you think you can "compromise" and that it's OK to throw one group of legal gun owners under the bus so that you can keep your "bambi-zapper," or "daffy-blaster" you're wrong.
The sheer ignorance exhibited by most of you in this comment thread is staggering.
The sheer ignorance exhibited by most of you in this comment thread is staggering.
That's not ignorance, mate. It's B.O.; we're unwashed liberals, remember?
What's Britain's experience? Fewer gun deaths? Yeah, that is sad.
unwashed liberals.
Sorry, I meant dirty fucking hippies. Can't keep up with the young folk and their "hip" terminology.
Kevin Baker.......Is the name of your blog "How to win friends(Converts) and influence people.com?" Nice attitude Dude! I got your ignorance hanging right here.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution
To me this means you can have your assault rifles (what ever that means), abortions, gay marriage, whatever. And can someone please get around to abolishing the IRS? We spend half the money that we've spent in Iraq, thus far, enforcing IRS tax code every year. It would all balance out in the end, and we'd all be allot happier, if we could get the Government out of every aspect of our lives. Does that mean I have a small pee-pee?
"What's Britain's experience? Fewer gun deaths? Yeah, that is sad.
"
One can read Leeds Man... or one can read a report from England. Take your pick...
------------------------------
"Gun laws that constrain the law-abiding"
For James Andre Smartt-Ford, 16, Michael Dosunmu, 15, and Billy Cox, 15, the hand-wringing by police and politicians over the escalation of gun crime comes a little late: all three have been shot dead in south London over the past 10 days.
Public revulsion over such criminality is, shamingly, blunted by the fact that they appear to be victims of ethnic gang crime. Society at large sees it as "their" problem, not its own. Such a view is criminally complacent.
We have, post-Dunblane, what are said to be the toughest gun control laws in the world. They have actually proved strikingly ineffectual.
Gun crime has doubled since they were introduced. Young hoodlums are able to acquire handguns - either replica weapons that have been converted, or imports from eastern Europe - with ease. With no dedicated frontier police, our borders remain hopelessly porous. The only people currently incommoded by the firearms laws are legitimate holders of shotgun licences, who are subjected to the most onerous police checks.
Even more disturbing is the insouciance with which guns are used. An 18-year-old Angolan refugee was sentenced to life this week for shooting dead a woman holding a baby at a christening party, in what was otherwise a "routine" robbery.
The truth is that the laws relating to possession of guns are nowhere near tough enough. Possessing a firearm carries a minimum sentence (ministers insist on calling it "mandatory", but it is not) of five years. That means release, in normal circumstances, after 30 months.
For those aged between 17 and 21, the minimum sentence is three years, which means release after just 18 months. Such piffling sanctions hardly amount to an effective deterrent to these young hoodlums. The police want the five-year minimum sentence extended to everyone over 17 and the Government should not hesitate to meet that request.
But more is required. In particular, the ludicrous inhibitions placed on the police when it comes to exercising powers of stop and search have to be lifted. So must the post-Macpherson burden of political correctness, which makes any police officer think twice before challenging a young black man on the street. There is a wider failure here.
This Government came to power with high hopes of ameliorating the social crisis in Britain's sink estates. These were "their people" and they would be rescued. But the fractured families, the inadequate schools, the crippling impact of welfarism, the appalling living conditions - all have stubbornly resisted New Labour's lacklustre efforts. Conditions in many inner cities have actually worsened. And what a price we are paying.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opini...007/02/16/
dl160
I stopped having any sympathy for gun owners and hunters in general a long time ago when they, as a group, started talking like small minded idiots and attacking everyone who dared question the sacred ideology in any way, shape or form.
Today I like to harass hunters because so many of them support George Bush who is bound and determined to destroy the habitat their quarry requires to live. I would rather not call hunters idiots and losers but they do ask for it a lot.
The other side wants them all, and will do it in a death-by-a-thousand-cuts process if that's what it takes.
Dude, I am the other side, and that's not what I want. Seriously.
The mosquito's a clever little bastard. You can track him for days and days until you really get to know him like a friend. He knows you're there, and you know he's there. It's a game of wits. You hate him, then you respect him, then you kill him.
No one goes out hunting deer to control their population, it's true. But that doesn't negate the need for that effect. I don't hunt, but someone needs to, unless we want to reintroduce coyotes and/or wolves and have them wandering our backyards. (I'd be ok with it, but it's asking too much of the average bland suburbanite.)
"What's Britain's experience? Fewer gun deaths? Yeah, that is sad."
Try this:
Dunblane made us all think about gun control … so what went wrong?
By Ian Bell
RTWT.
I see I still have no reason to change my mind about talking with Second Amendment zealots.
I support the First Amendment, but have no problem with restrictions on what's deemed to be obscene speech. I figure if one can't make a fool out of zealots without being tasteful about it, I might as well go hunt pheasants with cluster bombs.
All this dust-up (by which I mean, in particular, the way Zumbo got treated) says to me is that it's impossible for the gun-owning community to have a rational conversation about hunting ethics.
nolo, it's not hunting ethics that's the problem, it's the zealotry about arms that burned Zumbo.
Mr Baker, saying that the answer to increased gun crime is allowing everyone to be armed seems to be the Nicene Creed for American Gun "Enthusiasts". It is nonsense on its face.
The American penchant for weird cults (guns, cars, The Flag) will never cease to amaze me. And, given the hysterical response (not you Mr B) to questioning any of these things, they most certainly are cults.
nolo - "it's impossible for the gun-owning community to have a rational conversation about hunting ethics."
Why, precisely, is hunting with an weapon designed around the AR-15 or AK47 platform unethical?
CTD, it's not my issue and (as they say) I don't have a dog in that fight. Zumbo, however, seemed to think that using guns based on the AR-15 or AK platform was inconsistent with his conception of hunting. When he said so, it would have been reasonable for members of the hunting community to ask the question you've just asked me. Instead, they ran the guy out of a job and out of their community, no questions asked.
nolo, it's not hunting ethics that's the problem, it's the zealotry about arms that burned Zumbo.
I agree, as far as it goes. But Zumbo's statement wasn't about whether people ought to be allowed to own certain weapons -- it was about whether certain weapons ought to be used for hunting.
Wow, invasion of the wingnuts!
I think I'm starting to understand that whole "penis=gun" psychology that people are always talking about.
Seriously, guys. It's just a gun. It's an inanimate object. I promise, they will not remove your testicles at the same time. Really.
Check out Tami's profile:
Favorite Movies
Blackhawk Down Bladerunner Gladiator Dr. Strangelove Suicide Kings Way Of The Gun Equilibrium Ronin Boondock Saints Heat Life of Brian The Matrix
Favorite Music
Rush U2 Nine Inch Nails Led Zeppelin Moby Peter Gabriel Cabaret Voltaire Tangerine Dream Linkin Park Joy Division REM Aerosmith Pink Floyd Ultravox Dead Can Dance
Favorite Books
Atlas Shrugged The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress Lord of the Rings Starship Troopers Stranger In A Strange Land Friday The Probability Broach Alongside Night To Sail Beyond The Sunset 1984 Generation Kill Black Hawk Down Gates Of Fire Neuromancer
Wow, invasion of the wingnuts!
Wow...standard answer when faced with facts and thoughts that are not wanting to be considered
Zumbo, however, seemed to think that using guns based on the AR-15 or AK platform was inconsistent with his conception of hunting. When he said so, it would have been reasonable for members of the hunting community to ask the question you've just asked me. Instead, they ran the guy out of a job and out of their community, no questions asked.
No, what he said was that only terrorists used this type of weapon and that they should be banned from hunting.
If he had had said something like:
"I have never hunted with one of these and I'm not sure why someone would. Could you educate me about them?"
he would still have his job, and be hopefully much more knowledgable. Instead he detonated the nuke blast himeself and got burned of his own making.
Hmmm...
I see we're entertaining a few 'voteyoursport.com' bumper sticker characters here at TBogg's, today.
So, Bingo players are supporting the terrorists?
I think I'm starting to understand that whole "penis=gun" psychology that people are always talking about.
We Win! We Win!
I'm invoking the well known Schwartz Rule that declares that when the gun-bigots roll out the word "penis" the conversation is as good as over because they finally revealed what is uppermost in their thoughts. 
The Schwartz Rule sounds like Godwin's Law: sometimes you have to call a Nazi a Nazi.
No, what he said was that only terrorists used this type of weapon and that they should be banned from hunting.
I agree that saying the guns "have no place amoung our hunting community" is strong language, but I didn't see anyone say that he actually said they should be banned.
No one goes out hunting deer to control their population, it's true. But that doesn't negate the need for that effect. I don't hunt, but someone needs to, unless we want to reintroduce coyotes and/or wolves and have them wandering our backyards. (I'd be ok with it, but it's asking too much of the average bland suburbanite.)
brad | 02.26.07 - 3:22 pm |
---
Hey ... circular, straw-man logic !!!
I would never expect that from a gun nut !!!
I
(sigh) I'm a lefty, vegetarian gun nut who owns an assortment of military (assault) rifles, shotguns and handguns. These have all been purchased after thorough background checks (my state is *very* progressive and doesn't particularly like private gun ownership) which I have absolutely no problem with. Needless to say, I don't use these *machines* to shoot prairie dogs with (or any other animal, for that matter) and I refuse to even "talk guns" with anyone that uses them in such a way.
That being said, I've taken a great deal of heat from my fellow liberals for having guns in my (child-free, at that) home, despite the care I take to secure them. My guns represent "evil" to them (as I've been repeatedly told).
Now, I don't know about you but....when Cheney nukes Iran, I don't expect the world's reaction will be to shrug their shoulders and go on with their lives. They will have all the evidence they need to back up their suspicions that our attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq have been to further the desires of the oil industry, and they won't appreciate us trying to grab up the world's resources as our own. They will, openly or not, get together to neutralize us. They'll do it overnight by selling every dollar they hold. China alone could vaporize our economy.
When that happens, our little world will come off of it's rails. I doubt if you grasp what it would be like when a gallon of gas costs $4000.00 or a quart of milk $2000.00. There will be no jobs, no utilities, no transportation, no food, just a LOT of angry people. You've seen how completely out-of-their-minds wingnuts are when they have a never ending supply of Cheetos in front of them, right? Picture them and their "blame the liberals" bullshit when they've eaten their last Lil' Debbie cupcake three days prior. Then picture a half a dozen of them meeting somewhere with their dad's .38 tucked into their tubesock, set on getting revenge on the "traitors" who allowed this to happen (not that a single one of them would ever try this shit on their own).
I suspect that when hell starts bubbling up all around us, my most fervently anti-gun pals are going to be pounding on my door in a complete frenzy, begging me for a .308 and a couple of clips. Of course, none of them have had the proper background checks and I suspect that I'll have a difficult time finding an official to explain the state of the law at that given moment. Add to that the probability that Blackwater mercs will be taking the homeland patrols that National Guard troops should be doing (but they'll be marching through the glassed streets of Teheran by that time) and will probably have a list of notorious liberals to gather up, well, things will be pretty hectic in my chic little bunker.
I recognize that this all sounds over-the-top and a little hysterical to the bulk of you but that's probably because you've actively denied yourself the reflection on *just what will happen*
I recognize that this all sounds over-the-top and a little hysterical to the bulk of you but that's probably because you've actively denied yourself the reflection on *just what will happen* when these assholes follow through with their "nuke 'em all and let god sort 'em out" plans for the world's oil-fields. It's easy enough to laugh it off when we're on this side of the nuking of Iran, the question is: how funny will it be *after* the nukes have incinerated millions of innocent civilians, after the world decides to put us down like a rabid animal, after we tear each other limb-from-limb in the death agonies of our internal collapse.
Yes, I have guns, and I'll tend to them while the rest of you remain transfixed by the coming election of 2008 (which I don't think will even happen) and the next dust-up between Hillary and Obama. We'll soon know whose vision of the future was the most laughable.
Leeds Man:
"Mr Baker, saying that the answer to increased gun crime is allowing everyone to be armed seems to be the Nicene Creed for American Gun "Enthusiasts". It is nonsense on its face."
Believing that "gun control" is the answer to increasing gun crime has proven to be nonsense. Empirically. Objectively.
"Allowing everyone" who is not, through due process of law, prohibited from being armed to arm themselves at their discretion has proven to be - at worst - inconclusive in its effect on violent crime of all types, including gun crime. Empirically. Objectively.
No "blood in the streets." No "shootouts over fender-benders and K-Mart blue-light specials." No "wild-West shootouts" by permit holders. Nothing. Just no statistical proof that the violent crime rates have been affected in any way.
But gun owners have successfully defended themselves and others against violent attack - an option that does not seem to be available in the UK. Most of our burglaries happen when people are not at home, for example.
UK gun laws have done nothing but disarm the law abiding and created a pool of victims for the predator class. They have not made you safer.
When the option is between doing something that is proven detrimental and doing something that is at worst benign, especially when the benign choice is in agreement with a fundamental human right, I go with the fundamental human right.
How about you?
Harbinger, "Mad Max" was just a movie. Really.
I didn't see anyone say that he actually said they should be banned.
He specifically said that they should be banned from being used to hunt.
Which is all the ammo (no pun intended) the Brady Bunch needs to go out and have a celebratory lunch in honor of Mr. Zumbo.
If he had had said something like:
"I have never hunted with one of these and I'm not sure why someone would. Could you educate me about them?"
he would still have his job, and be hopefully much more knowledgable.
Yes, because that's the kind of open-minded politeness and tolerance for alternative viewpoints that we've come to expect from the NRA. Not.
sometimes you have to call a Nazi a Nazi.
And sometimes we have to recognize that some gun-bigots are really, really sexual obsessive.
I know thousands of gun owners and I have never, not once, heard from any of them the words gun and penis in the same conversation, let alone sentence. But get a couple of gun-bigots talking or writing about guns and it only takes a matter of minutes before someone puts the two together.
Quite frankly it goes a long way towards helping our side win over converts. When the gun-bigots give the impression that there's something a little "creepy", should we say, about them it leaves a real distaste in the fencesitters mouth.
To me, they are all empty scrotum shriveled dick creeps who need guns to bolster some sad sense of masculinity.
Or maybe they're sado-masochistic fuckers who enjoy watching animals bleed, and fantasize about shooting humans.
And this is the kind of open-minded politeness and tolerance for alternative viewpoints that we've come to expect from gun-bigots?. Not.
For Harbinger: Roadwarrior Revisted:
I remember when the stranger came out of the dead lands to save us from the marauding hordes.
He was lean, hard and carried an M-16, his ram-charged Vespa festooned with a bundle of ragged prairie dog pelts.
He spoke in rough tones to our leader on how we'd come to be besieged in this hard land, the hordes encircling us like so many wolves.
"It happened when they took your guns, eh?" he rasped.
"No. Guns we have. Plenty of guns. And ammo too," our leader said. "It's the fuel we lack. You wouldn't have any in that road scooter of yours, would ye?"
With that, a great adventure began...
"Mad Max" was just a movie. Really."
Well, of course, you're right. It was sheer paranoia on my part to have ever been suspicious of the actions of an administration that is made up of former oil execs, to have ever put together their threats to the Taliban (a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs) with the war plans against Afghanistan that were on Bush's desk on 9/11. It was absurd of me to think that they would send American soldiers to die in Iraq if they knew that there were no WMD's ("it was the only idea that everyone would agree on") and it's ridiculous of me to think that the coming nuking of Iran is about anything but Iran's non-compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (which, oddly, allows them to do exactly what they're doing).
I had a friend who, at the beginning of Bush's coup, said "Hey, how much damage could he actually do.....Congress will keep him in check, no matter what he tries". The past six years have been a living nightmare to him, beyond his capacity for imagining in 2001. You think it might be possible (maybe?) that the post-nuking of Iran might be beyond *your* capacity for imagining? Could it be (long-shot or not) that you simply can't let yourself "go there"?
Hell, "Mad Max" is small change nolo. They were living far better than I imagine your neighborhood to be, once Dick shoots us all in the face with "the big one".
I am also a gun owning lefty. I own a couple of shotguns and three hunting rifles. Its family tradition. One shotgun and two of my rifles are hierlooms that are 50+ years old (one rifle is 98 years old). The government should take them away from me? I'm an upright tax paying law-abiding citizen.
Guns are tools, nothing more, a powerful tool to be sure, but so is a car or a chainsaw. Any tool can be misused.
One thing to A Harbringer of Spring:
They'll do it overnight by selling every dollar they hold. China alone could vaporize our economy.
Dude, calm down, dumping the dollar would wreck every industrial economy in the world. China knows this, Europe knows this, aint gonna happen. If "the world" wrecks our economy there will be no customers for thier useless crap.
It was sheer paranoia
Well, at least the gun-bigots can't complain that we have all the wackos on our side, can they...
"He was lean, hard and carried an M-16, his ram-charged Vespa festooned with a bundle of ragged prairie dog pelts."
(heh) Wow, mega-funny Dave! So......I guess you'll just hop down to the local Starbucks for a scalding hot java on your way to work, after you've heard that the United States has dropped multiple nuclear warheads on a country that has done *nothing* to us and is vastly less of a threat to the world than, say Pakistan...right?
Yeah, no doubt everything will just chug along as usual Dave, even if millions in India end up dying of radiation poisoning (I mean, it's not as though *those* people matter, right?). The world will just say "Hey, that's the US just being the US, we've all gotta do out thang, right?".
Just "keep shopping" Dave and everything will be just dandy.
"Dude, calm down, dumping the dollar would wreck every industrial economy in the world. China knows this, Europe knows this, aint gonna happen."
Calm down? Friend, are you aware that our government is going to use nuclear weapons with the rationale that *no one* will challenge us if we do, thereby "cementing our status" as sole superpower from now on? You think that China wouldn't be willing to take an economic hit to shut down a country that plans on strangling the amount of oil that comes down the pipe to them? Mutherfukker, they would be *idiots* to let themselves be played that way, and they aren't idiots, *our guys are*.
Think before you tell anyone to "calm down" in times like this friend, if you had any sense you'd be screaming STOP THIS SHIT RIGHT NOW at the top of your fucking lungs, rather than playing the "it'll never happen" game.
We will fight them in their prairie dog villages so we don't have to fight them here.
I know thousands of gun owners and I have never, not once, heard from any of them the words gun and penis in the same conversation, let alone sentence.
That's why it's called "subtext" and "subconscious," hon.
You don't think you're saying it, but the rest of us hear it loud and clear.
And, yes, I come from a family of hunters. I was the highest-scoring person in my gun safety training course. I grew up around guns, though I don't have one myself, as I think my history of depression means I shouldn't keep easy means of suicide within reach.
But, then, my dad was a responsible gun owner, which puts him in a distinct minority these days.
He specifically said that they should be banned from being used to hunt.
Show me where he specifically said they should be banned.
Russell! Nice.
I once made fun of tree stands to a hunting co-worker. Whoops!
As I clicked off the comments window, I realized that quite possibly it was Doug Giles that brought the crew by to enlighten the unwashed.
I consider myself a capital "L" Liberal and have never had any problem with the private ownership of sensible firearms for target shooting at a bona fide shooting range where rules of safety are strictly enforced. My definition of "sensible" gun ownership: One or two pistols for home defense/target shooting, one rifle and one shotgun for skeet shooting and or hunting if that is your pleasure. There is absolutely no need - NONE- for assault weapons with 100 round magazines, 50 caliber pistols and the like. If you can't hit your target with two or three rounds from a moderaate caliber handgun or rifle, then you've got absolutely no business having an arsenal in your home -period! Zumbo is just another unfortunate individual who was naive enough to actually believe that you can speak truth to the reichwing in this country without fear of retribution. Fuck the NRA!
They may be idiots, but they're well-regulated idiots
This particular idiot is far from alone. No less an arch-idiot than the Perfesser hisself has recently authored a learned paper about the communal rights embodied in the 2d Amendment. These would be the right to form militias, and a right for these militias to engage in rebellion against the Federal gummint. They want us to have a more perfect Union, you know, something like what Iraq and Afghanistan has right now, or Lebanon had 15 years ago.
Actually, this is well past idiocy, and far into insanity.
I recognize that this all sounds over-the-top and a little hysterical...
Why, yes it does.
"A Harbinger of Spring," I don't know many paranoid survivalists who are lefties. I am calling bullshit on you. You sound more like another version of a concern troll.
And this is the kind of open-minded politeness and tolerance for alternative viewpoints that we've come to expect from gun-bigots?
Jack, we are not trying to engage you in conversation, we are just laughing at you. We have heard all your crap before. You don't think you are coming at us with an original insight, do you?
Gun-bigot? That is one serious fruit loop talking point.
I recognize that this all sounds over-the-top and a little hysterical...
No, actually it doesn't, not after the stories my own Grandfather told me of what post WWI Germany was like. Wheelbarrows full of money, and nothing to eat.
I have been looking around for a over and under shotgun off and on for a while now. It seems that 2/3 of the shops I go into are SWAT R US places. You know places where the conservative types go to peruse the paramilitary black chic and get stiffies over the lastest Glock.
This is a direct result of the fucking decline of the NRA.
The days of the local gun store with the local guys would come and look at the new deer rifle or plinking .22 or a bird hunting shotgun are fading.
These guys may have been rural good ole boys but most believed in respecting weapons, teaching safety, and demanding both from their family members and friends whom they hunted with.
Guns being sold today seem to be about protecting yourself from home invasions of rabid drug dealers, or some such threat that rarely happens.
I went out shooting skeet with some friends several months ago. This putz shows up with a side by side shotgun. You can tell he just bought the fucking thing. It was stiff, not broken in, he was clumsy with the damn thing. Since we were sharing the range, I got to watch this guy shoot and after a few birds he says (I paraphrase) "Man, those things sure move faster than people."
Friggin idiot.
"Show me where he specifically said they should be banned." - nolo
And I quote:
"This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods."
End quote.
Good enough?
You don't think you're saying it, but the rest of us hear it loud and clear.
Thank you for proving my point about being sexual obsessed. Doesn't it get at least a little "icky" feeling sometimes when you walk around hearing strangers' thoughts about "penises" all day long?
How long have you had this ability? How do you feel about your mother? Your father?
But, then, my dad was a responsible gun owner, which puts him in a distinct minority these days.
Oh, I'd put him in with the rest of the 99 percent of 120 million or so responsible gun owners. Pretty good crowd to be in.
"I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods."
That would seem to say that he wants them banned from hunting, no?
jswift, if you can give me a link to where he said that, I'll be satisfied. For right now, though, it seems his original post is gone and is being represented by others.
My definition of "sensible" gun ownership: One or two pistols for home defense/target shooting, one rifle and one shotgun for skeet shooting and or hunting if that is your pleasure. There is absolutely no need - NONE- for assault weapons with 100 round magazines, 50 caliber pistols and the like. If you can't hit your target with two or three rounds from a moderaate caliber handgun or rifle, then you've got absolutely no business having an arsenal in your home -period!
For handguns alone I’ve got:
one .22 semi-auto that’s a “trainer” gun for those I am introducing into the sport.
One .22 revolver for trainees to show them the difference between a wheelgun and a semi-auto
One .32 Keltec when I absolutely need to carry concealed in the lightest weigh clothing without being made.
One 9MM when I feel a need for a capacity of 17 rounds or so
One chopped .45 when it’s winter and everyone’s wearing a heavy coat so the big gun is needed…
One .357 revolver when the arthritis is acting up and chambering a semi is just too hard
One five inch 1911A1 as a commemorative of my years in the military
One single action only cowboy pistol for competition in cowboy events
My goodness, that is eight handguns and I haven’t hit bottom yet. Each has a reason and I really resent Gene’s attempted micromanagement of what I desire for my personal use. I don’t tell him what letters to the editor to write to the local newspaper, he doesn’t tell me what to have in my gun safe.
nolo, I dont know if the quote is real, I was just commenting on the context. If it is a real quote, the writer or speaker seems to be saying that he/she means that assault weapons should be banned from hunting. Does that mean he/she wants to see them banned entirely? Don't know the answer to that.
I don't know many paranoid survivalists who are lefties. I am calling bullshit on you. You sound more like another version of a concern troll.
Hang out at some of these far left boards and you’ll see plenty of Dims just like this. We feel compassion towards them but we don’t discount that they can put pressure on their representatives that we can’t.
Jack, we are not trying to engage you in conversation, we are just laughing at you. We have heard all your crap before. You don't think you are coming at us with an original insight, do you?
I’m content to let the fence sitters who read these posts decide who has the better of it.
Guns being sold today seem to be about protecting yourself from home invasions of rabid drug dealers, or some such threat that rarely happens.
Come to my neck of the woods and I'll take you to a dozen gunshops within a hours drive that will delight your heart and make you feel all tingling inside.
One often finds what is in one's heart.
jswift, the only quotes (as opposed to characterizations) of what Zumbo said that I have seen indicate that Zumbo feels strongly about whether guns built on an assault-weapon platform are appropriate hunting weapons. That's fine -- I imagine it's something hunters can feel strongly about. I didn't see anything, though, that indicated he'd called for a ban.
"jswift, if you can give me a link to where he said that, I'll be satisfied. For right now, though, it seems his original post is gone and is being represented by others." - nolo
Ah, I see. Since the original has been yanked by the Outdoor Life web page, and the Google Cache is also gone, well then the outrage generated by Zumbo's comments must be fake, because we're all lying about what he said.
I copied his post - verbatim - the day I was made aware of it, and fisked it. The entire piece (with my commentary interspersed) is available here (his words are in blue.) Those are his words. You can deny it all you wish, but they are.
His first "apology" - verbatim - is available here.
The portion of Tom Gresham's interview of Zumbo on his radio show is available here, to the best of my availability to transcribe the exchange. That discussion is available on iTunes, if you care to listen.
Thank you for proving my point about being sexual obsessed. Doesn't it get at least a little "icky" feeling sometimes when you walk around hearing strangers' thoughts about "penises" all day long?
Not particularly, no, unless they insist on showing them to me, like you did in your post at 8:52 p.m. Really, there was only the slightest hint that there might be something a little weird about your gun obsession and you felt absolutely compelled to whip it out, didn't you?
When I get into online discussions of the banning of sex toys (and I have), I only feel I have to mention that I have them. I don't feel compelled to detail each and every one I have. And yet you felt that compulsion about detailing your gun collection. Veddy interesting, as Freud might say.
Kevin Baker, quit the frikkin overreaction already. I made statements based on the information I had. Then I asked for information, and I thank you for providing links.
Nowhere did I say anyone was lying. You need to chill.
Nolo:
You said "it seems his original post is gone and is being represented by others."
A few minutes of search engine use would have located a copy of his original post, or that particular quote from it. I spent six months back in 2002 on Democratic Underground discussing gun control with its denizens. Pardon me for painting you with the broad brush of my experience there.
That would seem to say that he wants them banned from hunting, no?
He wants them banned from hunting, and from there it is a very small step for banning them altogther. The BATF has already taken it upon itself the power to ban guns that have "no legitimate sporting purpose."
Thank you for the apology. But I have to ask, why did Zumbo (who apparently is someone who loves both guns and hunting) get treated even more harshly by other aficionados of guns and hunting that you might treat a DU denizen? Is there no room in the hunting community to talk about the issue he raised? And if so, why not?
""A Harbinger of Spring," I don't know many paranoid survivalists who are lefties. I am calling bullshit on you."
Am I supposed to give a shit that you don't believe I'm from the political left? You should see the reception I get on some of the overwhelmingly Right-wing forums I occasionally post to. That fact that I don't fit your small-minded notions is of no concern to me chum. If you've bothered to read what I've written, I've got much bigger things on my mind.
It's howlingly funny, in a sad sort of way, that you can't imagine anyone on the left looking beyond what happens when a rogue country (the US) drops a series of nuclear warheads on a country that has done *nothing* to us, save for sitting on "our oil". And seeing karma come back and bite us on the ass is "paranoia" on my part? Chum, YOUR *avoidance* of turning the page after the bombs drop tops my "paranoia" by leaps and bounds.
Those clowns are right on the verge of bringing the darkness on all of us....you aren't going to stop 'em, so you might want to give *just a little* thought to what happens next, when our little world falls to pieces.
"why did Zumbo (who apparently is someone who loves both guns and hunting) get treated even more harshly by other aficionados of guns and hunting that you might treat a DU denizen?"
I discussed this at length with the proprietor of The Impolitic. As I told her, "It was not "a stray remark." Let's get that straight right now. Those remarks represent the actual belief of far too large a percentage of the gun-owning community, and damned near all of us who protested so loudly have been the recipient of comments as bad if not worse from both inside and outside the community. From outside it's bad enough. From inside it's inexcusable."
Jack Burton gave a very long discussion about why AR-15s are fine.
However the term 'Assault Rifle' also includes variants of the Soviet AK. These use larger, more powerful bullets. Civilians buy AKs, SKS, Mini 14s, etc in addition to the good old American ARs.
But that's not the real problem. Traditional hunting rifles only allow a few rounds to be stored in the rifle. A person has to reload them after a handful of rounds are fired. Traditional rifles also only allow one shot per trigger pull.
Assault Rifles use large magazines. Typically 20-30 rounds. In addition they were originally designed to fire in full automatic or 3-round bursts.
The ability to fire 20-30 rounds without having to reload is the primary danger in a civilian environment. It's just what the doctor ordered when you want to go to work or school or the local Mickey D's to take out your frustrations on a bunch of people in a short period of time.
Also, many (not all) of the civilian rifles can be converted by a 'hobbyist' back to burst or full automatic mode. There are kits you can buy to bring them back to a military mode of operation. It's illegal but it's possible.
You can't convert a traditional hunting rifle into burst or full automatic mode. You also can't easily retrofit/convert one to use a large magazine.
This gun stuff is a mess. The absolutists on each side of the argument own the debate and unfortunately the crazier absolutists have the upper hand.
Ps. The one thing I'll concede to Mr. Burton is the fact that 'traditional' hunting rifles use bigger, more powerful bullets. You need that to bring down a large animal while hunting. However I still say that the ability to fire many rounds in a short period of time (even once per trigger pull) is the primary danger in the civilian environment (i.e. non military, non police).
Hey,I know! This has about petered(HeHe He said petered) out. Let's talk about SUV's,especially Hummers(HeHe He said Hummers)
So Kevin, I guess my real question is whether there's any room in the hunting and gunowning community to talk about the suitability of certain guns for hunting in terms that aren't just about sheer efficiency. Baseball fans can talk about spitballs, after all, and decide whether they make sense within the sport. Can hunters talk about things like, for instance, whether modern black powder guns really are "primitive," or whether an AR or AK platform weapon makes sense from a sporting perspective without losing all self-control?
"The ability to fire 20-30 rounds without having to reload is the primary danger in a civilian environment. It's just what the doctor ordered when you want to go to work or school or the local Mickey D's to take out your frustrations on a bunch of people in a short period of time."
Right. That's why all those police departments are arming with them.
Question: What's the difference between someone with a Remington 7400 semi-auto rifle chanbered for 7mm Remington Magnum and ten 5-round magazines, and a guy with an AR-15 and two 30-round magazines?
The guy with the Remington can shoot through cinderblock walls.
But his rifle is pretty.
Simply put, gun control cannot survive without an accompanying sea of disinformation. – Anonymous (but right.) And, I would add, a sea of ignorance ignorance.
A Harbinger of Spring.........I agree with you on almost everything. I've been preaching this for years now.
"I guess my real question is whether there's any room in the hunting and gunowning community to talk about the suitability of certain guns for hunting in terms that aren't just about sheer efficiency. Baseball fans can talk about spitballs, after all, and decide whether they make sense within the sport. Can hunters talk about things like, for instance, whether modern black powder guns really are "primitive," or whether an AR or AK platform weapon makes sense from a sporting perspective without losing all self-control?" - nolo
Sure. If Zumbo had said "why are so many varmint hunters using AR-15 rifles these days? Aren't they unsuitable?" He'd have gotten a couple hundred comments and links to pages showing highly accurized AR15 rifles designed specifically for varmint hunting or long-range target shooting. But that's not what he did. There's an ongoing argument in the hunting community over whether someone using an in-line muzzle-loader with Pyrodex pellets and saboted pure-copper hollowpoint bullets is really in the spirit of "primitive hunting" - particularly since rifles of this type are capable of near minute-of-angle accuracy out to 200 yards.
The SKS rifle has become the entry-level deer gun because they're ridiculously cheap and fire a cartridge about as powerful as the venerable .30-30 - and that fact is hated by traditional hunters because they don't like "newbies." Sometimes rightfully so.
But such discussions don't involve words like "terrorist" or "ban."
I'd assume you don't frequent the numerous gun boards such as AR15.com, The High Road, FALfiles, etc., etc, ad infinitum. Those discussions go on forever, with various levels of heat, but no excoriation.
"detailing your gun collection. Veddy interesting, as Freud might say."
A question was raised as to why a person might need more than one or two handguns. I merely pointed out the specific reasons why I had each gun. It is the same as if I pointed out the difference between my mountain bike, my touring bike, my racing bike, and my son's tricycle. Freud would be proud.
But what would he make of your fixation?
Again, thank you for helping us to persuade folk that gun-bigots are kind of "yucky" in the deeper recesses of their mind. No one really wants to be associated with that loser kind of thinking.
here's an ongoing argument in the hunting community over whether someone using an in-line muzzle-loader with Pyrodex pellets and saboted pure-copper hollowpoint bullets is really in the spirit of "primitive hunting" - particularly since rifles of this type are capable of near minute-of-angle accuracy out to 200 yards.
So what would happen if someone argued that a muzzle-loader meeting those specifications should be banned from primitive hunting seasons? And no, I don't spend a lot of time on gun boards because life is short and guns aren't my sport. I could go on at length, however about crap like "loud pipes save lives", but that's another matter.
Lots of yelling and screaming.
And it's happened. The real flintlockers have tried to get flintlock-only seasons. But they don't try to get the in-liners banned from hunting. They just want their own season.
Is there any kind of armament that *is* banned from hunting? And again, I ask because I truly don't know.
No full-auto. There are generally caliber limitations based on the size of the prey (.223 is too small for deer in most locations, though where the deer species are small, it's allowed.) Handgun hunting has caliber and barrel length restrictions usually based on muzzle energy (the purpose is to take game humanely). There are specific seasons for specific weapons types (bow, blackpowder, handgun, rifle.) Etc.
Bear in mind, I'm not a hunter, so I'm hardly the expert on all of this.
If you're not a hunter, Kevin, where were you coming from when you fisked Zumbo?
I'm a defender of the Constitution.
Here's two quotes for you to consider. The first is from the textbook American Constitutional Law written by Laurence Tribe:
"Perhaps the most accurate conclusion one can reach with any confidence is that the core meaning of the Second Amendment is a populist / republican / federalism one: Its central object is to arm 'We the People' so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes -- not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons -- a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action."
The second is by another lawyer, Alan Dershowitz:
"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."
That's where I'm coming from.
why did Zumbo (who apparently is someone who loves both guns and hunting) get treated even more harshly by other aficionados of guns and hunting that you might treat a DU denizen? Is there no room in the hunting community to talk about the issue he raised? And if so, why not?
Yes, there was plenty of room for talk. Actually that was all that went on for days. I don't recall people doing other things such as protesting out on the street, or marching on buildings -- just talking.
Of course, the vast majority of the talk was about how wrong Zumbo was, but that is how the game is played sometimes.
And the reason the anger was there is because most people just don't like being called terrorists nowadays (unless you're really a terrorist). Or for any gun to be banned.
Zumbo was a professional writer who let the community down.
Consider this... imagine that former NOW president Patricia Ireland posts on the NARL blog that she thinks some abortions should be banned... and she just doesn't understand why some people want abortions when they aren't necessary.
What are the chances that she's going to be disinvited from posting again? And that lots of stink is going to be raised from the abortion supporters? And that all the fuss is going to seem "coordinated" because a lot of like-mined people are going to be posting and taking action? And that former friends are going to move away from her comments?
There's this guy named Jack Burton.
Posted here, once.
Kinda went on and on. Mostly 'bout guns, if I recall correctly.
*spits*
Long-winded bastard. Don't think none of us read much after his first leccch-ture.
Just sayin'.
To be honest, I don't really give a good God damn how many guns anybody owns. My old man taught me to shoot when I was a kid, all of my brothers in law have a closet full of guns.
I don't have any because I flat out don't have any need for one, and I don't have the time or money for any more hobbies. If I feel the need to "defend my home" above and beyond what my local constabulary can do, I'll get the ball peen hammer out of my workshop and keep it in my nightstand. That'll do the job.
And, for the record if anyone's keeping score, I'm both a die hard lefty, *and* a second amendment hawk, by which I mean I think the founders intended average citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms as a check on the power of the state.
All of that said: if you use an assault rifle to hunt prairie dogs, you're a flaming asshole. Why not go all the way and get a bazooka? If you hunt prairie dogs with an assault rifle, you're a flaming asshole. Period.
Thank you.
Jack, I think the difference is that there are places (both here and in other countries) where easy access to military-style armaments pose a serious problem to safety and social stability, whereas I can't think of a single place in the world where easy access to abortion threatens to undermine basic safety and social stability. Zumbo may have been intemperate in suggesting that American hunters who want to take off after prairie dogs with weapons modeled on antipersonnel platforms might not want to be compared to, say, people who take off after other people with readily-available antipersonnel weapons like the AK-47, but really. I have a hard time seeing it as being the same thing as a NOW leader calling for an abortion ban. Maybe it would be more like a NOW leader calling for a ban on bad abortions.
Sorry. By "bad," I meant "botched."
Carry on.
"The ability to fire 20-30 rounds without having to reload is the primary danger in a civilian environment. It's just what the doctor ordered when you want to go to work or school or the local Mickey D's to take out your frustrations on a bunch of people in a short period of time."
I hate to quote myself but what is the difference between firing 30 rounds in 24 seconds or using three ten round mags to fire 30 rounds in 30 seconds?
And people can do all kinds of evil things with all kinds of household goods, including a 3000 lb car that can kill dozens in just seconds.
Want it banned next?
Also, many (not all) of the civilian rifles can be converted by a 'hobbyist' back to burst or full automatic mode. There are kits you can buy to bring them back to a military mode of operation. It's illegal but it's possible.
Much more difficult than you put on. And as it pointed out, illegal.
I still say that the ability to fire many rounds in a short period of time (even once per trigger pull) is the primary danger in the civilian environment
And those poor folk in New Orleans who were trapped in their homes and buisnesses while surrounded by roaming gangs of thugs -- do you think they would rather have had a 30 round Mini-14 or one of your three round deer rifles?
In the hands of the 99 percent of the owners the sport utility rifles offer no danger to the community.
"All of that said: if you use an assault rifle to hunt prairie dogs, you're a flaming asshole. Why not go all the way and get a bazooka? If you hunt prairie dogs with an assault rifle, you're a flaming asshole. Period." - russell
Another example of ignorance just waiting to be mislead.
Like I said: Outside the community, it's bad enough. Inside it's inexcusable.
Russell: Please explain to me how shooting a prairie dog with a .223 chambered AR15 varmint rifle is somehow "worse" than shooting that same prairie dog with a bolt-action varmint rifle chambered in .22-250 or .220 Swift?
Use small words, and speak up. The flames from my asshole may drown you out otherwise. 
And people can do all kinds of evil things with all kinds of household goods, including a 3000 lb car that can kill dozens in just seconds.
Want it banned next?
No, but we regulate the shit out of them, and it's saved lives.
Oh, please! Not the "cars vs. guns" bullshit again!
Apple? Meet orange!
Kevin, when a self-professed 2d amendment hawk is saying that only a flaming asshole would take off after prairie dogs with an assault rifle, it just might be A Sign.
In other words, criticism from within the community is not without merit, dude.
Yes, it's a sign of ignorance. He admits that he's not a gun owner himself.
Nolo, a lot of people own guns without knowing jack shit about them other than which end the speedy bit comes out of.
I defend their rights too, BTW. I'm just trying to educate them as to why they ought to defend mine as well.
my real question is whether there's any room in the hunting and gunowning community to talk about the suitability of certain guns for hunting in terms that aren't just about sheer efficiency.
We talk about things like that all the time on a number of websites across the net. I hang out at www.shooterstalk.net and we have quite a few hunters and shooters who enjoy discussing the pros and cons of various calibers/weapons. There's some pretty strong opinions and sometimes heated arguments but we understand and respect that all of us are 2nd Amendment supporters.
Is there any point, Kevin, where you'd tell someone else they ought not to have a gun?
(I should warn you this is a test question).
I'm not Kevin, but I'd certainly advise people with certain mental health issues not to own them. If you've had suicidal thoughts, you should get guns out of your house.
But what I'd advise people to do and what should be legal for them to do are, of course, different questions.
Sean
"Is there any point, Kevin, where you'd tell someone else they ought not to have a gun?"
Sure. If their right to arms has been stripped from them by due process of law. (I'm not so sanguine about some of the law that will get said right stripped, however, but that's another topic entirely.) If they have mental problems that could lead them to harm themselves or others, as adjudged by an accredited physician, psychiatrist, or psychologist. (In which case they ought not have access to chemicals, matches, or sharp, pointy objects either.) If they are underage and their parents have decided that they are not responsible enough.
Other than that, no.
Long-winded bastard.
Bastard enough to get under your skin, eh, edub?
As a rule people don't post about things that are inconsequential to them. I must have really torqued you off. Good.
when a self-professed 2d amendment hawk is saying that only a flaming asshole would take off after prairie dogs with an assault rifle, it just might be A Sign.
Self professed is the key word here. On the net no one knows if you're a dog.
But if you claim to be knowledgable about guns and then manage to make a highly ignorant statement in the same paragraph it does tend to call into account the authenticity of their self profession.
Am I supposed to give a shit that you don't believe I'm from the political left?
And just to show you that I don't, I'll write three paragraphs for you....
*yawn*
Long-winded bastard. Don't think none of us read much after his first leccch-ture.
No shit! I am checking who wrote it first. I don't even bother with Jack's crap.
where you'd tell someone else they ought not to have a gun?
Sure... and I've taken guns from the homes of people.
There are issues of competence, of depression, of temperment, and other critical areas that need to be carefully judged and weighed.
So what I get out of all this is that you guys with guns are a touchy bunch. Thanks for making me feel more comfortable with y'all.
So what I get out of all this is that you guys with guns are a touchy bunch. Thanks for making me feel more comfortable with y'all.
I'd rather live with a hundred gun-owning neighbors than to commute to work with Teddy Kennedy. My odds of surviving the day are much greater with my neighbors.
A three round deer rifle is just fine for hunting deer.
A five round shotgun is just fine for defending your home.
*******************
Military technology is advancing at a steady pace. Weapons are becoming more 'effective' as time goes by. The fundamental question is what military inspired advances should also be allowed to spill over into the civilian market.
There HAS to be some limit. It all depends on where you draw the line.
I would personally draw the line somewhere back at 1895 or so. That's really good enough for hunting and home defense.
Others might draw the line at 1958.
Then there are the folks who don't want any damned line at all.
That is absurd on its face.
Let's push back from the opposite direction.
Do you think that people have a right to buy .50 caliber semi automatic sniper rifles (that can defeat all body armor and are accurate well over a mile)? Do you think they have the right to buy the new handguns that fire rifle powered bullets that can defeat almost all body armor? Should civilians have access to ammunition that is specifically designed to defeat body armor?
Hobbyists (and criminals and sickos) want to have access to all of this stuff without restriction.
There HAVE to be some limits. Some technology is designed specifically for the military and/or police. That SHOULD go without saying.
But the NRA operates on the 'slippery slope' mode. No compromise - take no prisoners. It's no way to make public policy.
Well, as someone said once, we gun owners have been the victims of a decades-long slow-motion hate crime. It's made us a bit prickly of late. We're tired of being insulted, lied about, lied to, misunderstood, villified, pilloried... need I go on?
Let me add a caveat to my last post. You asked specifically where I would tell someone they ought not have a gun, and I didn't answer that question. I answered a different question you didn't ask. My previous answer was when would I feel the government justified in taking someone's gun(s).
If I believed someone was severely depressed or violently angry, I would suggest strongly that they not have or acquire a gun. If I thought a person was not emotionally capable of having a gun for self-defense, I would recommend they not get one for that purpose. If they lived in an area where guns were illegal, I'd advise them not to break the law - or at least not get caught.
Please explain to me how shooting a prairie dog with a .223 chambered AR15 varmint rifle is somehow "worse" than shooting that same prairie dog with a bolt-action varmint rifle chambered in .22-250 or .220 Swift?
This is a fair question.
Stop me when I've gone off track.
A plain old .22 and a standard AR-15, in terms of the "speedy bit" that comes out the other end, are not much different.
What make a plain old .22 and an assault rifle different are, if I'm not mistaken, the following:
Assault rifles are semi-automatic. Kind of overkill for prairie dogs, but if throwing the bolt really bugs you, I guess that's a plus.
Assault rifles accept a magazine. Again, convenient, but probably not a big difference when hunting prairie dogs. Once the first shot is fired, they're under cover. You have all the time in the world to load your next round.
Folding or telescoping stock. Generally this (along with other features) translates to a lighter, more manageable firearm. Definitely a plus, independent of context.
Bayonet mount, threaded barrel for flash suppressor or silencer, and (possibly) grenade launcher. Not particularly relevant to prairie dog hunting.
So, with the exception of being a relatively lightweight weapon, your AR-15 is not particularly better or worse than a good old .22. At any distance, a plain old rifle with a full-length barrel is probably better, due to it's higher accuracy at range.
Here's the bottom line as I see it. Assault rifles are designed for small arms combat at close range. Small caliber rifles are designed for hunting varmints at a variety of ranges. If you feel the need to hunt varmnints with an assault rifle, it seems to me you just like the romance of owning and shooting a man-killer.
To me, that seems fucked up. My two cents.
If you can explain why I am mistaken, and an assault rifle is in fact preferable to the plain old .22 my old man used to put small game on the table throughout his entire youth, I'm all ears.
Thanks -
Jack - that's a 15 yard rhetorical foul - gratuitous Ted Kennedy bashing. There really oughtta be a Godwin-like law that ends the argument whenever that silly chestnut comes up.
And I was with you up to that point.
Sean
"Do you think that people have a right to buy .50 caliber semi automatic sniper rifles (that can defeat all body armor and are accurate well over a mile)? Do you think they have the right to buy the new handguns that fire rifle powered bullets that can defeat almost all body armor? Should civilians have access to ammunition that is specifically designed to defeat body armor?"
Case in point. Any centerfire rifle cartridge from .223 up will defeat the body armor worn by police, which is designed to stop handgun bullets. I own a Thompson/Center Contender single-shot pistol and a Remington XP-100 single shot pistol. Both fire rifle-caliber ammunition which can penetrate any body armor worn by police today. The .300 Winchester Magnum rifle is accurate to well past 1,000 yards in the hands of someone skillful, but hitting anything man-sized at a mile requires a spotter with a powerful telescope and multiple rounds to get on target. And the .404 Chey-Tac rifle will do it better.
Civilians do not have access to handgun ammunition specifically designed to defeat body armor, but as I said, any centerfire rifle ammunition will do the job.
See what I mean about ignorance and people being mislead? Where did you learn all this stuff that is just plain ignorant and wrong? From the media and the people who want to convince you that it's a good idea to take those guns away - we don't want your hunting rifle.
No, they just want the ammunition for your hunting rifle - because it can penetrate body armor, even if you fire it out of a single-shot pistol.
russell, sean, I think you both made my point. I'm not sure the assault-platform weapons are sensible hunting weapons from a *hunting* perspective. The hunting perspective, unfortunately, has to kowtow to those members of the "gun community" who are prone to irrelevant Ted Kennedy references, regardless of whether those people are hunters. And for that, I feel sorry for the hunting community.
Russell - to answer a couple of your points:
- lots of hunting rifles are semi-auto.
- all of them have some kind of magazine.
The real question is not whether an "assault rifle" is more effective than a less scary looking hunting rifle - it's whether the assault rifle is any more dangerous as a murder weapon than a hunting rifle. And the answer to that question is "no". Your typical deer rifle is just as deadly.
Sean
And if I can be so gauche as to respond to my own post: given that the "assault rifle" is no more dangerous than a "hunting rifle", there's no particular public safety reason to ban it.
Sean
Do you think that people have a right to buy .50 caliber semi automatic sniper rifles (that can defeat all body armor and are accurate well over a mile)?
Bram... where did these .50 caliber rifles come from? Did they just appear ex nihlo?
No, they were developed by civilians, for civilian use in long range target practice. This is a sport that has been going on as long as we've had rifles.
I saw a stunningly beautiful rifle from Germany that was made about a hundred years ago. It was one of eight made for a hunting club and if you wanted to buy it now you have to be willing to pony up almost a million dollars. Of course that was ten years ago so I bet the price has gone up now.
It was a "chicken" rifle. The sport back then was to shoot at wooden chickens from the distance of a half mile and more.
This rifle threw a .50 caliber size chunk of lead downrange with enough accuracy to nail a chicken at almost a mile... and that was a hundred years ago.
The Barrett rifle was introduced to the civilian market before the military found out about it. They were the ones to take a purely sporting rifle and turn it into a "sniper" rifle.
So who has a greater "right" to own the rifle. A citizen who uses it for sport, which was it's initial purpose, or the military?
Are you prepared to give up anything that the military also finds useful?
I said ALL body armor.
Can you read?
Answer my question.
Do you think there should be any limits?
Where should current military tech/advancements decouple from the civilian/hobbyist market?
BramP -
I doubt you'd find anyone, including Charleton Heston, who would advocate that ordinary citizens be allowed access to ANY weapons technology, up to and including nuclear weaponry. So, of course there are limits. Reasonable people can disagree about what the limits should be.
But of course you're changing the subject. The question at hand is whether so-called "assault rifles", which in fact are identical in capability to "hunting rifles", should be banned (evidently on the basis of their looks). I say no.
Sean
Russell:
My last comment tonight. I've got to go to bed.
Stop me when I've gone off track.
"A plain old .22 and a standard AR-15, in terms of the "speedy bit" that comes out the other end, are not much different." A .22 rimfire is slow. A .223 is fast. A .22-250 is faster. A .220 Swift is a freaking rocket.
"What make a plain old .22 and an assault rifle different are, if I'm not mistaken, the following:
"Assault rifles are semi-automatic. Kind of overkill for prairie dogs, but if throwing the bolt really bugs you, I guess that's a plus." The action is pretty much immaterial. A lot of guys single-load their varmint AR's because they handload cartridges that are longer than magazine length for better long-range accuracy. The fact of the matter is, it's possible to build a really, really accurate rifle on the AR15 frame for less than a high-dollar bolt gun.
"Assault rifles accept a magazine. Again, convenient, but probably not a big difference when hunting prairie dogs. Once the first shot is fired, they're under cover. You have all the time in the world to load your next round." Actually, if you miss, they quite often don't duck, so if you're shooting semi-auto from a magazine, a fast follow-up can be a plus.
"Folding or telescoping stock. Generally this (along with other features) translates to a lighter, more manageable firearm. Definitely a plus, independent of context." Not in the case of a varmint rifle. Generally fixed stocks with weights in the buttstock (and sometimes the forend) are used for greater stability off the bench and a better cheek weld. Collapsible stocks have lousy cheek weld. Collapsible stocks are, however, excellent for shooters of smaller stature. You can adjust the length of pull to fit smaller shooters, then extend it out to fit bigger people. Folding stocks? Eh. Not my style.
"Bayonet mount, threaded barrel for flash suppressor or silencer, and (possibly) grenade launcher. Not particularly relevant to prairie dog hunting." And not found on the varmint variants. But they're still AR-15's. Diane Feinstein doesn't see a difference. Neither did Jim Zumbo.
"So, with the exception of being a relatively lightweight weapon, your AR-15 is not particularly better or worse than a good old .22. At any distance, a plain old rifle with a full-length barrel is probably better, due to it's higher accuracy at range." Not so, as I just explained.
"Here's the bottom line as I see it. Assault rifles are designed for small arms combat at close range. Small caliber rifles are designed for hunting varmints at a variety of ranges. If you feel the need to hunt varmnints with an assault rifle, it seems to me you just like the romance of owning and shooting a man-killer." Ah, a "man-killer."
End Part I. (Length limitation on comments here.)
I own an AR15 with two uppers. (Most people don't realize, but the lower and upper parts of an AR15 separate. The lower, with the buttstock and the trigger, is the "gun" according to the BATFE. The upper, with the bolt and the barrel is just a part, and they come apart by pushing out two pins.) One upper is a target upper with a 16" heavy barrel, bipod, and a target scope. It's accurate beyond my capabilities with my handloaded ammunition out beyond 500 yards. I also own an "M4gery" upper - similar to the standard M4 carbine as issued to the Army, though without full-auto capability (a function of the lower). That's my tongue-in-cheek "Homeland defense rifle."
I also own a No. 5 Mk I Lee Enfield Jungle Carbine that was manufactured in 1945 for British troops in the Pacific theater. It's a "man-killer" suitable for hunting deer in heavy brush. I own an 1896 Swedish Mauser manufactured in 1916 that possibly saw action in WWI. It's a "man-killer" that's suitable for shooting steel silhouette targets offhand at 500 meters. I own a 1917 Enfield manufactured in 1917 that also could have seen action in WWI or WWII. It's a "man-killer" that I enjoy shooting off a target bench immensely. I own an M1 Garand semi-automatic "man-killer" that could have seen use in WWII or Korea, but with a 5-round en-bloc clip I can hunt bambi with it if I so desire.
All guns are "man-killers" if that's the intent of the person behind the trigger. You've swallowed the line that's been fed to you by the people who want to disarm the world in their misguided belief that it will make us safer. Educate yourself. Educate your friends. (One more piece after this, then I really am done for the night.)
'Ya know...
At times like this, what with the reasoned debate goin' on here about controlling marauding hordes of hungry prairie dogs with assault weapons & $2000.00 gallons of milk (were $600 toilet seats mentioned...?), I kinda' miss the voice of sanity that is the 'Flight 93 memorial is *really* a Muslim crescent on a direct line facing Mecca' conspiracy guy.
Maybe it's just me...
jqp - yeah, it's just you.
I gotta go to bed too. Y'all western types can keep fighting it out.
Sean
Kevin, all I want to see is for people to get frikkin rational about guns. And that's going to take some compromise on *both* sides. And a lot less squirrelly rhetoric as to what constitutes a "mankiller." I mean seriously, just because technology has advanced beyond the Enfield doesn't mean there aren't guns that are primarily antipersonnel weapons, and you are all being disingenuous if you are saying otherwise.
A study commissioned by the Carter administration on all the gun control research conducted up to that time was published in 1983 under the title "Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America." It's still available through Amazon or Barnes & Noble, I believe. Here's a quote from the conclusion of that study:
"The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare. (3) Most of the firearms involved in crime are cheap Saturday Night Specials, for which no legitimate use or need exists. (4) Many families acquire such a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime. (6) Most of the public also believes this and has favored stricter gun control laws for as long as anyone has asked the question. (7) Only the gun lobby prevents us from embarking on the road to a safer and more civilized society.
"The more deeply we have explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become. We wonder, first, given the number of firearms presently available in the United States, whether the time to "do something" about them has not long since passed. If we take the highest plausible value for the total number of gun incidents in any given year - 1,000,000 - and the lowest plausible value for the total number of firearms now in private hands - 100,000,000 - we see rather quickly that the guns now owned exceed the annual incident count by a factor of at least 100. This means that the existing stock is adequate to supply all conceivable criminal purposes for at least the entire next century, even if the worldwide manufacture of new guns were halted today and if each presently owned firearm were used criminally once and only once. Short of an outright house-to-house search and seizure mission, just how are we going to achieve some significant reduction in the number of firearms available?" (Pp. 319-320)
(My emphasis.) Remember, that was 1983. Since then we have added (conservatively) fifty million more firearms into public circulation. Yet we had declining violent crime rates from 1993 until just last year. We are told, over and over and over again that it is the number of guns that is the cause of gun crime in America - but we are told also over and over and over again that they don't want to take anything from us.
You're being lied to by someone. Actually, you've been lied to by both sides, but I know and you ought to know which side lies more, and more egregiously. And why.
Good night. I'll return to this tomorrow.
Down here in Alabama, we have a term for people who need an assault rifle to hunt: "shitty hunter."
Funny. "Pennsyltuckians" have a name for the same sort of people who show up every autumn during deer season--only they call them "New Yorkers."
And they wonder why the farmers paint orange triangles on the sides of their dairy cows....
Stop me when I've gone off track.
I’ll be quite busy…
A plain old .22 and a standard AR-15, in terms of the "speedy bit" that comes out the other end, are not much different.
Not true… I don’t want to get too technical and there are variables concerned here with the manufacturer of the cartridge and the length of the barrel, and other stuff, but basically…
The .22 comes out of the barrel at about 1250 feet per second. The .223 comes out of the barrel at about 3500 feet per second. Those numbers translate into major differences. At 100 yards the .22 is about out of energy and liable to bounce off the target (just kidding but not by much). At 100 yards the .223 is still chugging away at about 3000 feet per second, or still over twice the speed that the .22 starts out with. It takes about 500 yards to slow down to the speed that a .22 starts with.
This adds incredibly to the accuracy and power of the .223, and enables shooters to effectively hit targets at distances that the .22 can only dream about. Since p’dogs are smart little critters that means quite a lot. You just can’t get close to these varmints or they’ll never come out.
Already we’re at a place where it shows that those who don’t know much about guns are probably better off not showing off their ignorance. Strike One.
What make a plain old .22 and an assault rifle different are, if I'm not mistaken, the following:
Assault rifles are semi-automatic. Kind of overkill for prairie dogs, but if throwing the bolt really bugs you, I guess that's a plus.
Most .22s sold are semi autos. No difference. Strike Two.
Assault rifles accept a magazine. Again, convenient, but probably not a big difference when hunting prairie dogs. Once the first shot is fired, they're under cover. You have all the time in the world to load your next round.
Most .22 semi auto’s accept magazines unless they are tube fed like a Marlin 66, which accepts 15 rounds in the tube. Strike Three. You’re out.
So, with the exception of being a relatively lightweight weapon, your AR-15 is not particularly better or worse than a good old .22. At any distance, a plain old rifle with a full-length barrel is probably better, due to it's higher accuracy at range.
Other than being able to take bigger game at a longer distance, and with more power being able to ensure that you get a clean kill without undue suffering I guess there’s no difference. Yeah.
And at Camp Perry in Ohio the AR style rifles are taking the highest honors each year in accuracy and have been for the past years. So that’s Strike Four and Five. You’re really, really out.
Here's the bottom line as I see it. Assault rifles are designed for small arms combat at close range. Small caliber rifles are designed for hunting varmints at a variety of ranges. If you feel the need to hunt varmnints with an assault rifle, it seems to me you just like the romance of owning and shooting a man-kil
And if I can be so gauche as to respond to my own post: given that the "assault rifle" is no more dangerous than a "hunting rifle", there's no particular public safety reason to ban it.
Sean, I appreciate your comments.
My old man's .22 and an AR-15 will both kill a prairie dog.
The high capacity magazines used with assault weapons won't help you kill any more prairie dogs. They're designed to help you kill people.
Ditto the pistol grip which allows you to shoot from other than traditional rifle stances.
I'm sure we can go on and on about this ad infinitum. There's probably little point in it.
Assault weapons are different than hunting rifles. The differences between assault weapons and hunting rifles are intended to make them more suitable for close range small arms combat. They are, by design, intended for killing people.
If you want to hunt prairie dogs with an assault rifle, live it up. But don't try to convince me that they're the same, because they're not.
Thanks -
No one gives a damn about the 'looks' of a rifle.
The problem is high capacity, quick change magazines.
Really it all boils down to the rate of fire. That's the crux of the matter. I can't understand other inconsequential issues were tacked on to the definition of a 'dangerous' assault rifle.
Civilians don't really NEED a high rate of fire to do the things that civilians do 99.9% of the time in the real world. It is a 'convenience' not a need.
Society has a right to balance convenience for some vs. public safety for all. We do it all the time.
*****
Actually this is all wrong. I'll fact check myself. I hear that some prairie dogs are too stupid to duck as they're being mowed down.
Sorry to bother you all. I think that the need to kill 30 prairie dogs at a clip obviously proves the necessity for civilian assault rifles.
Oh yeah. And then there's all those post apocalyptic scenarios (nuclear war, plague, zombies, etc.) that are near and dear to some folks.
Nuts.
I'm not sure the assault-platform weapons are sensible hunting weapons from a *hunting* perspective.
This is the mindset that is out there.
In spite of dozens of posts from shooters who know their business detailing exactly how and why sport uitlity rifles make fine hunting rifles a person who knows nothing ignores everything and declares that she has learned absolutely nothing.
Real men only shoot .600 nitro express off their foreheads!
Where should current military tech/advancements decouple from the civilian/hobbyist market?
First you have to make a case of "should it" before you try to make an issue of "where should it."
there aren't guns that are primarily antipersonnel weapons
I'd like to find those guns that are not "antipersonnel weapons."
Imagine that. We would never have a hunting accident again since the guns wouldn't shoot people.
Hint for Nolo: A gun's "primary" target is the one that it is being pointed at. It doesn't matter if it is the smallest caliber rifle, or an elephant gun, if you point it at a person it is an "antipersonnel weapon."
Now, unless you believe that we have developed superior technogy that tells the gun when it is being pointed at a person, then the gun really doesn't know, does it? There's no majic ju-ju that is put into a gun, and we don't use space alien hi-tech to teach guns to "primarily" shoot at people.
I love guns and target shooting but there is nothing more ignorant and annoying than gun nuts. By definition they're inbred, paranoid and always quite dim. Sad, but true.
And the .17HMR round is a perfect one to use as the now berated author described. It's just more manly to haul out your AR-15 and pretend you're in a battle with those varmints.
Fucking asshats.
Should it?
Ahh. If you can afford to buy it then you should be able to own it.
Discussion over.
Jack - that's a 15 yard rhetorical foul - gratuitous Ted Kennedy bashing. There really oughtta be a Godwin-like law that ends the argument whenever that silly chestnut comes up.
Sean... if you can find something factually wrong with my statement then I'll reconsider it. Otherwise it stands as written.
And see, this proves that gun enthusiasts are not a monolithic bunch.
Sorry to bother you all. I think that the need to kill 30 prairie dogs at a clip obviously proves the necessity for civilian assault rifles.
If you're a rancher with a horse with a broken leg from stepping in a p'dog hole you'd think that 30 kills was the beginning of a fine day. Multiply that be a couple of hundred and you've got the end of a good mornings work.
Fucking asshats
Well, that will win the fencesitters over to your side now.
I can just see them swooning over the impeccable logic of this sentence, the crystaline structure, the magnificent way the words resonate with power and authority.
But, then again, maybe not.
And ranchers commonly ride horses into prairie dog villages?
Seems kinda unlikely to me.
Can you prove that prairie dogs cause significant livestock losses?
It may be like those roving bands of thugs you read about in New Orleans. It turned out to be 99% bullshit.
Jack....Are you a rancher with a horse with a broken leg? How many horses with broken legs from prairie dog holes have you had? Are you a rancher? Several hundred kills a day of anything is a lot or is it? I got my kills 40 years ago and that was enough for me.I'm sorry that you may not have got YOUR kills. Enjoy your sport,but keep the OVERKILL to yourself!
BramP.........Been loving your comments!
Does anyone notice one of the main arguments the gun folks make?
Their major argument defending assault rifles is the fact that traditional hunting weapons can in some circumstances and in some ways be more deadly than modern assault rifles (bigger bullets, longer range).
So they use this to undermine calls for gun regulations on more modern designs.
I can't speak for others but the reason I don't call for banning older hunting rifles is because I think they have a legitimate use and I don't think it would be reasonable to retroactively ban them. Basically I think there is a 'grandfather clause' on them.
So in this case, trying to be reasonable is taken advantage of by the NRA types.
Basically I understand that old fashioned hunting rifles are more dangerous than modern assault rifles in some ways. I don't care about the superficial appearance of modern rifles.
I still believe it is reasonable to consider tighter regulations on the modern weapons. They are dangerous in other ways (rate and length of fire) and they are not necessary to perform the traditional functions that civilian firearms are used for.
A normal society balances individual convenience with societal needs.
There is some position between banning guns and a free for all.
Why, precisely, is hunting with an weapon designed around the AR-15 or AK47 platform unethical?
I can only speak from my own experience. In the past, when I actually had time to devote to hunting, I used a bow and arrow. Hunting with guns always struck me as too easy. I also won't kill anything I'm not willing to eat. (I beleive that a great deal of our problems associated with "fast food" are not necessarily due to the content, but the fact that it can be procured and bolted down almost instantaneously.) After all, it's not like I would starve if I didn't come back with some dead animal.
As far as the automatic weapons platform is concerned, it lacks the aesthetic craftsmanship of a a rifle. Yeah, maybe paying $2K for an Italian fowling piece is the equivalent of Louis Vuiton luggage; but buying one of those stripped-down AK-47 or AR-15s is like the Franklin Mint Thimble Collection of decorator armaments.
The NRA and the Assault Rifle crowd would have no problem at all with a "fascist takeover" of the United States -- as long as the fascists let them keep their guns.
My granddad was a lifer NRA guy. Towards the end of his life, when Hospice was coming out to the house, he got senile dementia and started waving his guns around. He threatened his wife and the nurses. Hospice refused to come out to the house until the guns were removed. Two of my uncles (one from Dallas, one from Denver) had to make a special trip out to deepest East Texas to take Granddad's guns away from him. It was not a pleasant experience. Granddad was *PISSED*. And for the remainder of his life (which turned out to be three more months) he complained bitterly about how his sons C and M had taken his guns away.
Gun nuts would tell me that he should have kept his guns. My response: NUTS!
Can you prove that prairie dogs cause significant livestock losses?
Ranchers often see the prairie dogs as a nuisance and an economic burden.
Scott Dewald, executive vice president of the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association, said horses and cows trip and break their legs in the prairie dog burrows. The rodents make the land "barren" he said, so it's nearly impossible for a rancher to make money grazing cattle.
"They're very destructive to the landscape," he said "They will basically take a piece of property and make it worthless in terms of production."
He said ranchers must be allowed to shoot or poison some of the critters, or chunks of their land would be ruined.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/sci...foes/
index.html
Landowners say waves of prairie dogs — or prairie rats, a description they say is more accurate — are invading private property from adjacent federal lands, destroying grazing for livestock and making the land a worthless, cratered moonscape.
"I have to make a living; I can't make a living on the moon," Charles Kruse of Interior said. "We make our living from the grass and from grazing our animals."
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/...ocal/
news02.txt
Prairie dogs are officially considered a pest in some Western states, and several years ago Farm Bureau suggested the rodents be renamed "prairie rats" because they are not members of the canine family and shouldn't be confused with dogs, man's best friend. Prairie dogs are more like the rural cousin of the urban rat and every bit as destructive and capable of spreading disease to humans and other animals.
One Colorado state senator describes prairie dogs as "more destructive than a hazardous waste incinerator." Ranchers know too well how they can strip vegetation and pock mark the land with their burrows. Many a horse has broken a leg by stepping in a prairie dog hole.
http://www.fb.org/index.php?
fuse...ile=fo0616.html
Now, explain to me why it is of importance to know if p'dogs really break animal legs and the significance of that to whether or not the sport utility rifle falls under the Second Amendment?
I got my kills 40 years ago and that was enough for me.I'm sorry that you may not have got YOUR kills.
Good for you, RL, but you really ought to work on your assumptions. The only animal that I've ever shot in my life are clay pigeons, and let me tell you, they just don't taste very good no matter how you cook them.
Shooting holes in paper provides plenty of excitement for our family.
My dad was a hunter, though, but not a sportsman. He learned to hunt in the depths of the depression on the family farm. What he shot on the way home from school was usually their dinner that night. No luck, no dinner.
Shooting becomes a grim business that way and he always viewed it as a way to put something on the stove, and not a personal pleasure.
I guess because he didn't take much joy in it I never was attracted to it.
Dueling links
Ranchers also fear prairie dog invasions because of the "broken leg" phenomenon.
But that always seems to have happened to someone else. "There has never been a documented case of that happening except in John Wayne movies," says Sharps. "Those are old wives' tales." Sharps tells of posing the broken leg question at a conference in South Dakota. "I had a captive audience of a couple hundred ranchers.
I said, 'If anyone knows of a cow or a horse that has broken a leg in a prairie dog town, please raise your hand.' Nothing. Silence. It's a myth. Everyone says, 'Oh, yeah, I've heard that,' but when it comes right down to it, they can't come up with anything."
So why do ranchers continue to despise the prairie dog, in the face of all this modern research? "There is absolutely no rationale to it," sighs Sharps. "They just do it. Their daddies did it, their granddaddies did it, they are going to do it. Their minds are made up."
Hmm. That what I love about them intertubes. You seem to be able to find anything you want.
BramP.........I declare you the winner of this debate!
Their major argument defending assault rifles is the fact that traditional hunting weapons can in some circumstances and in some ways be more deadly than modern assault rifles (bigger bullets, longer range).
No, that's not our major arguement. The major arguement is that there is no functional difference between a traditional semi-auto hunting rifle and a sports utility rifle. The other point you stated is just a by-product of that argument.
So they use this to undermine calls for gun regulations on more modern designs.
Yeah... modern designs going back 50 to 80 years.
legitimate use
No one here has yet proved a "illegitmate use" for a sports utility rifle that can't be matched by any other rifle.
Basically I understand that old fashioned hunting rifles are more dangerous than modern assault rifles in some ways. [snip] I still believe it is reasonable to consider tighter regulations on the modern weapons…They are dangerous in other ways (rate and length of fire)
So one is dangerous in one way, and the other is dangerous in another way, but one should be okay and the other banned. What kind of logic is that?
They are dangerous in other ways (rate and length of fire) and they are not necessary to perform the traditional functions that civilian firearms are used for.
By the way it is the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of what Bram thinks is Necessary.
What are the traditional functions?
Hunting… check, does that quite well as discussed ad infinitum.
Protection… check, does that quite well, as abundant testimony can confirm.
Homeland Security… check, does that quite well also, as many returning soldiers are quite familiar with the feel and action of the guns.
Seems like it performs those functions quite well.
A normal society balances individual convenience with societal needs.
Hundreds of thousands of these guns are in the hands of citizens, perhaps even millions according to the Violence Policy Center. And how many are used in crimes each year.
Let’s say that 10,000 are. The real number is probably well less than 1,000 (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html) but we’ll use this as a starter.
So, starting with a million “assault rifles” that means that less than ten percent of them are used each year in crimes. Actually, it means that less than one percent of the ones available are used in crimes.
So where is this pressing “societal need”? Are we awash in crimes committed by people with these types of guns? No.
Are they wrecking havoc amoung our cities, with bodies strewn across lawns and streets every day? No.
Are we having dozens, nay, hundreds of schools shot up each week by these guns? No.
There is some position between banning guns and a free for all.
Yes there is… but you have not stated one fact that gives you a position at all, other than some ramblings about what you like and don’t like.
Gun nuts would tell me that he should have kept his guns. My response: NUTS!
Too little too late, Mirle. We've already stated quite emphatically that there are times in a person's life that guns should be taken away because of diminished capacity.
Go slander some else.
"Those are old wives' tales."
Well, we've heard from a couple of ranchers, and one activist. I think I would rather trust the ranchers to know what they are losing livestock to.
If businesspeople as a whole didn't know where, when, and how much their shrinkage was then we'd see a lot more businesses on the bankrupcty lists. Ranchers are not any dumber than businessowners. They know where their loses are coming from.
Jack Burton......If we look at this whole post,we must realize that we are talking about "Priarie Dogs".Just for the hell of it,may I ask where you live(I am in Louisville,Ky?" You are in the wilds of?
there is no functional difference between a traditional semi-auto hunting rifle and a sports utility rifle.
Wrong. These modern weapons were designed for soldiers to be able to fight more
effectively in a combat situation. More bullets (smaller), more rapid rate of fire
and the ability to fight from stances that are different from hunting or target positions.
Assault rifles were invented by German weapons designers during WWII in order to help the Wehrmacht
fight off the numerically superior Russians. Luckily for the Russians (and US) Hitler delayed manufacture
of the weapons until it was too late to make a difference.
In addition, some assault rifles fire ammunition that is almost as 'substantial' as that used
in traditional hunting rifles. It's just the wimpy AR series that use the smaller rounds.
It's a good thing the American military only goes up against 3rd world troops that can't
afford body armor.
So assault rifles are designed to use more ammo; have a greater rate and duration of fire; and have
configurations amenable to a greater variety of combat stances.
They are significantly different from traditional hunting rifles.
In addition civilianized assault rifles typically have only one significant difference from
the military versions. That is the ability to fire in burst or full automatic mode.
However this is a relatively minor distinction. It's the capacity of the magazine that
really makes the difference.
None of these assault rifle design characteristics are necessary for civilian firearms use.
So one is dangerous in one way, and the other is dangerous in another way, but one should be okay and the other banned. What kind of logic is that?
It's perfectly reasonable logic. Do you not understand the phrase 'grandfather clause'?
Are you truly stupid or are you rhetorically obtuse?
Seems like it performs those functions quite well.
This technology is more than what is needed to perform these functions.
What additional benefit is provided by the additional features.
1) Some enjoyment for the hobbyists.
2) A greater threat to the public since these weapons are over supplied by the manufacturers into the civilian market.
Are they wrecking havoc amoung our cities, with bodies strewn across lawns and streets every day? No.
Are we having dozens, nay, hundreds of schools shot up each week by these guns? No.
It really depends on how you value the worth of an individual life. I think if we plugged numbers into
the equation I'd use a higher number for that variable. You on the other hand would use
a much higher value for the 'personal enjoyment' variable.
I don't think these weapons rate very highly with respect to 'utilitarian requirments' or '2nd ammendment compliance' since
hunting and home defense are supported with the older technology.
RL...
It never really occured to me that any one would think we were speaking of anything but prairie dogs. Heck, if someone was writing about shooting real dogs that way I'd be the first up in arms about it.
As far as where I live let me vaugely say the Midwest. I've been somewhat active on this subject for a while now and I've had some really scary people like SteveAudio track me down. Not saying that SA would do so, but I just have to protect my family from the whackos out there who hate guns and hate even more the people who defend their use.
It's amazing how ingenious some of these folk can be. I've gotten very disturbing letters from them when I was positive that I was pretty incognito. The only thing I can think of is that they must have blitzed everyone in the multistate area with my name. I wonder what the other Jacks thought?
I would just rather not have one of these nutsos show up at my doorstep. I could deal with it but my wife is not a person with whom a nutjob should tangle. She wouldn't even need her gun, her Chinese cleaver would do such a job that the person would be like a giant jigsaw puzzle.
Wrong. These modern weapons were designed for soldiers to be able to fight more
effectively in a combat situation.
Jeeps were designed for soldiers too but I don’t see any one complaining about citizens riding around in them the past 50 years.
More bullets (smaller), more rapid rate of fire
and the ability to fight from stances that are different from hunting or target positions.
All that and more was covered much earlier and I am not going to repeat myself just because you can’t scroll back and read what I wrote.
In addition, some assault rifles fire ammunition that is almost as 'substantial' as that used
in traditional hunting rifles. It's just the wimpy AR series that use the smaller rounds.
It’s not often that a gun-bigot poster leaves themselves this wide open to show the world that he doesn’t know what he is talking about so please forgive me this cheap and easy shot…
Bram says: just the wimpy AR series that use the smaller round…
Yet, we all can surf here and see AK-47 magazines for sale that feature the same .223 round.
http://www.auctionarms.com/
searc...itemnum=7804320
It’s a small point, but telling. Bram simply doesn’t know what he is speaking of, but he insists on having an opinion anyway. That’s fine, but he needs to know he’s making a real fool of himself by doing so.
None of these assault rifle design characteristics are necessary for civilian firearms use.
It’s the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of what Bram feels is neccesary.
It's perfectly reasonable logic. Do you not understand the phrase 'grandfather clause'?
Are you truly stupid or are you rhetorically obtuse?
I understand perfectly that you’re willing to allow dangerous, killer weapons on the market because of some silly reason that they are a few years older in design than other weapons. You must trust your grandfather quite a bit to allow him that kind of firepower. Most sensible people object to these high power, telescoped sniper rifles but you seem okay with them. Go figure.
This technology is more than what is needed to perform these functions.
My car doesn’t need to go 140 mph but it does. You going to ban it also?
What additional benefit is provided by the additional features.
1) Some enjoyment for the hobbyists.
2) A greater threat to the public since these weapons are over supplied by the manufacturers into the civilian market.
Oh, I don’t know. Better protection for the gunowner? If it saves just one life then it is worth it. Or do you put some kind of value on a person’s life that only you know? Would you rather see someone die than save their life, or their families life, with this kind of gun. If they are facing a mob of ten people are you going to give them your grandfathers three round hunting rifle or do you think they would rather have a rifle with “additional features”?
And I didn’t know that gun manufacturers are exemp
And I didn’t know that gun manufacturers are exempt from the law of supply and demand. By golly, they can just keep on making stuff when there’s no one around willing to buy it. And they stay in business! I’ve got to learn that secret for my company.
It really depends on how you value the worth of an individual life. I think if we plugged numbers into
the equation I'd use a higher number for that variable. You on the other hand would use
a much higher value for the 'personal enjoyment' variable.
You value human life that much. Then call for a ban on cars. Call for a ban on swimming pools. Call for a ban on five gallon buckets. These all kill as much if not more than all the guns in America. You’re the one who thinks that a well-under one percent misuse rate is sufficient to disrupt the needs of the other 99.5 percent. Well, go for it then, Call for a ban on skateboards.
I don't think these weapons rate very highly with respect to 'utilitarian requirements' or '2nd ammendment compliance' since hunting and home defense are supported with the older technology.
Well, I don’t think that radio, TV, or the Internet rate very highly with respect to 'utilitarian requirements' or '1st ammendment compliance' since free speech and communications are supported with the older technology of print. Ban them, I say.
By 'substantial' I'm referring to the AK 47 as originally designed. Not the hobby versions that use the smaller Nato ammunition.
You know exactly what I'm talking about. You people babble about it all the time on your boards. Google M-14 or AK-47 vs. M-16/M-4 (7.62 vs. 5.56 blah blah blah ad nauseum).
What has the Bill of Rights have to do with sanctioning specific weapons types for civilian use?
You could interpret it to say that civilians can own guns but there is nothing in that clause that specifies what type of gun they may own.
We get to work that out as we go along. It's a LIVING document...
You're an unpleasant poster. I guess all single issue zealots are nasty that way.
Basically you suggest that only people as obsessed with weapons details as yourself are qualified to debate gun policy.
There is a basic minimum amount of knowledge needed to discuss anything but a lot of the trivia you spew is just meant to stifle debate.
Ps. How many times in the past century has someone needed more than 5 shotgun shells to defend himself in a single incident? You watch too many crappy movies or read too many 'end of the world' sci-fi novels.
And by the way, automobiles weren't designed specifically to kill people. Guns were and are designed for that purpose.
It's a silly argument to equate 140 mph vehicles with AK-47s.
But if you DO want to equate them why the hell do we licence, train and regulate drivers much more than gun owners?
That's crazy. Nothing in the 2nd Amd says we shouldn't require firearms users to be properly trained and vetted. That's common sense and you people are against that as well.
"Oh yeah. And then there's all those post apocalyptic scenarios (nuclear war, plague, zombies, etc.) that are near and dear to some folks.
Nuts".
Amen to that! I mean, though it's true that most of the folks that vote GOP at this point are bona fide zombies, and there are half a dozen plagues quietly humming around the world, it's a damned good feeling to know that you and I will never see nuclear war in our lifetimes......right?
(I mean, the two carrier groups in the Gulf, the constant revelations about nuclear war planning and the identical bullshit being peddled about Iran that was peddled about Iraq is just to *scare* the Iranians into giving us their oilfields without a fight...surely that'll work, right?).
Yep, anyone who's the least bit concerned about nuclear war is just plumb nutty! I'm glad we had this little talk...(cough). Yep. Real glad.
Yeaaaaah. Okaaaay.
Back away from the keyboard...
If there's ever a old fashioned cold war style nuclear war then you only need one bullet for one gun.
If there's a smaller nuclear terrorist 'event' I would advise you to try to get your ass out of the target area if you're ambulatory. Hunkering down in your backyard bunker with your stack of MREs and thousands of rounds of ammo might not make too much sense if a dirty bomb or a 10kt nuke-let goes off downtown.
Why in the hell do you need a high rate of fire to take out Prairie dogs? Or massive clips for that matter? Worried they are gonna charge? Outflank you?
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
Totally off topic, but I remember a TV show about reintroducing wolves to some area of the U.S. (maybe Yellowstone National Park?), and some ranchers and their families were protesting outside a courthouse. One of them carried a sign that said "Wolves are the Saddam Hussein of the Animal World". Almost as funny as the British fox-hunting crowd, and precisely as rational.
OK, back to the theological arguments...
Shouldn't that be "Harbinger of Doom"? I shouldn't mock, but really my friend, life is too short as it is. It's more likely you'll get hit by a truck.
"A facile use of context-free quotes is a sign of intellectual laziness." - Leeds man
Jack, Kevin, and Sean -
Many thanks for your thoughtful and thorough replies here. The information you've put on the table is factual and relevant. I've learned a couple of things.
Allow me to take a little rhetorical side trip.
I live in a town full of yahoos who drive Hummers, Chevy Suburbans, and Land Rovers with the full rhino package. None of these people drive off road. None of them are carrying big payloads. Their needs could quite easily be met with a sedan, a minivan, or perhaps a light utility pickup. They drive these vehicles because the vibe appeals to them. It's a fashion accessory.
I'm not interested in taking away their right to drive whatever the hell they want, although it would also not bother me if they were required to pay an excise tax based on vehicle weight and fuel consumption. My point here is that these folks are posers. Or, to put it in language I used upthread, they are flaming assholes.
To return to the topic at hand.
No doubt some folks hunt varmint with an assault rifle because it happens to be the gun that is handy. Also no doubt, an assault rifle will get the job done.
But I know, and you know, that lots and lots of folks have assault rifles because they like the romance of owning and firing something that looks like a military weapon. They like the vibe. It's a perverse kind of fashion accessory. To me, that is fucked up.
Why should you care what I think? Because I vote, and I spend money and time to support points of view I agree with.
Zumbo made some statements that, to my ears, sound very reasonable. For that he was, basically, tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail. All for saying that it might not be sporting to use weapons intended for combat use to hunt prairie dogs.
What I take away from that is that the gun enthusiast crowd contains more than a few fanatics and zealots, and that it is therefore more than reasonable for the rest of us to keep a close eye on what is, and is not, available to the average Joe in the way of ordinance.
I have no problem with guns, or with gun ownership. I have a problem with people who think the right of gun ownership trumps every other reasonable concern that anyone else might have about what kind of people have access to what kind of weaponry.
There are fence-sitters on both sides of the argument. I appreciate the information you've provided here, but I have to say you have not won me over, because you haven't addressed the treatment of Zumbo. The guy was driven from his position in a matter of days, for making statements no harsher than what I've made above about Hummer drivers. That's crazy, and it makes all of you look crazy.
Thanks -
Russell:
Thanks for that last post. Aside from the "flaming asshole" comment, no invective. This will be my last comment here (no matter how much I'd like to reply to a couple of the overnight comments.) So let me address your points:
"I live in a town full of yahoos who drive Hummers, Chevy Suburbans, and Land Rovers with the full rhino package. None of these people drive off road. None of them are carrying big payloads. Their needs could quite easily be met with a sedan, a minivan, or perhaps a light utility pickup. They drive these vehicles because the vibe appeals to them. It's a fashion accessory." As one gunblogger put it, a Hummer H2 is a Blazer with a codpiece.
"I'm not interested in taking away their right to drive whatever the hell they want, although it would also not bother me if they were required to pay an excise tax based on vehicle weight and fuel consumption. My point here is that these folks are posers. Or, to put it in language I used upthread, they are flaming assholes." It's a free country. They do, however, pay for it. Up front, in gasoline costs, and insurance. But it's a free country. As trite as that sounds, it really does mean something.
"No doubt some folks hunt varmint with an assault rifle because it happens to be the gun that is handy. Also no doubt, an assault rifle will get the job done." No. Most folks varmint hunt with rifles specifically designed for it. Many now happen to be based on the AR15 platform - which has proven itself to be superbly accurate at long range. Functionally these rifles are no different from the ones that look like military arms. Cosmetically, they're quite different. But they aren't pretty blued steel and oiled walnut, either.
"But I know, and you know, that lots and lots of folks have assault rifles because they like the romance of owning and firing something that looks like a military weapon. They like the vibe. It's a perverse kind of fashion accessory. To me, that is fucked up." And that's your perogative. But almost every rifle I own was once issued to military forces. I didn't buy them to be fashion accessories. I bought them because they had a history, and they were far less expensive than, for example, a Remington 700BDL. I bought my AR15 after the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" passed not because it looked like a military weapon, but because my government didn't want me to have one. And I discovered, as many, many people have discovered, how much fun they are.
Yes, fun. Shooting is fun, you know.
(End part I)
(Part II)
"Why should you care what I think? Because I vote, and I spend money and time to support points of view I agree with." So do I. And I do care what you think, or I wouldn't be posting here or at my blog. What bothers me is that you and people like you are so willing to restrict the rights of others out of ill-informed ignorance and - forgive me - envy and hostility.
"Zumbo made some statements that, to my ears, sound very reasonable. For that he was, basically, tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail. All for saying that it might not be sporting to use weapons intended for combat use to hunt prairie dogs." NO. That is not what he said. Jim Zumbo, a well-respected writer in the industry said that such guns were not suitable for hunting, should be shunned by hunters, and should be banned from the fields and prairies. There was no "might" about it. And he said this immediately after Carolyn McCarthy had reintroduced a new, "improved" version of the "assault weapon ban" in Congress. In short, he stabbed us in the back. The reaction was predictable and understandable - if you are a part of the "gun culture". The manufacturers who dropped him understood it.
"What I take away from that is that the gun enthusiast crowd contains more than a few fanatics and zealots, and that it is therefore more than reasonable for the rest of us to keep a close eye on what is, and is not, available to the average Joe in the way of ordinance." I'm a "fanatic," defined as "won't change my mind, won't change the subject, and won't shut up." Zealot I leave up to you to define. Watch all you want - but don't try to restrict further what I can have. My personal motto is "this far, no further."
(End Pt. II)
(Part II)
"I have no problem with guns, or with gun ownership." No, you do. You've made that apparent. Go back and read what you've written here.
"I have a problem with people who think the right of gun ownership trumps every other reasonable concern that anyone else might have about what kind of people have access to what kind of weaponry." I have a problem with people who don't understand what the Constitution says and why it says it. I have a problem with people who think it's OK to give up some freedoms for specious promises of protection, or out of sheer ignorance of history. I'm not saying you're that person, but there are a lot of them out there, and they're far more dangerous than the millions - literally millions - of us who own military-style semi-automatic firearms.
"There are fence-sitters on both sides of the argument. I appreciate the information you've provided here, but I have to say you have not won me over, because you haven't addressed the treatment of Zumbo." I wasn't aware that was the point of the discussion after about the third comment.
"The guy was driven from his position in a matter of days, for making statements no harsher than what I've made above about Hummer drivers. That's crazy, and it makes all of you look crazy." I'm sorry I haven't convinced you, but I just pointed out to you that what he said about "assault rifles" and their owners, and what you just said about Hummer drivers were orders of magnitude different.
If you want to discuss that, my email address is in the left-hand column of my blog.
And that invitation is open to anyone else here as well.
By 'substantial' I'm referring to the AK 47 as originally designed. Not the hobby versions that use the smaller Nato ammunition.
So you’ve changed your mind because you found out you were wrong and I was right. That’s special.
You know exactly what I'm talking about. You people babble about it all the time on your boards. Google M-14 or AK-47 vs. M-16/M-4 (7.62 vs. 5.56 blah blah blah ad nauseum).
I know what you’re attempting to talk about and failing at…
What has the Bill of Rights have to do with sanctioning specific weapons types for civilian use?
You could interpret it to say that civilians can own guns but there is nothing in that clause that specifies what type of gun they may own.
There’s nothing in that document that gives the government power to ban certain weapons. What does “not be abridged” mean to you?
We get to work that out as we go along. It's a LIVING document...
Sure it is. And when we get three or four more conservative justices on the court we can do away with such things as liberals getting free speech, and every woman of child bearing age must have a least three children (no abortions allowed here, nosiree), and mandatory gun ownership in each home. You’ll be fine with all that I am sure. You certainly can’t complain about the legality of it all… it’s a living document works two ways, you know.
You're an unpleasant poster. I guess all single issue zealots are nasty that way.
I guess pointing out your inadequacies to the world would make me appear to be unpleasant and nasty to you. I can live with it.
It does get tiresome beating you like a rented mule but some people just ask for it.
Basically you suggest that only people as obsessed with weapons details as yourself are qualified to debate gun policy.
Well, you can go to a member of the Flat Earth Society to ask his opinions of how the cosmos works, or you can ask Stephen Hawkins. One certainly is more qualified than the other, but both can speak freely about their passion.
I kind of like the First Amendment… it helps us spot the crazies amoungst ourselves.
There is a basic minimum amount of knowledge needed to discuss anything but a lot of the trivia you spew is just meant to stifle debate.
Stifle? You haven’t stopped posting since your fingers hit the keyboard.
Ps. How many times in the past century has someone needed more than 5 shotgun shells to defend himself in a single incident? You watch too many crappy movies or read too many 'end of the world' sci-fi novels.
You’re absolutely correct. That’s why they only send one cop per call. And he only carries one gun. And that only has one magazine in it (half loaded). There’s no need to waste taxpayer’s good money by having multiple cops show up with lots of guns and ammo for any incident. That only happens in movies and science fiction.
One riot… one cop… one gun… one Barney Fife bullet. T
And by the way, automobiles weren't designed specifically to kill people. Guns were and are designed for that purpose.
But they do kill people. Lots of people. Every day. Just because they were not “designed” to do that you’re going to give them a free pass. That’s pretty cold hearted of you towards all those innocent lives snuffed out by a 3000 lb mass of steel. Don’t you care in the slightest for these people?
Do something!
It's a silly argument to equate 140 mph vehicles with AK-47s.
Who was equating vehicles with guns. I was equating “additional features” with “additional features.” My toaster has six slots for toast and there’s only two of us in the home. Does my toaster have too many additional features? Am I equating toasters with guns? No.
What is an “additional feature” to use may quite well be something of value to someone else. You don’t get to make that decision.
But if you DO want to equate them why the hell do we licence, train and regulate drivers much more than gun owners?
Because cars are not mention in the BOR.
That's crazy. Nothing in the 2nd Amd says we shouldn't require firearms users to be properly trained and vetted. That's common sense and you people are against that as well.
Sure there is. It is stated “shall not be infringed.”
Or else you can rewrite your sentence to say…
Nothing in the 1st Amd says we shouldn't require journalists to be properly trained and vetted. That's common sense and you people are against that as well
Why in the hell do you need a high rate of fire to take out Prairie dogs? Or massive clips for that matter? Worried they are gonna charge? Outflank you?
These were answered many posts ago. There is a scroll thingie on the side to check things like this out before posting.
But I know, and you know, that lots and lots of folks have assault rifles because they like the romance of owning and firing something that looks like a military weapon. They like the vibe. It's a perverse kind of fashion accessory. To me, that is fucked up.
I have 25 years of service in the military. My wife has 26.
Because we own weapons that bring back fond memories of those years, and honor the service that we gave, we are "f--D up."
Thank you very much.
Because we own weapons that bring back fond memories of those years, and honor the service that we gave, we are "f--D up."
You have 25 years and your wife has 26. Folks like you have more than earned the right, and demonstrated the responsibility, to keep and bear whatever you like, within the bounds of the law. I have, frankly, no problem with folks like you. Not that that should matter all that much to you either way, and most likely it does not.
My wife is a retail consultant. A few years ago she did a job for a high end cutlery company. As a sideline, these folks carry various kinds of knives whose sole purpose is to kill people. I went with her to the shop, and that particular counter was full of young men who couldn't wait to buy themselves an assault knife. Not a hunting knife, not a fishing knife, but an assault knife.
I have a problem with those young men, and with folks like them.
Thank you.
Dear Mr. TBogg:
For the love of Pete, could you turn off your nut magnet already?
Blah, blah, blah calibers; blah, blah, blah muzzle velocity; blah, blah, blah liberals; blah, blah, blah, libertarians; blah, blah, blah penis size.
(Wait. This *is* the EDS hotline isn't it? The television told me to 'logon' for more information, and...)
Enough. If you turn it off, right now, maybe they'll all just roll back to Squawkin' Malkin, or some such place.
And maybe give *Tuesday* Night Basset Blogging a try, just to calm the waters.
Just blue skyin' here...
For the love of Pete, could you turn off your nut magnet already?
Having trouble with the concept that the gun-bigots are getting their heads handed to them by supposed knuckle-dragging neanthredals who allegedly can't string three words together?
One chopped .45 when it’s winter and everyone’s wearing a heavy coat so the big gun is needed…
After reading most of the comments on this thread I have to wonder, why is a gun ever "needed"? I've managed to get through almost 60 years on the planet without ever "needing" a gun. There have been moments when I wished I had one, sure, but "need"? You people must live in a much more exciting world than I do. Or hate and fear more people than I do.
Oh, and Jack, if you and your wife can only bring back those fond memories of noble service to the country by gazing at your guns, you've got way bigger problems than evil liberals trying to take away your prized possessions.
Mr. Baker seems to be taking quite a bit of heat for what appears to be sensible and well-stated observations on the whole regarding firearms. Rather than chastising him for the length of his comments, I have found them fair and informative.
I feel he is correct on the presumptiveness of trying to limit handguns by quantity as he has demonstrated in listing some of his pieces the function served by each one. Additionally, his detailing of various rounds and the rifles capable of firing them seems to hold true as well.
I own a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, which fires the same cartridge as an AR-15/M-16. One looks at home on the range and one looks suited for a modern battlefield. Yet the differences between them are minimal, and with regards to the ballistics involved, I'd hazard a guess to say indistinguishable. Note that in this web link, it points out the effectiveness as a varmint rifle. http://www.gunblast.com/
Ruger_Ra..._RanchRifle.htm
If that holds true for the Mini-14, it holds true for these so-called "assault rifles" as well, no?
Though I disagreed with quite a bit of what I read on Mr. Bakers web page on other issues as being typical Republican (with Libertarian leanings) boilerplate, to my mind Mr. Baker is right on this issue.
Just as progressives are loathe to hand over unlimited power and control regarding our safety and security to Republicans in the form of a nanny state (more accurately a Police State), it also makes sense not to surrender Constitutional rights based on appeals from the left claiming to have our best interests at heart.
Though they are claimed to be merely "scare quotes", many politicians looking to severely restrict gun ownership are on record stating that their ultimate goal is to prohibit gun ownership. We've seen how often in the current misadministration how one seemingly innocuous bit of legislation is actually a Trojan horse for any number of abuses. We should not be so complacent in the assurances that other draconian measures are meant to go only so far and no further.
I'd welcome a frank and open discussion of what should and should not be available to the civilian in terms of firearms, but reject attempts to criminalize legal gun ownership.
These two links regarding the 2nd Amendment seem to make some compelling arguments as well:
http://www.saf.org/journal/
4_Sch...4_Schulman.html
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/n...w&
articleid=307
~
I'd just like to add that I find Mr. Burton's arguments also as having merit. The point I am trying to make is that it does a disservice to all to be willing to negotiate away someone else's rights on the assumption that it will allow you to maintain the ones you want.
~
I've managed to get through almost 60 years on the planet without ever "needing" a gun.
Have you needed the locks on your door? Bet you still have them, eh? Car insurance? Fire extinguisher? Spare tire? Ever needed any of that? I've gone 40 years without ever having a flat tire. Remarkable, eh? But I still have a spare in each of my cars. Why is that?
As you may be aware, Indiana is one of the almost 40 states where citizens can exercise their right to bear arms on a daily basis. I am one of the 350,000 Hoosiers who chose to do so.
A little while back, my work took me into Gary, which has been the murder capitol of the U.S. for several of the past ten years.
I parked my van in the church parking lot where my business was, and having locked the door behind me, went to meet the pastor. After the meeting I headed back to the van.
When I was about 100 feet from the van, I noticed two young, urban youths coming down the other side of the street. They saw me at the same time. They immediately wheeled in my direction and, after diagonally crossing the street, started walking towards me. Any instructor of self-defense techniques will tell you that is a clear and present danger signal.
I managed to make it back to the van, while listening to them the whole time trash-talking about how they were the baddest ones in the 'hood and they didn't take no crap from no one. They were catching up to me pretty fast.
The driver door was on the other side of the van, away from the street, and I understood that I would have to have my back turned to them as I was trying to unlock the door. Not only would any action they took be blocked from any passerby, but it put me in a highly vulnerable position.
Now, it's easy to say that I should not have put myself in that position in the first place by going to Gary, but that only holds true if one is willing to redline the entire city.
I must admit, I was quite concerned for my safety. I'm past middle-aged, slow, fat, and with a bum leg. Facing down two urban youths was not what I wanted to do when I woke up that morning, ready to greet the day. However, that was exactly what I had to do, because no more than a second or two after I reached the driver's door the two came around the back side of my van and began approaching me.
Because I have a mature understanding about guns I am able to finish the story. As I rounded the back of the van myself, I put my hand into my front pocket and wrapped it around my legally carried handgun. When I reached the locked driver's door, I turned and put my back to the door, and faced outward, keeping my hand in the pocket. I had the confidence that if needed, I was going to be able to defend myself, and quite possibly, my life.
This must have showed on my face. The youths came around the back of the van and saw me calmly standing there waiting for them. I didn't say anything, and I didn't pull the gun - but my attitude certainly said they n
This must have showed on my face. The youths came around the back of the van and saw me calmly standing there waiting for them. I didn't say anything, and I didn't pull the gun - but my attitude certainly said they needed to reconsider any very-near future actions they were contemplating.
They were predators, and they understood this very well. Weak targets of opportunity are eaten quickly, but those who give strong indications that they'll bite back are left alone. They backed away, turned, and headed across the lot to places unknown.
According to the desires of Mr. Tehenu I should have been forced to somehow run instead of facing down these two thugs. Got that? If I am minding my own business and am assaulted or threatened by a violent criminal the gun control crowd wants the onus to be on me to flee, retreat, submit, or even die -- anything EXCEPT stand my ground with a firearm.
How morally and intellectually backwards can these folks be to adopt such an indefensible position? The duty and perfect right of a law-abiding citizen is to defend themselves with deadly force if need be against criminals. That is the essence of the disagreement between the opposing sides on gun control.
"Having trouble with the concept that the gun-bigots are getting their heads handed to them by supposed knuckle-dragging neanthredals who allegedly can't string three words together?
Jack Burton"
Nah, not really {see neanderthals (sp)}.
Now, just declare victory, hop on the chopper and fly home...
only bring back
What a profoundly silly thing to say. This is fifth grade, at best, commentary. Our poster may indeed by "almost 60 years old" but he's like the man with 20 years of experience on the job... but it was really just one year repeated 20 times.
There's a level of mature discourse that should be expected of someone of that advance age. But age has never guaranteed wisdom... just liver spots.
Where have you gone Mr. Alec Rawls?
Our comments turn their lonely eyes to you.
Woo, woo, woo...
If I am minding my own business and am assaulted or threatened by a violent criminal the gun control crowd wants the onus to be on me to flee, retreat, submit, or even die -- anything EXCEPT stand my ground with a firearm.
Except, of course, you weren't assaulted. Or, by your own words, even threatened.You made some very big assumptions that the 'urban youth' (Just curious: is that code for black?)were stalking you. In your description, they were just as likely to be two young men who crossed the street and came up the walk behind you. They may have been wondering why the old, fat white guy was acting so weird.
I don't believe you acted irresponsibly. You want to carry a weapon and the law lets you, fine. But please don't deceive yourself that anything happened to justify your fear. It didn't.
You start thinking about using the pistol you carry because you're mind-reading what people may do, you're liable to be the one doing time.
Dare I say...
We seemed to have 'shot our load' on this thread?
"I managed to make it back to the van, while listening to them the whole time trash-talking about how they were the baddest ones in the 'hood and they didn't take no crap from no one. They were catching up to me pretty fast."
I'm very pro-gun but......your whole story sounded like a letter to the Penthouse forum. If it was real (and mind you, I've got my doubts), you've just lost whatever territory you'd gained with your previous arguments. It's just WAY too easy for frightened, gun holding white folks to assume that the two black kids that just happen to be walking towards them are up to no good. I've seen this kind of misunderstanding and overt prejudice so many times that I find myself repeatedly cautioning people I know to hesitate before making any move that they might regret. When you've got a tight grip on a handgun and your adrenaline's pumping, it's easy to get startled by something and squeeze the trigger (it's funny how that "keep your finger off of the trigger until you've got a target" vanishes when you're scared). You simply don't have a right, moral or legal, to react with lethal force even if those two were set to rob you or rough you up. It's one thing to shoot someone who's waving a gun in your face and threatening to kill you and something else again to put a bullet in a kid who may simply be asking if you want to buy a ticket to a school's charity event. If your story is true (and as I've said, I've got my doubts), you are one person who ought to have his concealed carry permit revoked. I say that as a gun owner and someone who stands way outside of the standard liberal view of second amendment rights. Gun use is absolutely, without any wobbling here, an act of LAST RESORT, not the first thing you should think of when faced with people who make you uneasy.
Wait.
Are we now led to believe that letters to the Penthouse forum aren't real?
Dear God; what next!
(Harrumph.)
And I suppose all the trail mix, beef jerky, bottled water, mint-quality silver dollars, etc. (all comfort-rated to thirty below...) that were hawked to a quaking nation in the face of the looming Y2K computer disaster were a waste, too.
By the way, how'd that Y2k thing turn out, Cha-Chi?
(Whoops, started channeling Denny, there, for a sec...)
[heavy sigh]
I keep telling Kevin this, but he keeps trying to educate the ignorant when they don't want to be educated.
There is just one question to ask:
Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?
Just this once, I'll comment without reading everything else.
I'm liberal, but I don't hate guns. I myself have had a lot of fun shooting bottles at the dump with an air rifle. (My dad hunted for food with guns he made, and with bow.) I think it just happens that many of the same people who like guns have other issues that make them engage in bitter us vs them rhetoric. Yes! Some of them are assholes, and I'll guess they tend to be the ones who favor overkill.
Prairie dog plinking -- this just seems wrong to me. We lived near a large prairie dog town, and I loved seeing those little guys. The rancher kept trying to poison them out, but it was developers that finally wiped out their habitat. Happy ending: they moved to another spot, and when I revisit the old place, I can still see them running around there.
"We seemed to have 'shot our load' on this thread?"
And thank jeebus for it!
Does Mr. Burton ever sleep? Eat? He reminds me of a lawyer I once observed in negotiations. His client had a weak case, and this guy wasn't particularly bright (not a winning combination, usually), but he was tenacious. He would present his points, the other side would respond, they would discuss and discuss, and then when they thought they had reached some sort of agreement, he would just go right back to exactly where he had started, several hours before, as though no compromise had been achieved. After many, many hours of this, the other side, first thinking he was stupid, then beginning to think he was a little nuts (sort of like Borat), just began to want to get out of the room and never see him again.
I must admit, he got more than he deserved with this technique, but he had no one's respect.
Wow, you're fuckin idiot, doug watts wannabe.
Nevermind I said I don't hunt.
I'm a gun nut because I recognize there's a problem with the deer population in suburban and rural areas?
What the fuck? Did you just feel like being a kneejerk asshole?
Or are you blaming me, personally, for the removal of predator species from the northeast where I grew up and experienced deer overpopulation first hand?
I know my little rant here is pointless, but fuck, people. Look at what you're shooting at, jebus.
Well, as someone said once, we gun owners have been the victims of a decades-long slow-motion hate crime.
Are you fucking kidding me. This is why people think you're fucking zealots. A hate crime.
Fuck you.
Same goes to the car comparison. Has nothing to do with guns. Do you think we're idiots? Children? Has this ever actually convinced someone?
Anytime guns come up as a topic, you gun nuts come out of the fucking woodwork and suddenly noone can get anything done because theres so much shit flying around. Same goes in the legislature. You guys have such a one issue machine going that noone could possibly compete in terms of energy. Lots of people think we could use more gun controls, but it ain't the central fact of their existence. Except for victims organizations and the like, and at least they have a reason.
It's not like we have too few guns in the world. We could do with a big reduction in guns floating around.
Guns in national guard armories. Fine. Guns at shooting ranges. Fine. Personal armories. Why? Gun show loopholes. Why? The feds can keep more info on your library books than on your guns. Why?
As technology advances it gets easier and easier to kill people, and we should do our best to keep that under control.
Except, of course, you weren't assaulted. Or, by your own words, even threatened.You made some very big assumptions that the 'urban youth' (Just curious: is that code for black?)were stalking you. In your description, they were just as likely to be two young men who crossed the street and came up the walk behind you. They may have been wondering why the old, fat white guy was acting so weird.
Believe what you choose to Dave in Texas, but you'll never survive a day in a big city urban environment while walking around with your eyes closed.
We read about people like you every day in the Metro section of the Chicago Trib. They are mostly labeled "victim." Rarely are they labeled "survivor." Always they are considered "losers" by the readers.
And yes, these young men never "threatened" me. That is why I took no overt action myself. That is what mature responsible people do.
But when a person(s) changes direction to walk specifically towards you then that is danger sign #1. Ignore that while walking in the Back of the Yards in Chicago or downtown Gary and your parents will be grieving for the lose of their naive son.
I'm very pro-gun but......your whole story sounded like a letter to the Penthouse forum.
I wouldn’t know about that but if you hang around the Penthouse forum then more power to you. Each to his own jollies.
If it was real (and mind you, I've got my doubts), you've just lost whatever territory you'd gained with your previous arguments.
It’s way to easy to call someone a liar over the net but you wouldn’t have the guts to do so to my face.
It's just WAY too easy for frightened, gun holding white folks to assume that the two black kids that just happen to be walking towards them are up to no good.
As I was careful to explain, they did not “just happen to be walking towards” me. I’ll take the high road and assume that you just didn’t read that part instead of thinking you’re illiterate.
Every, and I mean every, self defense course you’ll ever take will make it very clear that when a person(s) sharply changes direction to approach you, especially if they are making a diagonal change, is a signal that something bad is likely to happen. That is elementary and understanding that has saved many a person from those bad things.
I've seen this kind of misunderstanding and overt prejudice so many times that I find myself repeatedly cautioning people I know to hesitate before making any move that they might regret. When you've got a tight grip on a handgun and your adrenaline's pumping, it's easy to get startled by something and squeeze the trigger (it's funny how that "keep your finger off of the trigger until you've got a target" vanishes when you're scared).
Most reasonable people would consider overt prejudice while walking the murder capital of the country to be common sense. Come walk with me a while and see how pristine pure you remain. Even Jesse Jackson said he feels safer when he knows white people are the ones following him down the street in Chicago.
And since you don’t have a clue as to my gun handling skills and training your ability to project your own failures onto me don’t quite work as well as you hoped.
You simply don't have a right, moral or legal, to react with lethal force even if those two were set to rob you or rough you up.
You’re truly confused. I didn’t react with lethal force. Since I didn’t, what’s your point? That I should not have even been prepared to do so? That I had to wait until one had a knife in my ribs before I began to acknowledge the situation?
It's one thing to shoot someone who's waving a gun in your face and threatening to kill you and something else again to put a bullet in a kid who may simply be asking if you want to buy a ticket to a school's charity event.
I don’t recall putting a bullet in anyone. I am sure I would remember since I was there. Did I post something about putting a bullet in someone and it somehow got erased from both the topic and my memory?
If your story is true (and as I've sa
but he had no one's respect.
I'm quite content to let the readers who are on the fence about this subject be the judge of that.
Your opinion is fairly meaningless and of little value.
If your story is true (and as I've said, I've got my doubts), you are one person who ought to have his concealed carry permit revoked.
Because I:
--didn’t shoot someone…
--didn’t threaten someone…
--didn’t brandish my gun…
--didn’t mention a gun…
--didn’t pull a gun…
--didn’t ????????
Then I should have my license revoked? Hmmm….That’s certainly some standard you have there.
I say that as a gun owner and someone who stands way outside of the standard liberal view of second amendment rights. Gun use is absolutely, without any wobbling here, an act of LAST RESORT, not the first thing you should think of when faced with people who make you uneasy.
That’s right. And that is exactly why I didn’t “use” my gun. Your hysterical revision of my account doesn’t stand on anything I wrote, but is a product of your fevered imagination.
"When I hold you in my arms,
And I feel my finger on your trigger.
I know nobody can do me no harm,
Because happiness is a warm gun."
(Bang, bang; shoot, shoot...)
Oh, sweet Jesus, no one has called me naive before. I admit, though I'm 60, my mama still calls me her baby.
Jack, bless your heart, I grew up near refinery row in South Houston. I've spent many hours in unsavory portions of Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros. And my work has taken me to the Yards in Chicago, as well as Humboldt Park, not to mention the projects in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, West L.A. and Liberty City in Miami. So please, spare me lectures on urban survival.
Situational awareness is always a good idea. But I never felt the need to carry a gun.
I'm happy for you that heavy presence of a pistol in your front pocket boosted your morale, or whatever.
But nothing, I repeat, nothing in your little tale of Jack Burton, Urban Warrior, suggested the kids coming up behind you were worth the frisson of anxiety you luxuriated in.
In my experience, when someone threatens you with harm, you don't have to wonder about it. It happens.
With that, I'm leaving the field to gunners. As Dr. Hunter Thompson wrote: In a deer hunt, use mortars to soften up the resistance.
Hey, it's in the 2nd Amendment. Read it for yourself.
I find it quite interesting that someone that was not a witness to the alleged event concludes the event did not occur without producing any facts of their own or pointing out any inconsistency in the reporting of the event. Apparently they believe they have some sort of ESP that allows them to remotely view the event in the past without knowing the exact location or time of the event. Very impressive...
Or perhaps it's just another bigoted statement against a gun owner. Dismissing their statements out of hand simply because they reported facts that are uncomfortable to the bigot.
Gun owners are the niggers/gays/Jews/pick-your-minority of the 21st century. What would your reaction be if the some politician demanded you be registered because of the color of your skin, your choice of sexual partners, or your religion? What if you were not allowed to freely associate with others of your kind without reporting it to the government (gun show laws present in some states)? What if you were subject to special investigation and discrimination in your employment if you spoke up about these infringements of your rights outside of work and on your own time? What if there were organizations that were openly advocating your extinction from society despite clear constitutional and statutory protection? What if the courts ignored the constitution and the laws supposedly protecting these minority? What if the bigoted politicians that, by law (check out 18 USC 242), should go to jail are instead regarded as “progressive” and “innovative” and are reelected again and again? What if people said you "are all empty scrotum shriveled dick creeps who need guns to bolster some sad sense of masculinity"?
That's what it's like to be a gun owner today. That is why we are so sensitive and why we are so dedicated. It's because our culture is being threatened with permanent extinction by bigots who don't care what the facts are. Bigots who can't answer Just One Question.
Just wonderin', but:
Can one, in fact, be 'bigoted' against an inanimate object?
(no, the gun; not the owners...)
Isn't that like being 'bigoted' against, say, loafers?
(no, the shoe; not the owners...)
As in, "First they came for my Chukka Boots, and I said nothing; then they came for my Bass Weejuns, and..."
Dear God, they're comin' for my loafers!
My God, Mr. Huffman, the clarity of your prose and the razor-sharp reason you invoke has lifted the veil from my eyes.
Never did I know that gun-owners had been wrested violent from their native lands, brought across the ocean in coffin ships and forced to carry weapons for massa under the hot Southern sun.
Then forced to wait a century for legislation and a lobbying group to enable you the God-given right to hunt varmits with a weapons once used in war in Vietnam. Well, actually, five days. Or maybe not that long. Nonetheless, you had withstand so much hardship to become the second-class whiney-ass baby that stands before us, boo-hooing over the mistreatment of gun-owners.
I thank you from the bottom of my heart for setting my mind right.
Dave in Texas puts it much more politely than I would. And well, much more politely than I *did*. Kudos.
"It’s way to easy to call someone a liar over the net but you wouldn’t have the guts to do so to my face."
(eyes rolling) From the tenor of most of your postings here I would've thought you'd avoid these kinds of cliches, but hey, knock yourself out.
As someone who has spent many an hour in gun forums, I've heard the same story on a regular basis...menacing negroes stepping up on the white, gun concealing hero, who is given an invincible aura upon touching the gun in his pocket and or the revealing of it (there's an invariable Freudian component to this) which sends the wicked black boys scampering, and the story ends with reflections on what "would've happened" if they had pushed *super gunman* too far. I've probably heard some variant of that story a thousand times, like an ancient saga told around the campfire by wandering poets.
Now maybe you've told the gospel truth, or maybe you haven't (it wouldn't be the first time an argument was augmented for effect) but either way, you've revealed a lot about yourself that destroys the relatively sensible argument you've been making until now. You've clearly got problems with racial prejudice that do away with the myth of the cool objectivity of an experienced gun carrier. When someone quickly changes direction to walk towards you, it's vastly more likely that something benign is behind it, rather than it being an accurate indication of impending menace. As for walking the mean streets of Gary....I was a drug counselor for ten years in the Ocean Hill-Brownsville section of Brooklyn, NY...where I walked the sidewalks, unarmed the entire time. Gary is nowhere as gritty or as desperate as those neighborhoods and the reason I survived there is that there was no message emanating from me that I was any different from the people around me. Prejudice shows in your body language as does fear, and it WILL make you a target when you wander outside of your cozy white environment.
"I didn’t react with lethal force. Since I didn’t, what’s your point? That I should not have even been prepared to do so? That I had to wait until one had a knife in my ribs before I began to acknowledge the situation?"
No, you didn't use lethal force but you imply that you were ready to "stand your ground with your firearm". If you've read any of the many good books about the legalities of using a gun for self defense, you'd know that the conditions that you can legally use one in these situations are few and far between. That being said, what is the point of your story? You've spent a lot of time post-story explaining how you *didn't* use your gun after all, while you initially made it clear that you were all ready to. Given the fact that these kids didn't even appear to have spoken directly to you, let alone actually threaten you, let alone put a hand on you, let alone become violent with you, what was the purpose of your little tale and where is the *equivalency of reaction* in it?
Tell it to the Branch Davidians, Sammy Weaver, or Vicki Weaver.
what was the purpose of your little tale and where is the *equivalency of reaction* in it? According to the law, if someone attacks you, you're allowed to defend yourself in an equivalent fashion, i.e., if a guy walks up and pushes you, you're allowed to push him back but not allowed to crush his throat with your boot, if you get my drift. So, that being said, what was your next move if one of these kids had put a hand on you? You've already told us that your hand was wrapped around your gun. You've also strongly asserted: "The duty and perfect right of a law-abiding citizen is to defend themselves with deadly force if need be against criminals". So, Jack, were you ready to use deadly force on these kids who had actually never even threatened you? And if they HAD threatened you? "If I am minding my own business and am assaulted or threatened by a violent criminal the gun control crowd wants the onus to be on me to flee, retreat, submit, or even die -- anything EXCEPT stand my ground with a firearm". So, according to you, even a *threat* is a viable reason for using a gun, which I'm pretty sure, doesn't jibe with Indiana law.
If you're going to come here with this story of yours that is somehow supposed to validate the concept of "concealed carry" then you've got to cop to the overreaction that your fear and prejudice created in your story. As I stated earlier, I'm VERY pro-second amendment but I also feel that certain members of society shouldn't have concealed carry permits. Violent psychotics have no business carrying a gun, in my book, neither do certain types of criminals or folks with physical impairments that impede safe shooting. And what do we do with guys like you Jack, people who have an acknowledged racial prejudice that causes them to overreact when encountering people of a different ethnic group? How wise do you think it would be to, say, allow young black men who have a paranoiac fear of white people to have a legal handgun in their coat pocket, which is gripped by their shaking hands every time a white person changes direction or heaven forbid, stops to ask for directions to a local bus stop?
It's true that *you didn't shoot anyone* Jack, but that's the way these stories traditionally end, with the hanging question of what would've happened to those (fill in the minority of choice) if they had actually *threatened* the white hero of the story. People like you scare me Jack, and make me question my own more libertarian than liberal take on gun ownership.
Oh, and then answer Just One Question.
Hmmm.
Seems like we might need to rename this thread:
"Waiting for Huffman"
Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to heroin?
Mr. Burton says:
"Your opinion is fairly meaningless and of little value."
Well! THAT sure told me!
Back at ya, hon.
Oh, sweet Jesus, no one has called me naive before. I admit, though I'm 60, my mama still calls me her baby.
There’s always a first time for everything
Jack, bless your heart, I grew up near refinery row in South Houston. I've spent many hours in unsavory portions of Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros. And my work has taken me to the Yards in Chicago, as well as Humboldt Park, not to mention the projects in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, West L.A. and Liberty City in Miami. So please, spare me lectures on urban survival.
When you stop sparing us the lecture of how pure hearted you are…
Situational awareness is always a good idea. But I never felt the need to carry a gun.
That’s fine. I have never felt the overwhelming need to persuade someone that he should carry a gun in any circumstance. That’s a highly personal decision. But why do you apparently feel a compulsion to persuade someone that he should not carry a gun. You’re making a big deal out of my story. Why?
I'm happy for you that heavy presence of a pistol in your front pocket boosted your morale, or whatever.
If that was all it did then I would carry a picture of my family in my front pocket instead. And a Keltec P-32 weighs in at only 8 oz. Hardly “heavy” but to each his own.
But nothing, I repeat, nothing in your little tale of Jack Burton, Urban Warrior, suggested the kids coming up behind you were worth the frisson of anxiety you luxuriated in.
Let’s see… they radically changed direction to walk specifically towards me… they were making loud, verbal statements about how tough they were… they followed me around the back of my van where the only thing of possible interest to them was me… Nope, you’re right. It was all in my imagination. Nothing to look at. Move on.
In my experience, when someone threatens you with harm, you don't have to wonder about it. It happens.
Sure… if you walk around in Condition White with your head up your rump you never quite see it coming… it just happens and you’re left picking up the pieces. This is the absolutely the saddest piece of nonsense that I’ve heard on the board yet. Bad stuff just “happens.”
Others prefer to be a little more cautious in dealing with possible harm coming their way.
http://www.teddytactical.com/
Sha...20Awareness.htm
Just wonderin', but: Can one, in fact, be 'bigoted' against an inanimate object?
Sure. If an inanimate object such as a gun can commit a "gun crime" then a person can be a "gun bigot."
(eyes rolling) From the tenor of most of your postings here I would've thought you'd avoid these kinds of cliches, but hey, knock yourself out.
Maybe a cliché, but fundamentally true in this case. No one has ever argued that all cliches are wrong in every situaton.
As someone who has spent many an hour in gun forums, I've heard the same story on a regular basis...menacing negroes stepping up on the white, gun concealing hero, who is given an invincible aura upon touching the gun in his pocket and or the revealing of it (there's an invariable Freudian component to this) which sends the wicked black boys scampering, and the story ends with reflections on what "would've happened" if they had pushed *super gunman* too far. I've probably heard some variant of that story a thousand times, like an ancient saga told around the campfire by wandering poets.
What a fevered imagination… I’m sure I’ve seen this style of writing in some of the lurid crime used to sell for 50 cents back in the late 60s/early 70s. Were you the guy who wrote the “exterminator” books?
Now maybe you've told the gospel truth, or maybe you haven't (it wouldn't be the first time an argument was augmented for effect) but either way, you've revealed a lot about yourself that destroys the relatively sensible argument you've been making until now.
Because I:
--didn’t shoot someone…
--didn’t threaten someone…
--didn’t brandish my gun…
--didn’t mention a gun…
--didn’t pull a gun…
--didn’t ????????
Then I have destroyed my arguments? Hmmm….That’s certainly some standard you have there.
You've clearly got problems with racial prejudice that do away with the myth of the cool objectivity of an experienced gun carrier.
I’ll let my lovely brown wife answer that nonsense for you. Take it away, babe.
Wife: Screw you. You’ve clearly got a problem projecting your own fears on other people whom you don’t know and never will know. If my husband has a problem with black people then what was he doing in Gary helping the pastor of a black church solve their problems? He’s lived and worked with more black people in the past 30 years than you’ve known in your life.
Me: Thank you, sweetie…
When someone quickly changes direction to walk towards you, it's vastly more likely that something benign is behind it, rather than it being an accurate indication of impending menace.
Fine… since I
--didn’t shoot someone…
--didn’t threaten someone…
--didn’t brandish my gun…
--didn’t mention a gun…
--didn’t pull a gun…
--didn’t ????????
Then there was no harm, no foul. But thank you, I would rather have been prepared just in case your theory was wrong.
Prejudice shows in your body language as does fear, and it WILL make you a target when you wander outside of your cozy white environment.
Cozy white environment? And which “cozy white environment” do I live in? Please name the town or even the county.
W
Cozy white environment? And which “cozy white environment” do I live in? Please name the town or even the county.
Waiting…
Waiting…
Waiting…
No, you didn't use lethal force but you imply that you were ready to "stand your ground with your firearm".
Yes… ready. But I
--didn’t shoot someone…
--didn’t threaten someone…
--didn’t brandish my gun…
--didn’t mention a gun…
--didn’t pull a gun…
--didn’t ????????
So what is your problem?
If you've read any of the many good books about the legalities of using a gun for self defense, you'd know that the conditions that you can legally use one in these situations are few and far between.
Yes, and “disparity of forces” is one of them. If you don’t know what that means then you really shouldn’t be giving advice on self-defense.
That being said, what is the point of your story?
Because someone said that they didn’t see a need for anyone to carry a gun. The point was to show that sometimes there might be a need. Simple if you have a scroll back button to look at these things.
You've spent a lot of time post-story explaining how you *didn't* use your gun after all, while you initially made it clear that you were all ready to.
Yes… ready to. Just in case. The same as I have reached for the fire extinguisher when a particularly large spark has jumped from the fireplace. But the spark went out so I didn’t hose the house down willy-nilly. Is being “ready” so traumatic to you?
Given the fact that these kids didn't even appear to have spoken directly to you, let alone actually threaten you, let alone put a hand on you, let alone become violent with you, what was the purpose of your little tale and where is the *equivalency of reaction* in it?
Let’s see… they radically changed direction to walk specifically towards me… they were making loud, verbal statements about how tough they were… they followed me around the back of my van where the only thing of possible interest to them was me… Nope, you’re right. It was all in my imagination. Nothing to look at. Move on.
According to the law, if someone attacks you, you're allowed to defend yourself in an equivalent fashion, i.e., if a guy walks up and pushes you, you're allowed to push him back but not allowed to crush his throat with your boot, if you get my drift.
So sad that you don’t actually know the law but you’re giving advice. That’s a warning to all you kiddies out there reading this… don’t take legal advice over the net because most people have no clue as to what they are writing about… like Mr. American here. The law is much more nuanced than he puts down.
Now… who’s more likely to understand those nuances fully… a person who by his own admission doesn’t and never will carry a gun… or a person who does carry one, has gone thru multiple training sessions, and who is actually the one who’s rump is on the line if he does anything wrong? Who’s more likely to
Now… who’s more likely to understand those nuances fully… a person who by his own admission doesn’t and never will carry a gun… or a person who does carry one, has gone thru multiple training sessions, and who is actually the one who’s rump is on the line if he does anything wrong? Who’s more likely to understand just which situation is allowable and which is not?
So, that being said, what was your next move if one of these kids had put a hand on you? You've already told us that your hand was wrapped around your gun. You've also strongly asserted: "The duty and perfect right of a law-abiding citizen is to defend themselves with deadly force if need be against criminals". So, Jack, were you ready to use deadly force on these kids who had actually never even threatened you?
So, make up your mind. Do you want to explain how they both “put a hand on me” and “never threatened me.” I can’t answer both at the same time since they are mutually exclusive.
And if they HAD threatened you?
If I felt that I had a reasonable fear for my life or safety I would have taken appropriate, and legally acceptable, action. Do you have a problem with that? Do you think women should just lie back and enjoy being raped instead of fighting back?
"If I am minding my own business and am assaulted or threatened by a violent criminal the gun control crowd wants the onus to be on me to flee, retreat, submit, or even die -- anything EXCEPT stand my ground with a firearm". So, according to you, even a *threat* is a viable reason for using a gun, which I'm pretty sure, doesn't jibe with Indiana law.
A threat that matches the concept of Opportunity, Ability, Jeopardy, and Preclusion sure does. And that is pretty much worldwide.
If you're going to come here with this story of yours that is somehow supposed to validate the concept of "concealed carry" then you've got to cop to the overreaction that your fear and prejudice created in your story.
Overreaction? I
--didn’t shoot someone…
--didn’t threaten someone…
--didn’t brandish my gun…
--didn’t mention a gun…
--didn’t pull a gun…
--didn’t ????????
So what is your problem?
As I stated earlier, I'm VERY pro-second amendment but I also feel that certain members of society shouldn't have concealed carry permits.
As I stated earlier, I'm VERY pro-second amendment but I also feel that certain members of society shouldn't have concealed carry permits.
Pro-2nd but not very up on the concepts of self defense and what is legally, ethically, and morally required of gun carriers.
And what do we do with guys like you Jack, people who have an acknowledged racial prejudice that causes them to overreact when encountering people of a different ethnic group?
Acknowledged “racial prejudice.” You’re like that lady who posted much earlier who heard the word “penis” in her head everytime she saw or talked to a gun owner.
How wise do you think it would be to, say, allow young black men who have a paranoiac fear of white people to have a legal handgun in their coat pocket, which is gripped by their shaking hands every time a white person changes direction or heaven forbid, stops to ask for directions to a local bus stop?
How wise do you think it would be to, say, allow young black men who have a paranoiac fear of white people to have a legal handgun in their coat pocket, which is gripped by their shaking hands every time a white person changes direction or heaven forbid, stops to ask for directions to a local bus stop?
Well, since that has absolutely nothing to do with my experience I can’t answer a strawman question. But I do know that I have helped train many a young black person to use a gun properly along with the concept of when to use it. How many people have you taught?
It's true that *you didn't shoot anyone* Jack, but that's the way these stories traditionally end, with the hanging question of what would've happened to those (fill in the minority of choice) if they had actually *threatened* the white hero of the story. People like you scare me Jack, and make me question my own more libertarian than liberal take on gun ownership.
I think your own liberal guilt is what is scaring you. But that’s okay. We all have our crosses to bear.
Got a lot of time on your hands, eh, Jack?
Home with a gallbladder infection. Not fun. Thought it was a broken rib at first. Can't hardly move my upper body to twist one way or the other, and when I do the spasms kick in.
And it doesn't take much time to answer some of the more inane posts here.
For those who would like to know more about a reference I made earlier, here is a very good look at the four standards that every court wiil hold you to if you claim self defense.
http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/
Knowing and memorizing these may help you out of a jam sometime in the future.
Or, if you happen to be on the other side of the fight you can view the person who is claim self defense against you thru this glass and see if you can destroy their case.
So, lemme' see...
Gospel according to Burton; Book of Jack; Chapter one; Verse one:
People who 'don't like' guns = gun-bigots.
So, would...
People who like guns = gun-weasels?
And, with all due respect to your gallbladder problem: it just *might* be tryin' to tell you somethin' (see Hippocrates' Four Humors...). Seriously, all this internet agita can't be helpin' matters.
PS. 'Ya might want to stop pimping John Lott. I believe his methodology was discredited years ago and there was somethin' about him adopting an imaginary female personality so he could comment about what a swell lecturer and writer he was. 'Mary',
I think...
People who 'don't like' guns = gun-bigots.
Not really. My 30 year old son doesn't "like" guns. He doesn't own one and probably won't ever. He's gone out shooting with me once in the past ten years and whined the whole time.
But he's not a gun bigot.
A gun bigot is one who has an irrational fear of guns (even if they attempt to claim they also own guns) and use that fear as motivation to take away the rights other others.
People who like guns = gun-weasels?
Weasels? Weasels? I'll have to sit up straighter in my chair because that one went directly over my head.
Weasels?
How about: Gun enthusiasts. That seems to be a common term that is heard on the pro-gun websites.
Seriously, all this internet agita can't be helpin' matters.
Only when I start laughing at some of these posts... then the serious hurting begins. It feels like a knife in the ribs. But that's still better than when a sneeze sneaks up on me. Oh, now that hurts.
PS. 'Ya might want to stop pimping John Lott. I believe his methodology was discredited years ago and there was somethin' about him adopting an imaginary female personality so he could comment about what a swell lecturer and writer he was. 'Mary',
I don't recall metioning Lott or any of his work. Perhaps I did but you'd have to refresh my memory about the specific post.
Lott's critics like to say that he's been discredited but they never actually point to anything scholarly and reviewed that has actually discredited him. Just a lot a people sitting around saying that they don't like his conclusions.
Yeah... and he did some stupid things that he shouldn't have done... but that doesn't change the validity of his work. No more so than the fact that Clinton fooled around change the idea that he was the greatest president of his generation.
Well...
'Yer the guy throwin' round the terminology. Gun-weasel seemed like a logical extension. (It was a question, anyway...)
So, is Sonny-Boy a gun-whiner, then? (Again, your term, Jackie-Boy...)
Is he 'less manly' 'cause he doesn't want to go around blastin' the heads off of God's creatures (or 'urban youths') with dear old dad? (Again, a logical conclusion, given the connotation of the word 'whiner' in our society...). Seriously though, he's probably a real good guy. *You* told the world he was a whiner...
Re. 'Mary' Lott: 'yer pimpin' him on 'yer web site, for cryin' out loud!
Take a break from pistol whippin' us over here and go check it out.
If you don't want visitors, don't link to 'yer site.
Keeripes...
Good grief. You still here? (yawn) You should've quit while you were ahead Jack (way down-thread).
So, now on top of your dubious story, we've got the supposed words from your "brown" wife. I'm surprised you didn't refer to her as "urban" with a little shudder! Let me ask you: Does she use expressions like "baddest" or triple negatives like "didn't take no crap from no one"? I'm sure she giggles and looks at you adoringly when you make statements like "Even Jesse Jackson said he feels safer when he knows white people are the ones following him down the street in Chicago". Instead of adding credibility to your performance here, your "wife" has made your story an even more dubious bit of theater. Given the limitations of the response system that blogs work with, there is no video feed (yet) so acceptance of anyone's tales are based on how credible they've been (we can't see your "brown" wife scolding me, all we have is *your word* that she is, which doesn't have any meaning here). Whatever talents you may have, storytelling, unfortunately, is not one of them.
"Cozy white environment? And which “cozy white environment” do I live in? Please name the town or even the county."
(heh)..........errr, Jack? You've gone from living in prairie dog territory to now implying that you live in some ethnic hotbed! Try maintaining a *little* consistency, ok?
"… don’t take legal advice over the net because most people have no clue as to what they are writing about… like Mr. American here. The law is much more nuanced than he puts down".
Which is howlingly funny given that you then go on to link to a legal advice site on the net that proceeds to back up exactly what I said to you! You pounded your chest down-thread and said "If I am minding my own business and am assaulted or threatened by a violent criminal the gun control crowd wants the onus to be on me to flee, retreat, submit, or even die -- anything EXCEPT stand my ground with a firearm". As the site that you provided the link to shows repeatedly, *feeling threatened* is not a legitimate excuse for "standing your ground with a firearm". Like it or not, that's the law, and to pretend that such an application is viable is to recklessly lead feeble-minded gun owners to believe that they have some kind of moral and legal basis for gun use in these conditions, when they clearly don't.
"A threat that matches the concept of Opportunity, Ability, Jeopardy, and Preclusion sure does".
Geez, you really don't know when to stop, do you? Of all of the above, "Preclusion" is the most relevant, as you are allowed to use lethal force ONLY when the circumstances preclude any other options! Remember that you specifically separated "assault" and "threat", showing that "threat" is something implied, rather than some physical act. That being the case, you have absolutely no basis, legal or moral for the rash assertion you've made here. To put thi
That being the case, you have absolutely no basis, legal or moral for the rash assertion you've made here. To put things in the context of this thread, you've just shot yourself (your argument, that is) in the foot.
Why don't you take a break and nurse your gallbladder properly? From what I've heard, that's mighty painful, and probably not the kind of condition that fares well under stress. You might want to temporarily retreat to friendlier territory, someplace where the Second Amendment guys won't attack your argument!
'Yer the guy throwin' round the terminology. Gun-weasel seemed like a logical extension. (It was a question, anyway...)< /I>
Well, I don’t see the logic, but perhaps, as I said, it went over my head.
So, is Sonny-Boy a gun-whiner, then? (Again, your term, Jackie-Boy...)
Actually, no, that is not my term. Or close. If you are going to attribute things to me the least I can ask is that you do it correctly. Otherwise the readers begin to doubt your motive.
Is he 'less manly' 'cause he doesn't want to go around blastin' the heads off of God's creatures (or 'urban youths') with dear old dad? (Again, a logical conclusion, given the connotation of the word 'whiner' in our society...). Seriously though, he's probably a real good guy. *You* told the world he was a whiner...
He’s a wonderful kid but he does have a tendency to whine a bit. And if you scroll up a bit with that little thingie on the side of your screen you just might see the post where I say that I have never shot anything but paper. No dead animals to disappoint you with. Just paper.
So unless you want to count the bacteria on the paper that were undoubtedly destroyed then God’s creatures were never a factor (and I don’t think they have heads to speak of anyway.)
Re. 'Mary' Lott: 'yer pimpin' him on 'yer web site, for cryin' out loud! Take a break from pistol whippin' us over here and go check it out. If you don't want visitors, don't link to 'yer site.
Remember what I wrote about not attributing to me something that I didn’t write. Hard to break that habit, eh?
I don’t have a website. I don’t pimp a website that I don’t have. I don’t invite visitors to a nonexistent website.
You should've quit while you were ahead Jack
You mean right after the part where you showed the world that you no nothing about self defense and the law
So, now on top of your dubious story, we've got the supposed words from your "brown" wife. I'm surprised you didn't refer to her as "urban" with a little shudder!
Why would I refer to my wife as “urban.” She comes from a small town of a couple of hundred people. You’re slipping into non sequiturs here that are making conversation difficult. Keep the focus, please.
Does she use expressions like "baddest" or triple negatives like "didn't take no crap from no one"?
Do you think that minorities speak like that? Pretty racist of you to jump to that conclusion without having ever met her. And you make yourself to be so pure.
That’s what I like about these conversations – the truth in a poster’s heart will come out sooner or later. You’re just a bigot against anyone who’s not white, aren’t you. Disgusting. Nasty.
I'm sure she giggles and looks at you adoringly when you make statements like "Even Jesse Jackson said he feels safer when he knows white people are the ones following him down the street in Chicago".
Naw, she just Googles to find the source like you could if you wanted. I saved you the time by doing it myself… One cite is in the notorious white-racist Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/
magazin...,106368,00.html
Now, it’s true that I said Chicago and Jesse said Washington D.C. but I would be sure he’d feel the same in Chicago, all things considered such as matching murder rates.
Instead of adding credibility to your performance here, your "wife" has made your story an even more dubious bit of theater.
I’ve backed up everything I’ve said… you’ve backed up nothing and have consistently been shown to be in error. Who’s Mr. Dubious. Or are you now saying that Time Magazine is dubious also?
(heh)..........errr, Jack? You've gone from living in prairie dog territory to now implying that you live in some ethnic hotbed! Try maintaining a *little* consistency, ok?
Please find where I said, or implied, that I lived in “prairie dog territory.” Take your time to scroll up. Give us a quote. Anyone can do it if it’s there. We’ll be waiting…
Waiting…
Waiting…
Waiting…
Waiting…
Oh… you can’t find one. Not even a hint of one. And who’s Mr. Dubious?
So let me ask you again. Name the town that I live in that is a “cozy white environment.”
Go ahead. We’ll be waiting for that also, Mr. Dubious.
Which is howlingly funny given that you then go on to link to a legal advice site on the net that proceeds to back up exactly what I said to you! You pounded your chest down-thread and said "If I am minding my own business and am assaulted or threatened by a violent criminal the gun control crowd wants the onus to be on me to flee, retreat, submit, or even die
Which is howlingly funny given that you then go on to link to a legal advice site on the net that proceeds to back up exactly what I said to you! You pounded your chest down-thread and said "If I am minding my own business and am assaulted or threatened by a violent criminal the gun control crowd wants the onus to be on me to flee, retreat, submit, or even die -- anything EXCEPT stand my ground with a firearm". As the site that you provided the link to shows repeatedly, *feeling threatened* is not a legitimate excuse for "standing your ground with a firearm".
You simply did not read the site. “Feeling threatened” is exactly what is needed IF the AOJP is there. One does not have to “wait” to be stabbed before taking action. One does not have to “wait” to be hit first with a baseball bat to take action. If the four elements are there, then action can be taken. Period.
And which ones where there in my situation. Let’s take a look…
Was there Opportunity? Yes, the two young men were almost within arms reach of me. They were not across the parking lot, they were not across the street. They were within five feet. That is certainly, legally, opportunity.
Was there Ability? Yes, there were two young men, bigger, stronger, and faster than me. The law does not require a weapon produced. Otherwise a 250 lb rapist could intimidate a 110 lb woman with his fists alone and never be charged for it.
“Disparity of Forces” is a concept that means if the combatants are unequally matched, for any reason, the weaker has the possible claim of self defense. And two against one is a disparity. Youth against age is a disparity. Trained against non-trained is a disparity. Health against a handicap is a disparity. Almost in every case a man against a woman is a disparity.
Was there Preclusion? Yes. The law doesn’t require a person to attempt to run away when that will put him in equal or worse danger. With a bum leg any attempt to run away would have been an automatic failure.
So… I’m doing good so far on the equation, eh, Mr. Dubious. You can deny all you want the facts that I just laid out but you cannot deny that if the facts are as given, I have met the AOP part of the AOJP test.
So how about the fourth part. Jeopardy. Was I ever in Jeopardy. No. The youths made no overt remark about hurting me. They made no move towards touching me after they saw me standing there. They made no attempt to harm me. So I was never in Jeopardy.
I believe that they left their current path and followed me around to the side of my van for just that purpose but after they saw me they changed their mind. It’s quite possible that they were just going to ask me the time, but not probably. But, but, since I didn’t know for sure I
--didn’t shoot someone…
--didn’t threaten someone…
--didn’t brandish my gun…
--didn’t mention a gun…
--didn’t pull a gun…
--didn’t ????????
There was no Jeopardy so I just stood there by the side of my van without saying
There was no Jeopardy so I just stood there by the side of my van without saying a word. That’s it. That is all did. And that’s why people are wondering why Mr. Dubious is freaking out so much?
Now… I gotta ask the readers. If it was you walking in that very same situation… opportunity is there… ability is there… preclusion is there and you simply can’t run away… and you have a strong belief that jeopardy is right around the corner… who would you want at your side. Mr. Dubious who believes in the innate goodness of all people and especially inner city teens, or a person who legally holds a CCW and has gone thru extensive training in self defense and how to use the gun?
Like it or not, that's the law, and to pretend that such an application is viable is to recklessly lead feeble-minded gun owners to believe that they have some kind of moral and legal basis for gun use in these conditions, when they clearly don't.
So, it is “reckless” to:
--not shoot someone…
--not threaten someone…
--not brandish my gun…
--not mention a gun…
--not pull a gun…
--not ????????
That’s some dictionary you got there, pal. How does it define “calm and collected”?
Geez, you really don't know when to stop, do you? Of all of the above, "Preclusion" is the most relevant, as you are allowed to use lethal force ONLY when the circumstances preclude any other options!
Absolutely the case. And I am, as mentioned above, fat, slow, past middle aged, and with a bum leg. So tell me my precluding options when faced with two older teens who had me trapped with my back against a van…
Waiting…
Waiting…
Waiting…
Can’t come up with any, eh? So your paragraph is pretty nonsensical, eh?
Remember that you specifically separated "assault" and "threat", showing that "threat" is something implied, rather than some physical act. That being the case, you have absolutely no basis, legal or moral for the rash assertion you've made here. To put things in the context of this thread, you've just shot yourself (your argument, that is) in the foot.
I don’t know who’s foot you’ve been reading but what you stated is found no where in what I said or any of my links. Mr. Dubious is reading something that is not there.
Here ya go, for our women readers. Mr. Dubious thinks that if a 250 lb man walks up to you at night in the supermarket parking lot while you’re alone and says, “I’m going to rape you,” that you have no recourse of action since he only threatened you and didn’t actually “assault” you. If you knee him in the groin YOU are the one guilty and should go to jail. Or if he pulls out a knife and leers at you then that is only an “implied” threat and therefore of no concern for you.
Why don't you take a break and nurse your gallbladder properly? From what I've heard, that's mighty painful, and probably not the kind of condition that fares well under stress. You might want to temporarily retreat to friendli
Why don't you take a break and nurse your gallbladder properly? From what I've heard, that's mighty painful, and probably not the kind of condition that fares well under stress. You might want to temporarily retreat to friendlier territory, someplace where the Second Amendment guys won't attack your argument!
A soldier’s place is where the battles are.
And the only stress around here is the sound of years of walls crashing down as the fencesitters compare your lack of understanding of self defense with the wisdom of someone who has been there and survived. Eyes are being opened, my friend, to the vacumminity of your philosophy and that is worth every ache and pain.
Duke... I must semi-apologise. In my first few posts I put down the website http://www.keepandbeararms.com as part of the information because I thought I was required to put down a website. It was a handy one to use.
The site is not mine, I have nothing to do with it, and I don't even know if they feature Lott's work or not.
If that was what you were writing about then I did have an inadvertant link to Lott's work. If, though, you were confusing me with someone else that is a different story.
(Sigh...)
Try checkin' out:
"Jack Burton | Homepage"
The *Homepage* hot link that takes you to www.keepandbeararms.com. (Ring a bell...?)
See Jackie, the *Homepage* that posters will sometimes include with their comments is generally understood to be their *personal* site; *their* presence on the W3. It's not really supposed to be the homepage of your browser. Otherwise you might, accidentally mind you, post "Jack Burton | Homepage" and be linking to www.ihavelittlebunniespaintedonmyknees.com. (Just tryin' to help, here...)
Also, even a fine son like yours would probably just as soon the rest of the known world *not* know he's a whiner, gun-related, or no.
TTYTT Jackie, I'm not automatically anti-gun; in the abstract I can understand the interest one may have in firearms, perhaps in purely mechanical terms (and no penis references, I promise...). I think that I can understand target shooting; I think that I can understand firearm maintenance, repair etc. I'm less clear on hunting, especially the D. Cheney variety. It's really when this 'interest' or 'enthusiasm' becomes the locus of one's world view, the prism through which all the light of the world is filtered.
And, stop tryin' to test your pain tolerance with all this marathon blogging, 'fer cryin' out loud! You have an infected gallbladder. Get better, we'll still be here -- Mrs. Burton, back me up on this...
"This must have showed on my face. The youths came around the back of the van and saw me calmly standing there waiting for them. I didn't say anything, and I didn't pull the gun - but my attitude certainly said they n[eeded to reconsider any very-near future actions they were contemplating.]
Jack Burton | 02.27.07 - 4:02 pm | # "
So let me get this straight in my naivete. Not only did you not USE the gun -- the two guys DID NOT SEE the gun. Is that right?
So why did you "need" the gun, Jack? Didn't your fierce demeanor do the trick for you?
Duke... I beat you by a couple of minutes. I'm slow but I get there eventually
And trust me, between my church, gardening, bike riding (not as much as I used to do), reading, and work the gun enthusiasm takes about fifth or sixth place. I doubt if I've spent twenty bucks in the past year on the hobby (and that was for ammo), and it has been four or five years since I last bought a gun.
I don't subscribe to a single gun rag, and out of my personal circle of friends I doubt if more than a handful know I even own guns.
So let me get this straight in my naivete. Not only did you not USE the gun -- the two guys DID NOT SEE the gun. Is that right?
I think I've mentioned that a few times, yes, that is correct.
So why did you "need" the gun, Jack? Didn't your fierce demeanor do the trick for you?
The "fierce demeanor" came because I knew I could back it up if neccessary. You normally don't see one on a sheep.
And the payback for attempted bluffing can be hell.
Some people don't notice a "fierce demeanor." Some don't care. Some are cranked up on dope and can barely see your face.
I'll gamble around a nickle a hand poker game. I'd rather not gamble with my life. Make sense?
Jack:
All due respect for steppin' up on the homepage thing.
Seriously, if you do feel like commenting further, please engage my curiosity concerning your firearm enthusiasm. (I won't point virtual fingers & scream, if you won't...)
Were you raised around firearms or was it an interest that you developed later in your life?
Was there always the, for lack of a better term, 'personal safety' component for you? Earlier? Later?
Did the, again for lack of a better term, 'constitutional concerns' have meaning for you early in your firearms interest or did they develop later on?
How does your experience with firearms compare/contrast with what Mr. TBogg had to say about his experience? (Don't look now, but I think that I just assigned you an essay question. )
Anything to add re. my previous thoughts on target shooting; firearm maintenance and hunting caged prey?
Just try not to cough so much...Jeez!
"Name the town that I live in that is a “cozy white environment."
As you would put it...let me vaguely say "the Midwest" (I wouldn't want all of the other "Jacks" to be bothered by folks trying to track you down while you're trying to be *incognito* on the innertubes).
"If the four elements are there, then action can be taken. Period."
Holy cow. You really are like that lawyer mentioned earlier in the thread! Go back and read about preclusion, because you've seriously missed something the first time you skimmed it. Your *threat* which is nothing more than words (or even a misperception on your part) is a perfect example of why AOJP was developed for guidelines, as you are allowed to use lethal force ONLY when the circumstances preclude any other options! (practically a word-for-word quote from the site you linked to). Are you telling me you're incapable of, fer instance, threatening back? You have NO other options save for a gun? Personally, I'd have dozens of things I could do before I'd need to use a gun and so would you if you'd bother to use your imagination. This is a huge flaw in the concealed carry laws, when a gun becomes the "go to" tool for any situation. It's not. It's the tool of LAST RESORT.
"So… I’m doing good so far on the equation, eh, Mr. Dubious. "
Hello? These supposed thugs never even spoke directly to you! As I said earlier, there could've been any number of reasons why they "turned suddenly" having nothing to do with you or have had a completely innocent reason to want to speak to you. I was walking down the street in Brooklyn one night when a couple of guys ran up behind me (and I was the only other soul on that street). It turned out that I'd dropped part of my keyring out of my pocket a half a block back and they were nice enough to make sure I got it back! Should I have spun around and pulled a gun out because I felt a moment of threat? Misunderstandings happen all of the time, particularly when a scared person is walking through what they perceive as a "bad" neighborhood.
"So, it is “reckless” to:
--not shoot someone…
--not threaten someone…
--not brandish my gun…
--not mention a gun…
--not pull a gun…
--not ???????? "
No Jack, it's reckless to say that it's your right to use a firearm because you feel threatened. No matter how many times you cut and paste the little "not shoot someone" ditty above, you're still running from your words by pretending that this is about something it's not. Geez, the people here aren't stupid Jack....does this stuff really work on the forums you normally post to?
"So tell me my precluding options when faced with two older teens who had me trapped with my back against a van…"
Who had you trapped? You sound like a little girl! I suspect that my own physical ailments are equal to your own but I've actually bothered to learn self-defense in addition to firearms training. I'd be comfortable with my ab
Who had you trapped? You sound like a little girl! I suspect that my own physical ailments are equal to your own but I've actually bothered to learn self-defense in addition to firearms training. I'd be comfortable with my abilities to handle two teens that don't have my experience (as I told you, I've spent a lot of time in rough neighborhoods). Anyone who regularly goes to places that make him/her uncomfortable owe themselves training that leaves them ...comfortable. The fact that you seem to have only one option (self-imposed), your gun, doesn't say good things about you or the notion of concealed carry. Apparently it makes you lazy.
As to your little rape scenario (you sounded as if you really enjoyed creating that Jack), the same rules apply to women as apply to men. The women I know would respond to "I'm going to rape you" with "You'd better start running before I get to you". I've taught my own wife how to take down *any* sized person with an astonishing little trick that *anyone* can do, so properly trained women (and even men, Jack) have nothing to fear from threats. If, as you go on, he pulls out a knife, you know as well as I do that he's made a potentially lethal threat (you DO know that, right?) and has opened himself up to the use of deadly force (where have I implied anything contrary to this?). It's funny/sad that you've tried to tie your own story (where the guys never even spoke to you) to a completely different scenario. I never bothered to learn the terminology applied to the techniques of Sophistry, but this is one of them. But, for example, if your *threateners* had approached you with knives in their hands, telling you they were going to rape you (hey, it's a crazy world out there), you would've been within your rights to pull your gun out. They didn't. And besides that, what we're really talking about is your assertion that it's your right to use a gun when *you feel threatened*, which...is ridiculous.
Don't fret about your performance here Jack, we're on our home turf and you're not and that gall bladder thing is making you crochety...I get the same way when my bad knee acts up. This thread will disappear soon but I hope we'll see you around, you've been fun in an odd sort of way. Rest up and "till next time..".
Just out of curiosity, what do you suggest dusting prairie dogs with, if not an AR?
See, it's the 'dusting' thing, mate. We know the attraction of AR-15 based weapons for 'varmints': it's so you can reap rodent death without the tiresone exercise of reloading too often. And that just reminds me of the juveniles who liked nothing better than kicking anthills to bits. Except that those little shits tended to get bitten.
The problem with this argument, of course, is that there's always the subtext that ultimately, the guys with the biggest guns win... by virtue of having the biggest guns.
By the way, Jack Burton, you can go away in confidence that we all know what a big man you are.
In the meantime, more people die each year in gun-related homicides in the county of NC in which I currently reside, than in the country of my birth.
Did you actually make a point to refute what the woman said, or are you just calling her names? Idiot, indeed.
Self-defense is a human right.
I especially like reading comments from people in England and Brazil, since it's not like crime there is getting any better since they started banning guns wholesale (the UK has a knife ban, now, and parts of Brazil are a mess).
Did you actually make a point to refute what the woman said, or are you just calling her names? Idiot, indeed.
He can't logically refute her claims, so he has to fall back on name calling. He had no other point to make than "I don't like these bad looking black guns. They're not blue steel with walnut stocks, so they're not worthy."
Hello,
My name is Josh Smith and I live in north central Indiana.
I've not been over this entire discussion - it's too long. However, I was pointed in its direction and asked to put my two pennies in, so here it goes.
First, credentials: I am a first instructor in MMA (Aikido based) and a pistolsmith in training. I also hunt, fish, shoot, camp, and run through defensive handgun scenerios. In addition, I've done a few firearms and ammunition reviews for the Web magazines. They can be found, for the most part, at www.myspace.com/wabashshootist for those who are interested.
Now, the original argument seems to be over Mr. Jim Zumbo's comments about "assault rifles" being used for hunting, and it's somehow mutated into a CCW (concealed carry weapons) thread. I'll address the first part, first.
Throughout history military weapons have been used to hunt. The venerable 30-'06 was originally a military rifle round used in the Springfield and the M1A rifles. These rifles are now used to hunt. One is a bolt action from WWI; the other is a semi-auto from WWII. As well, a popular hunting rifle in .308 (7.62 NATO), the Remington Model 700, was considered one of the best true sniper rifles in the world. It is bolt action and was used mainly by the Marine Scout Snipers.
The .223 Remington is the civilian version of the 5.56 NATO. In civilian circles the .223 is considered by most to be underpowered for deer (though most certainly capable of taking them within its effective range). However, it is popular with the varmint hunting crowd and will hold its own beside the .22-250 and the .17 Remington. It can be chambered in both manual actions and semi-auto actions.
Here I need to make this clear: Assault rifles are very, very rare among the shooting public. The definition of an assault rifle is a rifle which is capable of being switched to full auto (meaning, more than one round fired for one depression of the trigger). Given that assault rifles fire around 800 rounds per minute, and the rounds can cost up to $1 per round, it gets expensive. This does not include the $200 tax stamp, extensive backround check one must endure, nor the weapon itself, which typically costs in the thousands of dollars.
Suffice to say, not many people own true assault rifles.
As well, remember that almost every hunting rifle or shotgun was at one time used by, invented by, or considered for use by, the military. This includes the first successful pump shotgun, the Winchester M1897.
On to CCW:
The definition of a criminal is one who does not follow the law. Therefore, the only people firearms laws protect are the criminals, while sometimes inadvertantly creating new ones. Those who do follow the letter of the law are hurt by doing so as the criminal possesses greater firepower.
There is a concept known as escalation of force.
If a criminal tries to accost a person, that person should run. If this is not feasable fo
If a criminal tries to accost a person, that person should run. If this is not feasable for whatever reason, then the good guy should not jump directly to his lawfully carried pistol. There's a reason it's called "escalation of force."
I'm a fairly big man and well trained. Should someone come at me with no visible weapon, I'm more likely to use a non-lethal or less-lethal weapon against him. This could be pepper spray, a night stick, or even the end of a mini-maglite placed forcefully against the proper nerve endings.
However, if I see a knife or a gun, I need to be able to have an answer to that as well. While I keep a money clip with a few $1 bills in my front pocket to throw to the side as a distraction for escape, this may not always work. The person may want to KILL ME for whatever reason. Who knows, he may be high on crack or tripping on acid. He may want to feel what it's like to take a life. (Don't say this doesn't happen; I began carrying because a friend was a victim of that very same mentality: His killer wanted to know how it felt to kill another human being.)
One cannot always assume an attacker will be human either. The one time I drew my weapon and fired in defense of my life was against dogs. The neighbor decided he'd try to train guard dogs (he did this improperly). They got loose and charged me when I stepped outside. (The only reason I stepped outside was because I thought a person I had been expecting had come, and I went to meet him. I could not see the dogs from the window). They charged in a flat out, low, attack run, and I drew and fired. The problem resolved itself.
Do I feel good about it? No. However, I feel better than if I had been mauled.
Another thing to consider when considering concealed weapon permit holders: We have to undergo an extensive backround check, payed for by our own money, and what that piece of paper says, further than that we can carry handguns for defense of self and others, is that we are GOOD PEOPLE. We have no felonies, and most times no misdemeanors, certainly no violent ones. We are not mentally ill. The most I have on my record are a few traffic tickets from a number of years back when I was a teenager and into hotrodding. Most of the time we've been trained. (My training was taken through my county's sheriff's department).
How many of you, who do not carry, have a piece of paper that you have on you every day that you can show to someone and say, "See? I'm not a felon, and I'm mentally sound." As a side benefit, most police around here recognize this fact about permits and ease up quite a bit - maybe not in fines and such, but in that strain between private citizen and police officer during a routine traffic stop. You see, every police officer is trained to view you as a potential criminal he'll have to shoot down. He doesn't know you. That piece of paper goes a long way to ease tensions. I know some who do not make a ha
How many of you, who do not carry, have a piece of paper that you have on you every day that you can show to someone and say, "See? I'm not a felon, and I'm mentally sound." As a side benefit, most police around here recognize this fact about permits and ease up quite a bit - maybe not in fines and such, but in that strain between private citizen and police officer during a routine traffic stop. You see, every police officer is trained to view you as a potential criminal he'll have to shoot down. He doesn't know you. That piece of paper goes a long way to ease tensions. I know some who do not make a habit of carrying a handgun, and a few who don't even own handguns, who do have their permits just to say, "I'm a good guy."
Duke...
While I was raised around a hunting father I never got into it. (see post far above).
Actually I never really shot guns until I went into the military in the very early 70s. I later wound up in a combat unit and shot a fairly extensive array of weapons. Never made it to Nam, though. Never made it to Iraq either for the First Gulf War. Our brigade was scheduled to go in about 90 days but the war wrapped up so fast it never went.
So, I have never really fired a gun at anything other than paper and various other things that look interesting.
(Take a water balloon and drop a tablespoon of flour into it before you blow it up. When you hit it with a bullet it looks like the whole hillside just went up from an artillery attack.)
I started in buy my own guns back in the 70s when I lived in Arkansas. It was really just something to have until I moved to a state in the late 80s where I could have a CCW. I've taken a much greater interest since then, and have become more polticially active on that subject and many others.
I'm not sure what Mr. Bogg said so you'll have to look elsewhere for that comparison.
As far as other things, target shooting is an art that can really teach a person a lot about themselves. If you want to get really good at it (and I approach high mediocre, part of the reason I don't hunt)you have to learn a blend of absolute "stillness" within but yet active awareness without.
You can't bring emotional issues of any kind to the range and expect to do well. What that means is that most of your really good shooters are people who have learned to let go of thier roiling type emotions, or to keep them highly in check. It's amazing how calm everyone is at the firing line.
I've taught a lot of people to shoot and everyone has enjoyed it. A few years back we invited a bunch of teen boys from our church to the range. Two brothers showed up and they were absolutely natural shooters -- better from the first time they picked up a gun than I was with my experience. It was a real joy to teach them.
They moved on from there to later shoot skeet (at which I am terrible) and once again they were great.
This past summer they joined the Army and out of the 800 or so in the recruit brigade they ranked numbers one and two. Record scores in both obstacle course and the range. They are now in Airborne School and are targeted for Rangers.
I am so proud of them and feel a great sense of satisfaction that I was the first one to teach them gun saftey and how to shoot.
I am a believer that the more training the better for all... and I've sought it ought where I could... but I don't want the government to mandate it. Approximately 60 percent of the homes have guns, and probably five percent of them have training of some kind, including military.
If lack of training was a problem we'd expect to see bodies lying across lawns and driveways on an hourly basis, but yet well less than one tenth of one perc
Less than 1 tenth of one percent have problems.
As far as canned hunts, there will always be unethical people in any endeavor... but ask yourself: Is a deer running wild on a fenced, 10,000 acre property really "caged."
The anti-hunters will certainly present it in such a fashion and those who don't know the entire story are left believing propaganda.
As you would put it...let me vaguely say "the Midwest"
Oh this is great.
First, you’re proven totally and absolutely wrong on me living in prairie dog areas, which you won’t even bother to acknowledge because it will shred what little remains of your credibility, and now you make the claim that the entire Midwest is a “lily white environment.”
That will come as quite a shocker to much of the area.
Cincinnati – a lily white environment
Cleveland – a lily white environment
Indianapolis – a lily white environment
St. Louis – a lily white environment
Kansas City – a lily white environment
Hammond/Gary – a lily white environment
Chicago – a lily white environment
Detroit – a lily white environment
Dear readers… does this man make any sense to you? Are you seeing through his nonsense now, and how it relates to the rest of his information?
Holy cow. You really are like that lawyer mentioned earlier in the thread! Go back and read about preclusion, because you've seriously missed something the first time you skimmed it. Your *threat* which is nothing more than words (or even a misperception on your part) is a perfect example of why AOJP was developed for guidelines, as you are allowed to use lethal force ONLY when the circumstances preclude any other options!
You continue to purposely misunderstand the concept here. Its fifth grade easy. Perhaps you should try out for the new Fox TV program, Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?
For the benefit of the readers, so they won’t be confused by Mr. Dubious,
A threat need be nothing more than words if the whole of AOJP is there.
If a 100 lb lady is told in a dark parking lot by a 200 lb man that he is going to rape her, then all the elements are met. Even though he used “nothing more than words.”
And Mr. Dubious, please explain to the dear readers just when and where I used “lethal force” in my account. We’re waiting. (or is thing another “living in prairie dog territory” statement that you just made up.)
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting
(practically a word-for-word quote from the site you linked to). Are you telling me you're incapable of, fer instance, threatening back?
What, you want me to threaten two boys who have done exactly nothing? You want me to start and escalate the situation? What kind of self defense expert are you?
Are you crazy? Two teen boys who have done nothing to me and you want me to “threaten” them?
You have NO other options save for a gun?
I have lots of options, but in that particular case, no I didn’t.
The question was asked why someone needed to carry a gun so I used an example of why someone needed to carry a gun. If the question was why someone needed to carry a loud siren on a strap I could give an example of that also from another time and place.
Personally, I'd have dozens of things I could do before I'd need to use a gun and so would you if
Personally, I'd have dozens of things I could do before I'd need to use a gun and so would you if you'd bother to use your imagination.
Since I asked you to name some and you didn’t I will charitably assume you’re having a “lack of imagination” attack instead of just blowing smoke out your anus.
This is a huge flaw in the concealed carry laws, when a gun becomes the "go to" tool for any situation. It's not. It's the tool of LAST RESORT.
Fess up… you’re one of those people who wrote hysterical letters to the editor saying there was going to be “blood on the streets” and dead cops everywhere when CCW came to your state. Didn’t happen, did it.
Hello? These supposed thugs never even spoke directly to you! As I said earlier, there could've been any number of reasons why they "turned suddenly" having nothing to do with you or have had a completely innocent reason to want to speak to you.
You’re right. And that is why I
--didn’t shoot someone…
--didn’t threaten someone…
--didn’t brandish my gun…
--didn’t mention a gun…
--didn’t pull a gun…
--didn’t ????????
But since, given the time and place of being in the murder capital of America, and being a Jesse Jackson disciple, it was much more likely for a bad thing to be happening so I decided to be “ready.”
And “ready” is somehow a really, really big problem with you.
I was walking down the street in Brooklyn one night when a couple of guys ran up behind me (and I was the only other soul on that street). It turned out that I'd dropped part of my keyring out of my pocket a half a block back and they were nice enough to make sure I got it back! Should I have spun around and pulled a gun out because I felt a moment of threat?
Should you have? Only if you have a weak sense of what self defense it. Which of us is talking about “pulling” a gun in that circumstance. You… or me? Readers, you decide.
Misunderstandings happen all of the time, particularly when a scared person is walking through what they perceive as a "bad" neighborhood.
So earning the title of Murder Capital of the country several years running is just a “perception” eh? And misunderstandings do happen, even in the murder capital.
Which is why I
--didn’t shoot someone…
--didn’t threaten someone…
--didn’t brandish my gun…
--didn’t mention a gun…
--didn’t pull a gun…
--didn’t ????????
No Jack, it's reckless to say that it's your right to use a firearm because you feel threatened.
Mr. Dubious, please tell the world exactly at what point I “used a firearm.”
Waiting…
Waiting…
Waiting…
Oh, you can’t, can you. Well, that just blows your whole couple of days of posting to hell and back, doesn’t it?
No matter how many times you cut and paste the little "not shoot someone" ditty above, you're still running from your words by pretending that this is about something it's not.
So what is it about, Alfie?
Ge
Geez, the people here aren't stupid Jack....does this stuff really work on the forums you normally post to?
I’m more than willing to let the folk here judge between us. But I gotta tell you… lying about where I said I was from and then claiming the entire Midwest is minority-free is not going to win you any points.
Who had you trapped? You sound like a little girl!
Calling names is not helping your supposed arguments. I asked you point blank what you think my options were and we are still waiting for an answer…
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting…
Now, you can say I should be superman, or batman, or any number of other people than what I am but that doesn’t change the fact of what I am. Give me options based upon what I stated without trying to change the story to make me something else.
I suspect that my own physical ailments are equal to your own but I've actually bothered to learn self-defense in addition to firearms training. I'd be comfortable with my abilities to handle two teens that don't have my experience (as I told you, I've spent a lot of time in rough neighborhoods).
Oohhh… we’re in the presence of Bruce Lee, folks. But I thought he died?. Never mind.
I may have to borrow your nickname of Mr. Dubious for this one. Can I?
Hey, stick around while I go get my boots on. It’s getting deep.
Back now…
The fact that you seem to have only one option (self-imposed), your gun, doesn't say good things about you or the notion of concealed carry. Apparently it makes you lazy.
I have lots of options (most of the time). But the original question didn’t ask, what options do people have other than carrying a gun. If it had, I would have answered it just that way.
As to your little rape scenario (you sounded as if you really enjoyed creating that Jack),
You’re a sick puppy.
The women I know would respond to "I'm going to rape you" with "You'd better start running before I get to you".
Ooohhh, now he lives with the Amazon tribe. Is it true they cut off their left breast so that they can use a bow and arrow better?
I've taught my own wife how to take down *any* sized person with an astonishing little trick that *anyone* can do,
Your wife, eh? Do you refer to her as "urban" with a little shudder! Let me ask you: Does she use expressions like "baddest" or triple negatives like "didn't take no crap from no one"? I'm sure she giggles and looks at you adoringly when you make statements like " I've taught my own wife how to take down *any* sized person with an astonishing little trick that *anyone* can do ".
She probably punches you on the shoulder and calls you her “hunk of burning love.”
If, as you go on, he pulls out a knife, you know as well as I do that he's made a potentially lethal threat (you DO know that, right?) and has opened himself up to the use of deadly force (where have I implied anything contra
If, as you go on, he pulls out a knife, you know as well as I do that he's made a potentially lethal threat (you DO know that, right?) and has opened himself up to the use of deadly force (where have I implied anything contrary to this?).
Make up your mind, son. You said, and I quote
“As the site that you provided the link to shows repeatedly, *feeling threatened* is not a legitimate excuse for "standing your ground with a firearm". “
So the guy with a knife did not threaten anyone. He just merely pulled it out, right? He didn’t say anything, he didn’t speak to anyone, he didn’t wave it at anyone. So he wasn’t a threat by your standards. “Potentially” don’t cut crap and gives no justification for lethal force. Or else those two young men had the “potential” to do me harm.
Can’t have it both ways.
It's funny/sad that you've tried to tie your own story (where the guys never even spoke to you) to a completely different scenario.
Two scenarios if you’re keeping score. Both with applicability. One has a threat but no weapon, the other has a weapon but no threat. Are they both the same? Different?
I never bothered to learn
That’s a big part of the problem here. You’ve never bothered to learn about gun handling, about self defense, and about how to legally deal with threatening situations.
But, for example, if your *threateners* had approached you with knives in their hands, telling you they were going to rape you (hey, it's a crazy world out there), you would've been within your rights to pull your gun out. They didn't.
You’re absolutely right… and that is why I
--didn’t shoot someone…
--didn’t threaten someone…
--didn’t brandish my gun…
--didn’t mention a gun…
--didn’t pull a gun…
--didn’t ????????
And besides that, what we're really talking about is your assertion that it's your right to use a gun when *you feel threatened*, which...is ridiculous.
Please feel free to point out to the readers the exact point where I “used a gun”. We’re waiting…
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting…
Don't fret about your performance here Jack, we're on our home turf and you're not
I know… that’s why it is so much sweeter showing you up as a blowhard in your own stadium. There’s a much greater percentage of people who are seeing you and your arguments for what they are than if we were doing this on a neutral ground.
By the way, just what prairie dog area do I live in? And which Midwest city do you think is more “lily white” – Chicago or Detroit? And just when did I “pull a gun”?
Waiting
Waiting
Waiting…
Jack:
Quoting Mr. TBogg (from his original 'post'; different from the 'comments' section):
"Without the support of the gun manufacturers, the NRA and magazines like Outdoor Life would cease to exist. Years ago the NRA quit representing hunters and their interests and became the de facto lobbying arm of the gun industry. This is the reason why so many hunters walked away from the NRA. I walked away from the NRA and hunting years ago when a new breed of hunters hit the ground with no concept of the rules of the field. After almost having two dogs shot by anxious idiots trying to shoot a pheasant that the dogs were trying to chase into flight, my dad and I called it quits."
I'd be interested in your take on this: specifically and, perhaps, in a more general way.
I'm not a hunter, as I said earlier, but let me try to fisk it for you...
Without the support of the gun manufacturers, the NRA and magazines like Outdoor Life would cease to exist.
This is akin to saying that without the support of the auto manufacturer then magazines such as Car and Driver would cease to exist. Or without the support of the fashion industry that magazines like Redbook would cease to exist. Or without the support of the camera manufacturers that magazines like Photography would cease to exist.
There's no great conspiracy here. Just mutual support from organizations that have common interests. Oh, and the vast majority of the NRA funds come from ordinary people who support its goals.
Years ago the NRA quit representing hunters and their interests and became the de facto lobbying arm of the gun industry.
I love it when people who are not the NRA somehow know better what the NRA stands for than the people who really are in the NRA. That's like a PETA person claiming inside knowledge about what Field and Stream is going to be publishing next month.
The truth is that "years ago" a number of organizations dedicated to destroying the right of Americans to keep and bear arms were growing in influence by leaps and bounds. The NRA, in partnership with many different organizations, listened to its members and began fighting these anti-freedom organizations on their own turf -- and everywhere else the battle took them.
Many, many hunters have always been willing to give over the handgun crowd, the sports utility rifle crowd, and any others who didn't use their "pristine" rifles and shotguns to the enemy in hopes that they themselves wouldn't be eaten.
You go to a lot of clubs where Skeet/
Clay is shot and you'll find members there who, in a heartbeat, would gladly surrender every non-shotgun in the world to the anti-gunners because they somehow think this will protect their precious fifty thousand dollar shotgun.
These are the people who were upset that the NRA would actually dirty it's hands in politics by defending handguns and other firearms. Those dirty little handguns which were obviously only carried by criminals and other weak minded people.
Did they leave the NRA or did the NRA leave them?
This is the reason why so many hunters walked away from the NRA. I walked away from the NRA and hunting years ago when a new breed of hunters hit the ground with no concept of the rules of the field.
Since the NRA runs the largest and most successful hunter and gun safety program in the world this complaint is a little too ingenious.
First he blames the NRA for abandoning the hunters and then he blames the NRA for bad hunters coming to the fields. Can't have it both ways in the same paragraph -- or in real life.
After almost having two dogs shot by anxious idiots trying to shoot a pheasant that the dogs were trying to chase into flight, my dad and I call
After almost having two dogs shot by anxious idiots trying to shoot a pheasant that the dogs were trying to chase into flight, my dad and I called it quits."
Does this really make any sense? If he sees a reckless teen driver does he quit the AAA Motor Club? If he sees a reckless private pilot does he drop his American Airlines Frequent Flyer Miles?
It's an excuse, and a pretty feeble one at that. But people do what they have to do to justify themselves, no matter how dorky it makes them look while trying to explain it.
We got ourselves another Fudd actin' all Fuddyduddy. If "they" come for the black rifles "we" will come for the public hunting lands and "we" will make sure to "protect" the bambies and the bunnies, you Zumboids.
Well dang... I feel ignored. :D
Ya did good, Josh...
Maybe you can scroll up to my post of 02.27.07 - 4:02 pm and read my adventures of having a gun when needed... and then the following back and forth between me and some know-it-all by the handle of American Chap.
Might prove interesting if you can deal with his vast amount of ignorance and bloviating.
Comment at will...
(heh) ....or, you could take a look at this:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/
content...uns_too_ac.html
Look for Jack Burton. Notice anything odd? Cut and paste. Cut and paste. Cut and paste.
Jack, fess up, ok? You're a "bot" being run by, who....the NRA? Some other big bucks gun lobby? I'm just a regular working stiff, like most of the folks here. None of us have the time to spend on talking about this stuff that you do, and I was kinda curious as to where you were getting the time for...bloviating. I guess we know now, huh?
Comment at will.
By the way Rick, did you still need me to reveal what lily-white town you're from? I wouldn't want all those other "Jacks" to be bothered by the spam that could come after them!
TBogg - "...a somewhat popular blogger"
Come for the Bassets; stay for the Cranks...
That is among the most moronic post I've ever had the displeasure to read. Thank you. Friggin retard
Look for Jack Burton. Notice anything odd? Cut and paste. Cut and paste. Cut and paste.
And your point is....? If someone posts in another blog that 2 plus 2 is 5, and I correct them and explain to the world that 2 plus 2 is really 4, then that is also true if I do it in five blogs, or correct a dozen morons across the 'net.
Do you have problems with older computer technology such as cut and paste? Do italics and bold scare you too? Tell us how you feel about underlining?
Did your kids give you an Etch-a-Sketch for your birthday and tell you it was a laptop computer and you believed them?
All this means is that you finally figured out how to use Google. If you ask politely I can direct you to several other blogs where I have engaged in conversation about guns that you might have missed.
Jack, fess up, ok? You're a "bot" being run by, who....the NRA? Some other big bucks gun lobby?
Somehow it always gets around to this.
A complete lack of imagination. Someone please, come up with a better insult. The quality on this board sucks.
For the record. No. No one pays me or tells me how/when/where/why to defend my freedoms. I find that my freedoms are important enough that I can do so on my own quite well.
I'm just a regular working stiff, like most of the folks here. None of us have the time to spend on talking about this stuff that you do, and I was kinda curious as to where you were getting the time
Stiff is pretty correct. I notice that you have quite a bit of time to spend here. Matter of fact, I believe you said it's your home turf. Post much?
And while you're a working stiff I happen to own the company. Gives me a bit of freedom over working stiffs. I make my living off from your backbreaking labor. Life is tough like that sometimes.
for...bloviating. I guess we know now, huh?
Hey, Mr. Dubious... what praire dog town did I say I live in? I still haven't heard back from you on that one.
By the way Rick, did you still need me to reveal what lily-white town you're from? I wouldn't want all those other "Jacks" to be bothered by the spam that could come after them!
Go ahead. You have your entire pick of the Midwest since you think that minorities only live on both coasts apparently. Use the dartboard and see what you come up with.
But I notice that you quit defending yourself. I notice that you're into personal attacks since you found that you had absolutly no case that stood up to critical examination. I notice that you want to switch the focus to me intead of trying to shore up your riduculous assertations.
And the readership notices also. What are they thinking about you right now?
That you're a greasy cyber-stalker threatening other posters 'cause you can't win in the battle of ideas?
I'd say that's about right.
I only hope that 'Jack Burton' doesn't aim like he posts. Scattergun ain't the word.
How many of you, who do not carry, have a piece of paper that you have on you every day that you can show to someone and say, "See? I'm not a felon, and I'm mentally sound."
I'm sure it's a great help in case you forget. Though I wouldn't boast about needing to remind yourself.
I'm the guy who made the above-linked site, http://www.useofforce.us/ .
To clarify one point: "feeling threatened" is not the Jeopardy standard. The standard -- generally anyway -- is whether a REASONABLE PERSON would reasonably believe himself to be in imminent danger.
So honestly, nobody cares what you in particular may have thought, unless it's a reasonable, articulable, justifiable position that twelve jury members can sympathize with. That's how paranoia does not make a self-defense case.
No position in this debate. Not even reading it. Just clarifying. And you should probably read the entire site for a full picture; that page is just one of the pieces.
Commenting by HaloScan
