Gun Ownership - are you really safe?

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 06:44 PM

I partly agree with you, Ebbie. I think guns can give people a false sense of security. However, there's bear country and there's bear country. I've never worried about being armed in black bear country. However, grizzly and polar bear will hunt people, and although I have no particular fear of them, I do recognize that they are fast, strong and in a bad mood can be very antagonistic. Hence, I'd prefer to have something that makes a loud noise and can spit out a projectile at 2000' per second. I have been in bear country numerous times and I have never once shot a bear or even unshouldered the rifle.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 08:15 PM

Well, first of all we (US citizens) have been brought up on a steady diet of violence and fear... That's not good if we are now to have a ****reasonable discussion**** about guns but...

...depending on which study one believes there is between 22 and 43 times a greater chance of someone being killed in homes with guns...Heck, I wouldn't care it were 2 times greater... Bottom line, this one fact alone is just cause for a civil discussion...

Oh, silly me, I forgot for one moment that we don't live in a civil society....

What I think all people want is to feel safe and folks have all too often been led by NRA propaganda to think they are safer with a gun... The facts don't show that but, hey, the NRA can sho nuff whip up some fear and scare when reasonable peole say, "Hey, can we atlk about this???"

Yeah, the voice or reson has been shouted down by people who profit from violence and murder... That is the bottom line here... If we want to talk safety then we have to turn the NRA completely off... Their agenda is based on money... Not safety...

Bobert

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: kendall
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 08:36 PM

I went on a tour today with a group of antique car fans, and although I resisted, they insisted on going to McDonald's. While I was standing in line, the thought crossed my mind that if a crazy came in to spray the place, how would he know that there might be an undercover cop there? Would he care?

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 08:47 PM

Yer in more danger of eating a Big Mac than a crazed gunman shottin' ya', Capt'n... Them things is downright dangeruos to yer health...

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 09:11 PM

Ditto on the LOL...

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: kendall
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 09:34 PM

All I had was coffee. There is no way I would eat anything at McDonalds.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 09:39 PM

a new study in Australia has found that tough gun controls introduced after the Port Arthur massacre have probably saved about 2500 lives, and that removing 600,000 guns from circulation has sharply reduced suicide and murder rates.

Using deaths data since 1915, the authors estimated gun control had led to about 35 fewer murders and 247 fewer suicides annually since 1997. They calculate slightly smaller numbers when their statistical model is restricted to data after 1969. Their report found no evidence that gun control may have simply caused a substitution from shooting to other killing methods.

The authors slam an earlier report in the British Journal of Criminology that claimed the firearms agreement had no effect on death rates. That study, by Jeanine Baker from the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia and Samara McPhedran from the Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting, exploited less than a third of the available annual data and used "very dubious" statistical methodology, they say.

The Federal Government's 1997 National Firearms Agreement allowed the buyback of semi-automatic rifles, pump-action shotguns and other firearms. The agreement, which introduced some of the world's toughest gun laws, was negotiated by the Prime Minister, John Howard, 35 people were shot at Port Arthur in 1996.

The most recent reliable figures, for 2002-03, show there were 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 Australians - about one-fifteenth of the US rate. "The risk of dying by gunshot halved over the past 10 years," said Philip Alpers, adjunct associate professor at the University of Sydney's School of Public Health.

Earlier this month, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported the rate of gun theft had dropped by 70 per cent since stricter gun laws were introduced.

freda

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 09:45 PM

oh come on clones...that was a joke kendall would have enjoyed. what a bunch of church ladies! geez

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 10:10 PM

Interesting, freda....that's the sort of statistics I would expect *IF* a significant % of guns were removed from circulation.
I'll bet guys with tempers still find other ways of displaying their testosterone levels, though....and in a country with lots of back country like Australia, I assume there are perfectly legal ways to own a firearm for certain purposes.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: GUEST,Yes we are
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 10:15 PM

The difference between the U.S. and the U.K. on the issue of guns, it seems to me, is that our U.S. constitution says the right to bear arms is "God-given." It was a right of Americans before I was here and shall be after I'm gone, according to our constitution. We couldn't give up the right if we wanted to, because how do you give up a "God-given right?"

I believe in the U.K. you are "granted" the "privilege" by the "crown" to own guns on occasion. The founding fathers in the U.S. saw first-hand what kind of tyranny that way of thinking could lead to, so they guranteed certain things as "rights," not "privileges."

And yes, we are safer because of guns. Guns are obtainable by criminals in any country in the world, but in the U.S. they're obtainable by law-abiding people too. The high crime rates in the U.S. are generally in areas that have stringent disarmament laws (Chicago, New York City, Washington D.C.). Fortunately some places, like D.C., are starting to come around. People there will now be able to legally protect themselves with firearms, and the crime rate will go down.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: TIA
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 11:06 PM

Where do the criminals get their guns? Is there a black market manufacturing industry? Or are they sold to law-abiding NRA-belonging citizens, and get stolen? If they do, who is liable? I am truly curious. I hear that if guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns. Where will they get them? Where did the Columbine kids get their guns?

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 11:11 PM

Guest/Yes, we are: "God-given"? Where do you get that notion?

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: GUEST,UK North Easterner
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 03:24 AM

nutty - Of the two main atrocities regarding guns in my lifetime one man had been trained by the army(Hungerford) and the other was a member of a gun club(Dunblane).

The main difference in this country is that we have no gun shops in our shopping centres or towns, so we very few opportunities to obtain a gun legitimately or otherwise.

I have always admired your attention to details but am afraid that you are out of your field with this one.
Ryan (Hungerford) was never trained by the Army but fantasised he was.
Hamilton (Dunblane) was not a gun club member. He applied and was turned down. When applying for a gun licence he told the police he was a member and they did not carry out a (mandatory) check.

Knowing where you live, I can tell you that there are gun shops in Saltburn, Middlesbrough, Whitby, Stockton and Northallerton. Just because you dont shop there doesn't mean they dont exist.
And no, you could not buy an automatic from any of these shops!

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: nutty
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 09:26 AM

UK North Easterner ..... thank you for your corrections with regard to Ryan and Hamilton, I have to admit tat I did not fully check out the facts.

With regard to he rest , however, you are failing to see the distinction between 'gun shops' and 'shops that sell guns'.

Here in the UK we have 'shops that sell guns' in the States they have what can only be described as 'gun shops', 'gun supermarkets', 'gun emporia' as shown here CLICK   and here CLICK

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:04 AM

"our U.S. constitution says the right to bear arms is "God-given."
A couple of questions:
1.Is anyone here who agrees with that statement willing to say that the constitution was inspired, word for word, by God, in exactly the same way that strict fundamentalists say the Bible was?
2. Does any here agree with that statement, but also believe that the fundamentalist doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible is untenable?

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:06 AM

Sorry, thought I had stopped the italics after the quotation.

[fixed by your local clone]

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Peace
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:34 AM

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [That is the Second Amendment.]

I hate like hell to introduce fact to an argument, but . . . .



Some excellent commentary here.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: GUEST,UK North Easterner
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 12:19 PM

Sorry 'Nutty' - but I do fail to see the distinction between 'gun shops' and 'shops that sell guns'.

If a shop advertises as a gun shop, specialises in guns and shooting clothing and accessories then yes, I call it a gun shop.

Weird huh? .........

They may not be as large as their American couterparts but you stated we have no gun shops in our towns and that is a misleading statement.

As I stated earlier, I am suprised because I know what a stickler for facts you are normally.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 01:41 PM

Bobert,

"Yet you go on saying that I think the freedom of speech is something that the Founding fathers would have prohibited because I don't ***agree with you*** about the 2nd ammendment..."

Care to tell me were *** I *** SAID THAT YOU SAID ANY SUCH THING?

*** I *** said
____________________________________________________________________
And how could they have envisioned the Internet? At the time of the Bill of Rights, it was SPEECH and PRESS- No mention at all of electronic expression. So, by your arguement, there is NO right to freedom of speech except by unamplified voice in the presence of those listening. And no right to freedom of the printed word unless it is produced by a hand-powered press.
_____________________________________________________________________


YOUR arguement that since the times have changed, the right in the Bill of Rights should as well, in order to make YOU feel safer. can be used against the OTHER rights therein. Sorry if you have a comprehesion problem.


Oh, that's right- YOU canbe as dishonest as you want- the rules can't possibly apply to you that you want others to follow.

"This behavior obn your part is not only irritating but dishonest... I have tried to point this out to you in the past but it seems you are not capable of turning away from debating practices that would have any high school debating coach jumpind down your throat over...

Please discontinue this dishonest and amatuerish dabating tactic... We've all seen it and it makes you look very unintellegent, shich you aren't...:

If you can't debate an issue without making up what you wish your opponent had actually said then don't debate... It makes you7 look stupid... No dierespect intended... Just good advice..."

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 01:54 PM

"If you can't debate an issue without making up what you wish your opponent had actually said then don't debate"

(sigh)

Almost everyone here does that...in the heat of their argument...and they probably...they almost surely don't realize they're doing it even while they're doing it. That's how people are when they argue. Myself included (sometimes).

It's sad. It's fucking sad. I wish on days like this that I had never heard of the Mudcat Cafe. I am sick to death of people arguing eternally on this forum and treating each other like shit in the process.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 02:00 PM

Two things.

First off, Bobert, if I need lecturing, and comments like "disgustingly shameful arguments", I will ask my Mother to do it. Your patronizing, horseshit tone is offensive. I am not sure why you don't answer the points I have made, maybe it is an inability to do so. But you continue to make comments like that without answering the points made.

This is my last post on this matter. I want you to read for comprehension.

I am not a Second Amendment freak. I think using that argument is silly and simply marginalizes one from the discussion.

I don't believe the problem in high crime urban areas is related to the legal availability of guns as much as it is related to the conditions and lack of opportunity for the young people. Poverty breeds crime (as ever has been so) and with crime comes violence. When automatic weapons were banned, it did not do anything to slow their use by criminals. It simply created a black market.

In their zeal to impose their values on me, anti gun folks refuse to make the distinction between high crime areas, and suburban and rural areas where the crime rate is lower. They refuse to make the distinction between gun deaths from illegally purchased firearms for criminal purposes, and legally purchased weapons used for legitimate reasons by law abiding citizens. They don't want to do this, IMO, because law abiding gun owners account for such a miniscule amount of the gun deaths (as opposed to criminals using illegally obtained guns)that it is hardly worth mentioning. You don't have to like hunting and shooting sports, and if that is the case then that is an honest disagreement. But facts don't fit in the emotion driven arguments that drive the anti gun folks. Only by demonizing the gun and its owner can you use demagogic arguments to make your case. By the way, I found it interesting that you all got pissed when I pointed out that I could answer your "stories" with other stories that showed weapons used for personal safety. But when someone above pointed out a story or two, you immediately jump on him/her for using them. Seems a bit hypocritical on your part. But these stories are not the point anyway. It is hard data, and that doesn't support your positions.

Murders, such as Cho, usually spend months planning (as is now coming out), with much hatred and premeditated planning. If legal guns aren't available, then illegal ones would be obtained, or another method would be found, as in the case of McVeigh.

To the smart ass (read that old European troll) who derides using guns as a method of teaching responsibility, you are a fool and show your intent, which is more of attacking me than making a comment on the issue. Many of our countries greatest leaders received weapons training focusing on safety and good practices. In my own family, it was a rite of passage to finally be able to carry a gun when hunting, or shooting for target practice. This only came after a certain age, and after a Safety course had been passed. Then came the "probationary" time when you were allowed to carry under the close supervision of parents, Aunts, and Uncles. Finally you were allowed to hunt/target shoot unsupervised. As I say, this was a rite of passage. It was a time of great memories and time spent with family.

As to self defense, this too is a legitimate use, but rarely used. I can carry a gun legally in a number of States (due to reciprocity laws), but can count the number of times I have done so on one hand. I spend huge amounts of time at the range, have trained for surgical shooting, but in a home invasion, I would rarely use the handgun, or any gun for that matter. There are better ways to protect ones self. Staying put, and calling 911 is the answer.

But most importantly, I think it is foolish to debate the premise that all guns should go, or even limiting legal owners. I know it is hard for people from other countries to understand, but guns are a very large part of our country's culture. They have been from the beginning. It simply is not possible to collect them all. Most law abiding gun owners would simply not give them up, thereby becoming criminals simply because a right (notice, slow readers, that I didn't say Constitutional right) was being taken for no reason other than others don't want them to have weapons. These folks broke no laws, are responsible in their ownership, have never pulled them in anger, use them responsibly as part of their lifestyle, and yet others want to take them.

The statistics show that in areas where guns are completely illegal to own, violent crime goes up. No one yet has addressed my most basic question, that being; how is taking the weapons, or even registering the weapons, of law abiding citizens who have never committed a crime, going to address the problems you see? In fact, what is the problem you see? When you answer this one, please don't do the old "C'mon, Mick, you can't be serious" routine. I am tired of the debate tactic that seems to focus on belittling ones belief's because you don't have an answer. Even my friend Bill D., when presented with numbers he didn't like, didn't bother to respond to them. He simply questioned the validity of them. This was done in spite of the fact that I pointed out that these numbers were arrived at by researchers looking to eliminate guns.

There are three things that I believe constitute reasonable gun regulations. 1) If a person is going to earn the right to carry a concealed weapon, then they must take and pass comprehensive training on the order of what police must take. This training should be administered rigidly by professionals. These professionals should be able to hold up issuance of the permit if they observe any behaviour that might indicate mental instability. 2) There are already plenty of laws on the books. I believe they ought to be enforced rigidly, and I believe the penalties for crimes involving firearms (most especially those laws dealing with securing one's firearms so that kids can't get at them) ought to very severe. I don't believe they should be able to be bargained down. Violate them and you are going away for a long time. 3) Investment must be made in a national system which allows for instant checks for mental health/criminal background issues that might disqualify one from purchasing firearms. We can check every detail of ones life now, why can't we have a system which would have disqualified Cho from purchasing the handguns. Usually the anti gun folks give this one lip service but don't push for it as they really just want to eliminate guns ..... period.

As to the issue of defending oneself against tyranny, I do think that you all too easily dismiss the potential consequences. One that fails to learn from history is doomed to repeat it. In every great dictatorship (including some very recent examples), the first order of business is to disarm the populace. I don't feel like this type of thing is imminent for us, but can you think of a leader in this country that seems to think that he has a direct line to God and is right when all around him (including his own party) tell him he is wrong? Do you think this guy, who has suspended Habeus Corpus and can, at will, declare folks enemy combatants, would like to disarm the populace so he could act with impunity? Hell, he already does it. Again, I don't necessarily think this imminent, but I think it is a mistake to just dismiss those that are worried about this as loonies. Recent world history seems to lend some credence to these views.

So hack away now, I am headed back to the music threads where we are all still friends. But do yourself a favor and try to use some original thinking and analysis. It makes for a much better debate than this "Oh yeah?????" stuff.

Mick

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 02:18 PM

It simply isn't worth it. (the arguing, I mean)

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 02:47 PM

Here's some interesting reading, fwiw:

Prevalence of Household Firearms and Firearm-Storage Practices in the 50 States and the District of Columbia: Findings From the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2002

Some good links at the bottom of this page.

Also, from HERE comes these facts, from 2001:

Deaths by guns (U.S.Centers for Disease Control & Prevention)

suicides 16,869
homicides 11,348
unintentional 802
other 554


More of interest, to me, at least, on this page.

Submitted without comment, fwiw,

kat

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Slag
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 04:07 PM

Good point LH. Debate ideas and logic, not persons (minus your "colorful" language [though I do share the feeling]). I've posted it before and will do so again, here. Google "INFORMAL FALLACIES". This will give you some basics of logical discourse. It's interesting and fun and if you heed the rules you too will sound intelligent! When one knows the laws of logic you can debunk TV commercials (they are the worst), news casts and talking heads, professors in the classroom (could be some trouble here) and, of course, specious arguments found on the internet. I believe this is what Big Mick is trying to get across.

Everybody has an opinion. Sometimes two or three at the same time. But NOT everybody has a CONSIDERED opinion, that is an opinion based in fact and presented logically. Pardon me if I get a little pedantic but I do feel school IS in order for some. Words are the building blocks of thought and reason. Grammar and syntax and the like are how we construct our thoughts to convey meaning and not just meanness. This, and a mutual respect for your audience, is the basis for civil discourse, i.e. "dialog" and not a monologue.

Concerning the point about God given rights: It is the Declaration of Independence which states that we are endowed by our Creator with certain INALIENABLE rights (emphasis mine). Jefferson enumerates that among these God-given rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Inalienable means that no one, NO ONE can take these rights from you. The Declaration says that these rights are ours to secure. The idea here is that if someone, anyone is trying to deprive you of these rights you should resist by any and all means. By extrapolation certain corollaries are derived such as the right to protect your life and the right to the necessary means to protect your life, i.e. the right to keep and bare arms. Jefferson and the signers recognized these truths to be self evident, as do I and most freedom loving Americans. If you can't see this, then God help you. You belong to the biggest bully on the block.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 04:22 PM

well, I am slowly reading the links FROM the link Peace provided. Both sides are well represented there.


(I do hope that Mick had noticed that *I* did try to differentiate between urban areas and other situations.)

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 09:26 PM

Well, well, well...

Here we go again... I, as well as Bill, have tried to open up some kind of discussion about whether or not we are collectively safer with the proliferation of *****primarially handguns*** and we get attacked by folks who thing we are saying, "We want to take all your guns away"???

Like for the 15,000th time, can you gunnies get a friggin' reading comprehension course under you belt that allows you to not hear "We want to take you guns" every danged time anyone says "Can we talk???"

Talk about a load of "horsesh*t", Mick, for an otherwise reeasonable person you have shown your ignorant self here in this thread... No offense intended but, geeze Louise, no one here has threatened to take ***your*** guns away yet you have gotten all self righteuos and like beardedbruce invented stuff that you think other people have said... This is "horsesh*t" of the highest nitogen content... I mean, like steamy stuff...

I mean, let all of us get real here... We in the US have a major problem with violence and murder and maiming and all that bad stuff that the rest of the world is warned about before they come here as tourists but rather than look at statistics and other models we just plung ahead in our best John Wayne mentality and continue the same behavior expecting different results...

(But, Bobert, that is because we have so many poor people...)

Well, okay, that may be part of the problem but I ain't seen the knee-jerk gunnies over at the "Poverty in the US" thread with any thoughts about how to deal with that problem... And nor do I believe that the situation is that simplistic..

Gun violence permiates our society... It's not just poor people thou it's always easy to blame them for everything that is wrong with our social structure...

Bottom line is that something is very wrong with our society and when we look at other societies who have imposed regulations on gun ownership we find less murders and that ain't the opinion of mad man ranting into the night but reality....

You can hear "We wnat to take your gun" or you can hear "Lets talk about something that makes us both happy" but, no matter how longf you gunnies want to put this coversation off, its time ***will*** come...

bearded bruce,

Okay, even if I let you slide on yer bad habit of trying to change an argument to words that you opponent didn't say, then lets look at your argument, unfair as it is...

The 1st Ammendment is the crux of Thomas Jefferson's vision of democracy in that he said that the survivabilty of out denmocracy was based on an "informed electorate" and therefore he would, IMO, look as the internet as something that represented what he and the Founding Fathers would think as goodIMO, would view it as a means of spreading the information that an "informed electorate" would need to have....

Now back to my oroginal argument that has nothing to do with the other 9 Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights... When Thomas Jefferson and his felloe Framers wrote the Bill of Rights it is my opinion that they nevr thought that folks would either be able to break down the ***sentance*** as to not tie the right to bear arms to a standing militia... Not, IMO, could they have fast-forwrded to a time when they thought they were perserving a nation's right to maintain an armed militia would mean having millions and millions of folks packin' 9mms.... I think this is a major stretch of historical interpretation... I mean, lets get real here... Handguns were for an occasional duel in those times...

Bottom, line, like I've said, there will come a time when our nation will have to have this discussion... Like the knee-jerk hawks who think that the Iraq inavsion and occupation is okay, the knee-jerk gunnies will also have to eventually be brought to the negotiating table...

But, until then, feel free to blame me for your inabilites to comprhend what folks are trying to tell you... I'm getting purdy uesd to it here in Mudville...

Bobert

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 09:58 PM

*standing off to the side, watching in awe*


(and still reading and wondering if there's any more I can say.)

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 10:13 PM

"Concerning the point about God given rights: It is the Declaration of Independence which states that we are endowed by our Creator with certain INALIENABLE rights (emphasis mine). Jefferson enumerates that among these God-given rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Inalienable means that no one, NO ONE can take these rights from you. The Declaration says that these rights are ours to secure. The idea here is that if someone, anyone is trying to deprive you of these rights you should resist by any and all means. By extrapolation certain corollaries are derived such as the right to protect your life and the right to the necessary means to protect your life, i.e. the right to keep and bare arms. Jefferson and the signers recognized these truths to be self evident, as do I and most freedom loving Americans. If you can't see this, then God help you. You belong to the biggest bully on the block. " slag

Good God. What a stretch.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:03 PM

Ebbie--

Hey, let's not attack Slag.

Slag--

I want you to know I fully support your right to wear T-shirts any time and any place you want--January, Mt. Everest etc. -- (right "to bare arms")


By the way, I also support your right to arm bears, if that should be your desire.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:13 PM

Mick--

I'm certainly not--nor are most posters here, as far as I can see, planning to have the government come and take your rifles--or anybody else's. Handguns are a different matter--but even there I suspect it would not be worthwhile to try to do that.

But we could prohibit further sale of handguns--that would be a start.

And as far as your scenario of Bush's behavior, if he were totally bonkers enough to try a coup--likely only in the fevered imagination of the Left--his civilian opponents having their own weapons would not stop him.

What would in all probability do so is a likely mass mutiny on the part of the military--many of whom, like thinking beings everywhere, have had enough of Chickenhawk #1.

The military is not likely to support the continued reign of a person who has been no more than a tragic joke as a leader.

This is of course not surprising--consider the people on Mudcat who support him-- themselves no more than sad jokes--which they prove anew with every posting.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Slag
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:24 PM

Ebbie, the Declaration was exactly what I stated. It was our justification for going to war with King George's England. The battle of Lexington was fought because the King's men were marching to confiscate What? Marshmallows? No. the guns and the rest of the arsenal which belonged to the PEOPLE at Lexington. What else could it possibly be? What else could it possibly mean, if not that?

(Oh, I'm going to pay for putting that in question form but oh well, have at it.)

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:35 PM

Frankly, I think bare arms are kind of ugly. Unless, of course, you have the arms for it.