 sj |
||
|
||
Hesitatingly, GUNS again
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac Date: 01 Jun 99 - 10:43 AM Just a comment on the military use of .50 rifles. The Army used to have a recoiless rifle. The way you aimed this thing, was with the .50 cal. The idea in this era before lazer sights, was to shoot at the bad guys tank, with this .50 cal, untill the bullets bounced off the tank. Then you pulled the trigger on the recoiless rifle. The .50 cal was supposed to have the same flight chartistics as the the recoiless round. Myself, I think this system really sucked. It's like hitting a bee's nest to wake them up, before you spray them with bug spray. (Shiver) Would I want one of these things. No way. Not even the jeep that it was mounted on. The M151 Jeep will kill you in a hearbeat. (The front wheel will fold under the Jeep, Then the Jeep will flip and ride on you for a while. Very dangerous when on the road. I hope they cut every one in half and melt them down. Oh, keep one or two for a musium with a sign, "Thou shal not build any thing like this again!" Bseed, if I see you at the Lighthouse, I'll give you a red pen. :) Fadac |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Don Meixner Date: 31 May 99 - 06:26 PM BSeed, Basically you are correct on your meassurements. .45 is less than 1/2 inch and .50 is nearly an exact 1/2" diameter. That .50 Cal rifle I mentioned is quite a piece. It could be fired off handed with out serious injury but that is more because of the weight of the rifle and its semi- recoiless design. The basic design is BAR with three times the weight. As a home defense weapon, you're better off with some ball bats and a few hormonal teenagers of both sex at final test time. I have a hand loaded 45-70 Springfield Trap door that I shoot at paint cans with. Its so slow you can fire the rifle put it down and pick up your coffee before it hits. Don |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: katlaughing Date: 31 May 99 - 11:17 AM RiB: Been there and done that and you are right, it made me very angry. I still get angry and sad everytime I go to Colorado and see what they are doing to the place I grew up in. Thanks, kat |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Roger in Baltimore Date: 31 May 99 - 10:20 AM Katlaughing, It is illegal to post signs within a certain number of feet of the highway. If you lived in a county that has grown in the last 40 years from rural country-side to ever increasing suburbia you might also be angry at the loss of your way of life, especially when you see developers run roughshod over everyone like they are above the law. Big RiB |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: katlaughing Date: 31 May 99 - 09:57 AM Big RiB, Yea, the ranchers out here have been crying the same story about prairie dogs for years. Funny, my greatgranddad, granddad, and dad homsteaded a ranch and never had to kill any pests or predators. A coyote was friends with their pet dog and never did bother the herds. Anyway, my point was not about the ground hog as much as it was about his obvious cruelty towards animals and reading about it here, on the Mudcat. (I personally would not want to be here much, if we see more relating of such stories.) If one has to destroy them for whatever excuse, there are MUCH MORE HUMANE METHODS.And, perhaps the ground hogs think humans are devastiing and create hazards! I am sure they were there first.:-) I sincerely doubt that I would enjoy visiting with him, as it would be difficult for us to find common ground; he's into killing animals for food or sport; terrorising people who are trying to make a living (I am assuming all of this from what you wrote); and, he sounds so politically active that it would be hard for his views not to come up in a conversation, as it is with me a lot of the time. BTW, why are the real estate signs illegal? and, why does he hate them so much? kat |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Roger in Baltimore Date: 31 May 99 - 06:24 AM I told the ground hog tale to give you a picture of my brother-in-law as a no-nonsense, action oriented person. You must remember Kat, that he works on a farm that covers hundreds of acres for his livelihood. Ground hogs are devastating to crops and create hazards (their burrows) for people and equipment. In his eyes, my brother-in-law was defending his family. My intent was also partly shock value. You would probably enjoy my brother-in-law if you never discussed politics. He also goes out several weekends a month and pulls up all of the "open house" and other Real Estate signs that spring up like weeds along our State roads on the weekends. They are illegal and he is just enforcing the law. Real Estate developers have tried to take him to court, but as soon as his lawyer explains the laws to their lawyers, they drop their suits. His cars and outbuildings were vandalized once, most likely by some developer. He is a man of principle even if they are not your principles. You can be assured that all of his elected representatives, including Bill Clinton, are aware of his views. He has more courage than I. Yes, Bseed, all three groups came to the attention of authorities because of their religious or political views. Awfully scary that the government would enforce these laws particularly against those who think differently than the government. That is what we call arbitrary enforcement. It is also a damper on free speech. Big RiB |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: bseed(charleskratz) Date: 31 May 99 - 03:55 AM Roger, I know that those incidents are interpreted as confiscatory raids, but the point I was trying to make is that the officials who made the decisions did so not because of the weapons alone but because the weapon owners had drawn the attention of authorities (ATF, FBI, police) because their political or religious activities, combined with their arsenals, was interpreted as being threatening to the community. I believe all three agencies were guilty of murder in the assaults--but I don't think that the events mean that the black helicopters are coming after gun owners in general, particularly those whose guns are registered. And Don, thanks for the description of the .50 caliber rifle (is it the same ammo as used by .50 caliber machine guns? --as I recall, .50 caliber machine gun rounds look like .30 caliber (.30-'06) rounds on steroids: the shell has a powder chamber about twice the diameter of the slug. And if someone were to use such a weapon in home defense, the bullet could blast its way through a couple of dozen wood frame houses and the people in them, and the recoil could break the arms of the user who fired it from waist level.) caliber is a measure of the barrel--and bullet--diameter, right? And is a percentage of an inch? I'm just making an informed guess, here. A .45 caliber bullet is just under half an inch in diameter, a .50 would be a half inch. The guess is informed because I've handled all the shells except the .50--which I have seen close-up, qualified on M-1, scored Sharpshooter the first and only time I fired the .45 for qualification; fired a .30 caliber machine gun in a combat simulation--all this was when I was in the California National Guard from 1949 to 1952. But as I've said, my idea of home protection is a couple of very territorial Labradors. I don't want a gun in the house, I don't want to hunt, but I could enjoy target shooting (I enjoyed it with my son--as did my brother-in-law from Japan, where they are tightly controlled). --seed |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: katlaughing Date: 31 May 99 - 01:32 AM About MOVE, a firebombing of African Americans: More Than Decade After Deadly Firebombing, MOVE Puts City on the Stand By AMY WESTFELDT Associated Press Writer April 1, 1996 PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Before May 13, 1985, before the police bombed her house, before 11 members of her radical group MOVE were killed, Ramona Africa used a loudspeaker and profanities to get people to listen. She doesn't need to do that anymore. ''After an event like May 13, people are listening,'' she says. At a federal civil trial beginning Tuesday, MOVE survivors hope a jury listens as they put city officials on the stand to explain the decision to firebomb the group's headquarters and let it burn. The blaze destroyed 61 homes and killed six adults and five children. ''I want to keep the issue alive, to put these officials on the spot and hold them accountable,'' Africa says. ''This isn't about MOVE. It's about all of us. Who is safe?'' MOVE, a mostly black back-to-nature group that preached against technology, began its clashes with police and neighbors in the 1970s. Police raided a MOVE home in 1978 and were met by gunfire that killed an officer. Nine MOVE members were imprisoned for third-degree murder and conspiracy. MOVE dedicated the next several years to demanding an investigation to free its ''family,'' blaring anti-establishment philosophies on loudspeakers and fortifying its home with a rooftop gunport. Neighbors complained of unsanitary conditions created by the house, of alleged assaults by group members and about MOVE followers cursing over a public address system in the middle of the night. Police surrounded the home on May 13, 1985, and demanded the surrender of four MOVE members, on charges including harassment, rioting and possessing explosives. A 90-minute gun battle followed. Police dropped the explosive bomb on the house after pumping thousands of gallons of water and tear gas into the building without success. Ramona Africa and a 13-year-old boy then known as Birdie Africa were the only MOVE members to emerge alive. ''I think that any fair-minded person would have to know that there was no justification for what happened,'' Africa said. ''This wasn't about an arrest. It was about exterminating us.'' Africa is seeking unspecified damages from the city, from from former Police Commissioner Gregore Sambor, who ordered the bomb dropped, and from former Fire Commissioner William Richmond, who chose not to immediately fight the fire. Although Africa originally named former Mayor W. Wilson Goode in the lawsuit, the courts have ruled that he cannot be a defendant because he had immunity for his official acts. Goode, however, is expected to testify and, if U.S. District Judge Louis Pollak agrees, Africa could cross-examine the ex-mayor. Over the years, Goode has publicly apologized for his decision to approve the bombing - a decision that effectively ended his political career. But officials also have maintained that the city was forced to resort to the bomb to serve arrest warrants on MOVE members after a daylong standoff and exchange of gunfire. ''The city went out to serve arrest warrants,'' said an attorney for the city Judith Harris. ''Most people who get arrest warrants usually respond to them. They walk out the door and say, 'Here I am.''' No official ever was charged in the MOVE bombing, despite federal and grand jury investigations. Africa went to prison for seven years after being convicted of riot and conspiracy charges. Richmond, through his attorney, declined comment. Sambor, who resigned months after the MOVE bombing and has lived in retirement in Philadelphia ever since, has not commented publicly on the events for a decade. His attorney, John Morris, said the plaintiffs didn't deserve damages. Africa's attorney, Andre Dennis, disagrees. He said a verdict against city officials over MOVE would ''avoid a precedent that other cities and public officials could look to the city and say, 'A jury said it was OK in Philadelphia so we can do it somewhere else.''' William Brown III, a lawyer in private practice who headed the MOVE commission in 1985 and recommended that a grand jury investigate, said no amount of time - and no civil verdict - can undo the damage. ''It certainly opens up old wounds again,'' he said. ''It's a blot on the city's fabric that probably will never go away.''
|
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: DonMeixner Date: 31 May 99 - 01:05 AM Hi BSeed, As promised earlier I have not rejoined this debate but I will offer some information. There is a single shot .50 cal shoulder fired rifle currently employed by the military special ops people. Basically its a 30.06 round scaled up in all dimensions to meet the .50 cal. requirements. The flight dynamics of the bullet are such that it is excellent for extreme long range targeting. The velocity and stopping power of that round is such that a single bullet can penetrate the length of two cars, including engine blocks and still have effective target neutralization potential. Basically with this round you would be dead foe several seconds before your neighbor heard the sound of the round beong fired. Now imagine if such incredible efficiency of design and purpose had been spent on educating a kid or training doctors? Don |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: katlaughing Date: 31 May 99 - 12:46 AM Dear RiB, I am not sure if you told us about your brother-in-law to shock us about the extremism or what, but I for one did NOT need to read about his horrible act of cruelty towards an animal. My mind has been troubled by this for most of the day. I wasn't going to say anything, but finally decided to because it brought up such a sickening image in my active imagination, something I think a lot of us have here at the Mudcat. I think your points about guns etc. with him would have been well served without that vivid portrait of senseless cruelty. Thank you, kat |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Roger in Baltimore Date: 30 May 99 - 07:58 AM Bseed, I don't know what you read, but the consensus in the gun community is that Waco and Ruby Ridge were about gun confiscation and the governments concern about what those people might do with their guns. Waco started out as an ATF publicity stunt, that's why all those cameras were there for the initial assault. Ruby Ridge was about Randy Weaver not wanting to testify about a militia he had never joined and about having a shotgun that was too short to meet government rules. I am less informed about the MOVE bombing in Philadelphia. After these events, the government concocts more motivation to justify their assaults. Big RiB |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: bseed(charleskratz) Date: 29 May 99 - 11:14 PM But most advocates of gun control (including me) don't think they should be confiscated, but that the sales should be strictly controlled, with background checks on buyers to weed out the criminal and the psychotic, with limits on the kinds of guns and ammo and accessories that can be sold: no large clip semi-autos, no full autos, no teflon coated bullets, no kits for conversion of legal weapons to illegal weapons, acceptance of legal responsibility by gun owners for what happens to/with their weapons. Every gun in the country should be registered, and those paranoid about confiscation will certainly have plenty of time to head for the hills with their stashes of firearms and flamethrowers before the government comes out to get them. I know there's an occasional Ruby Ridge or Waco or Philadelphia/MOVE incident, but it wasn't the mere possession of guns that motivated the government(s) to move in these cases. --seed |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Roger in Baltimore Date: 29 May 99 - 10:43 PM Just came back from visiting my brother-in-law. He is a retired Army Sergeant Major. He grew up here in Carroll County, just a few hills over from where I was raised. He has hunted and fished all of his life. He works on a large farm now in his retirement from the Army. He's a fairly macho guy and very action oriented. He was relating how he recently killed a ground hog by stomping it to death. He spied it and knew he could beat it to the hole in the ground where the ground hog lived. Those for gun control are labelled "gun-grabbers" in his book. He believes that the government wants registration so it "will know where all the guns are." Registration is just a primliminary step towards gun confiscation. Realize, now, that several times people in these gun threads have said they wish there were no guns. Confiscation is the only way that will ever occur. So perhaps this is not a paranoid belief. My brother-in-law doesn't suspect this will happen in his lifetime, but perhaps in his children's life time. He thinks government is in a state of ruin on the national level, so he does not trust his government. I just wanted those who wondered to know some of how the anti-gun-control people think. I don't think it is irrational, just a different interpretation of what the facts mean. Big RiB |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: bseed(charleskratz) Date: 29 May 99 - 08:13 PM Actually, I would suppose that everyone with a good supply of guns--if the Nazis came--would be in the hills in their well-ordered militias long before the Huns got ahold of the registration lists. Register them, and take the same risks that automobile owners take: if your car gets stolen and then is in an accident or is used in a crime, you are liable unless you report the theft, and even if you did report it, I suppose, if it was stolen because of your negligence--if you left the keys in it, for example. A gun parallel would be my former neighbor who had his nine guns stolen by one of the seedy characters he occasionally had over to the house. But how much legal responsibility would my neighbor have if one of his guns were later used in a crime or an accidental shooting? My suspicion is that under current law, none whatsoever. Correct me if I'm wrong. --seed |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. Date: 29 May 99 - 07:41 PM You're right. I've been getting frustrated when I try to make a point and somebody responds to something else, in the same way that politicians answer questions without answering them. I understand, I think, why I get so emotional about this issue, but I'm not getting why registering guns is so repulsive to some people. Thanks, sincerely, for the reality check. Chet W. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Roger in Baltimore Date: 29 May 99 - 05:59 PM Chet, Chet, Chet, Don't be so fatalistic! It is any place where people get together and honestly state their views that is the place where problems are solved. Problem solving rarely starts with a consensus. If there is consensus there is no problem. So discussions like the one on this thread are where problem solving begins. Now the task on the Mudcat is not to solve world problems. Remember that thread from nearly a year ago? We talked about our major task is to do our best to contribute to a solution of the problem. If you could be a little more existential, you might be a might happier than you sound. Roger in Baltimore |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. Date: 29 May 99 - 03:58 PM If this were the place where problems were solved, all would be lost. Chet W. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Bulldog Date: 29 May 99 - 02:40 PM Chet, Ask the IRA, Pathans and the Vietcong that question. Please! Cordially. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. Date: 29 May 99 - 11:05 AM Plus, if the government ever did get to the point of going around collecting guns, are any of you going to have enough to hold off a division of Marines with tanks and artillery? Quit dreaming. I have this same argument with my gun-fanatic friend. If the government did go crazy and wanted his guns bad enough, all he would accomplish would be that he and his family would die a horrible violent death defending a useless pile of metal. Chet W. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: bseed(charleskratz) Date: 28 May 99 - 11:17 PM Fadac: A couple of notes: 1. Many of the advocates of the legalization of drugs do use studies of the Netherlands in their arguments. But even that is not necessary: our drug policy is such an obvious and collosal failure it is all by itself the best argument for abandoning it. 2. Try, when putting words in capital letters several times in the same paragraph, checking the spelling :) (I wish I could make that smile look a little bit evil)(My favorite smile is "Illegal Smile" by John Prine.) 3. I'm surprised you didn't jump on me for using mm when I should have used cal. The monster gun was a .50 caliber rifle (a 50mm gun fired off one's shoulder would not only smash the shoulder, it would probably put so much torsion on the spine that the vertabrae would turn to mush). Okay, so that's one more than a couple. I'm so-o-o-o sorry. --seed |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. Date: 28 May 99 - 08:55 PM Thanks Roger, Good words. I'm ordering the book. I even love the song. Chet W. |
|
Subject: ADD: Blow 'Em Away (Chuck Brodsky) From: Roger in Baltimore Date: 28 May 99 - 07:16 PM BLOW 'EM AWAYby Chuck Brodsky
Ev'ry mornin', I commute,
Drivin' my car, I wanna go fast.
CHO:
That son-of-a-bitch, he cut me off.
That motorcycle ridin' between,
That little red sports. Drove so fast.
That little old lady, bless her heart. You see, I think human nature has a "dark side" that was essential to self-preservation. I think it is still part of self-preservation. So yes, Katlaughing, a girl (or guy) can wish, but wishing will never make it so. We resolve this dark side by joining it and acknowledging it and honoring it without giving into it's nature. So this song offers feelings that I have harbored, celebrates them (believe me audiences love this song), but allows me not to have to carry those feelings out. I would recommend to both sides of this discussion a somewhat obscure book by Rollo May called Power and Innocence: A Search for the Sources of Violence. You can Support the Mudcat and order it through Amazon.com. for $10.40 plus S&H for the paperback. Click here to see the book. I was introduced to this book by a very sensitive and loving woman who worked in Child Protective Services. At first, her work just devastated her; seeing the neglect and abuse that can be heaped upon children. When she read this book, she began to understand her feelings and also those of the parents. It became a guiding light to her in her helping to restore decimated families. As a counselor, I've read lots of psychology books. This one goes in my top five in helping me understand my job. Roger in Baltimore |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. Date: 28 May 99 - 06:48 PM You know, Kat reminded me of when I saw that movie about the Scots legend William Wallace (I forget whether it was RobRoy or Braveheart; anyway the one with Mel Gibson). During the gory combat scenes, fought mostly with blades and spears, I remember thinking, Hey, this is at least a lot more CIVILIZED than the detached ways in which we kill each other today, from BARs to nuclear missles, you don't have to get close to the opponent, see his face, smell his sweat and feel his fear (not intentionally being poetic here). I wonder how wars would be fought differently today if every combatant had to look his enemy in the face, and then decide whether to use the blade on him. Sure, back then they went ahead and did it anyway, but would the heroes who don't even want their weapons registered now step onto that battlefield? Would some of the children at Columbine High still be alive if those two commando/murderers had nothing more advanced than a twenty-pound sword? The answer is too obvious, I guess, but we still need to work toward what we know is right, and if we're smarter than the other guy, we'll win, unless he shoots us first. Chet W. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Penny S. Date: 28 May 99 - 04:16 PM Certainly none offered. I'm afraid that multiple meanings are what I do on Fridays: especially before a week off school. Get a little high on words. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Bert Date: 28 May 99 - 04:09 PM http://www.digiserve.com/eescape/ramblings/essays/Finger-Pointing.html |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac Date: 28 May 99 - 04:01 PM Huh? I'm just a country boy, double, tripple, quad meanings? Oh, yeah, heh, I think I get it. Duh. It's Friday. My poor brain is all fuzzy from the beer & singing & all dat stuff from last night. (Heee Haww.. Talking about ranges, how about Ohm, Ohm on the Range. (electronic test equipment) Or Home on the Range, (cooking) Or out of range (gas, as the engine sputters to a halt). No offence taken. I hope none offered. fadac (friday) |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Penny S. Date: 28 May 99 - 03:32 PM Actually, I thought it was quite a good double meaning, given the rest of your posting. a) not something you could afford. b) not something you found attracted you. So not, I hope, seen sadly. I was thinking of not on the range upon which you shot, not something to which you aspired but could not reach. I didn't notice that third meaning until now. (I actually wrote "missed that meaning", then realised that I had done a related double meaning as well). Sorry that I gave you the wrong idea about what I meant. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac Date: 28 May 99 - 01:11 PM Penny, Well I was thinking of $$$. But on this thread we only see what we want to see, sadly. Like Bseed commented on some of my comments last night, but he never mentioned the sea storys that I told, Like how I was stuck in the antartic ice, twice, two years in a row. Or how things were on the icebreaker. Why I played the concertna, etc. It seems he could only find little pieces of things to pick on. I'm not attacking Bseed, just demonstrating our filtering system. Charles, no offence intented. Oh well, thats life I guess. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Penny S. Date: 28 May 99 - 12:58 PM Fadac, is that "way out of my range" intentional?! |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac Date: 28 May 99 - 12:52 PM Please world, let there be some gray. Or perhaps some blue, green, yellow. Why does everything have to be black and white? Period. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: katlaughing Date: 28 May 99 - 12:14 PM Seed, I do not think of myself as "anti-gun", just anti insanity. I agree with Leej, Manylodges and ChetW, in most respects. I DO however, long for a world in which weapons are no longer needed. An Utopia I know, but still a gyrl has to have dreams, doesn't she? Please see the editorial I posted in the other gun thread for more of an idea of where I stand. I believe in moderation and balance and strive for those in my life. And, one more note, which I think I already made ages ago in another thread: one of my favourite authors, Marian Zimmer Bradley, who wrote "The Mists of Avalon", also has a series of SciFi, known as the "Darkover" series. On that planet, the only weapons available and allowed are those which one has to use within arm's reach of their opponent, up close and personal. I believe if everyone who is murderous, be it in rampage of insanity or in the orders of war, had to be face to face, it may bring about a different collective consciousness altogether about killing and such. But, of course, that's another dream. It is violence of any kind which I abhor. It just is so senseless. And, let's face it, guns are violent agents; they are made to have a violent effect, period. I am guilty now, too, of not letting this damn thing die. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac Date: 28 May 99 - 11:12 AM Gosh, I didn't relize that I had made that big of impression. I do believe that your son, holds to the hightest standards of TV reporting. I'm sure he would never slant a story away from what really happened, just to make it "play" better for TV. (Whew!)
I don't understand what the problem with my drug comment? All I suggested was that before a bunch of drug laws are passed here, tht someone go to where the drug laws are relaxed and see how well it works. Bseed, I don't think you really want laws passed in a willy, nilly way, without any reasearch? After enjoying a fine evening with you, I know you have more brains then that.
---
Let me go on record as saying that I'm for RESPONSABLE gun ownership. (RESPONSABLE car owenership, too) If that means that trigger locks are nessary, then so be it, use them. If you need a locked gun locker, then OK, get one. Regestering, well I do have one small problem with that. I would like the records to be controled in some way, that in a national emerigcy, (sp?) they could be destroyed. When the Nazis moved into the lowlands, the one of the first things they did was to take over the police stations. When they had the police, they checked the firearm records, and the SS went down the list. Of courst that could never happen here...(That's what my father in law said, just before the Nazi's fell down from the sky.)
--
About fully automatic wepons. Myself, I can't see any use for a Mac-10, or an AK-47, now a Browining .30, that's a bit differant. Now, before my tail fethers are flamed off my rear, let me explain. Ownership of a fully automatic wepon is leagle in most state. However, they are lisc. by the Fed. Goverment. (Class 3 lisc. @ ~ $200/yr) Then you have to have a secure storag, inspected by the local Police. Some states have an anual fee for ownership. Then there is the cost of the gun itself. A "Tommy Gun" will run you a cool $7000-$10,000 or so. The Browning, more like $15K pluse. Now this is for LEAGLE machine guns. With due registration, lisc, etc. Also as far as I have been able to find out, no LEAGLE machine gun has EVER been involved with a crime. Folks, the key word here is LEAGLE. Now why would anyone want a machingun? Well, they are fun to shoot. When I was in the Army (lots of maching guns there for some reason.) We used to shoot up the old ammo on the range. Shooting at big cans. ie 55 gal drums. Rolling them around. Was very enjoyable. But I'd hate to have to pay for the ammo. One could shoot up $500 worth of ammo in a single afternoon. So this isn't a poor mans sport. I understand there is some compation involving shooting bowling pins. However I'm not up on what the rules are for this kind of shooting. It's way out of my range. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: bseed(charleskratz) Date: 28 May 99 - 03:07 AM I'm not quite as anti-gun as Kat (I wouldn't have one in my house, and don't feel I need one for protection--but when my son--then 29 and away from home--bought one despite my arguments against it, I went to the range with him and enjoyed putting holes in targets. One thing I didn't enjoy was the monstrous bang made by the 50 mm rifle someone was shooting a hundred yards down the line from us, or the thought of what that weapon might have been intended for: certainly not home defense). I spent this evening in a pub with Fadac (Ralph Howard), and he laid some of his spiels* on me, but the place was too noisy for any rational discussion and I was there to help Sonja find a concertina teacher--and Ralph, despite his propensity for being way out on the opposite side of some issues from me and his outlandish expressions of some of his views is a great guy. We had a good evening of singing along with a highly entertaining bunch of musicians a variety of chanteys and other songs of the sea (The Titanic, for example). (Dave Swan was also there--seems he's more of a regular there than Ralph.) --seed *When I mentioned that my son is a television reporter (his station is down the street from the pub), Ralph let me have his the media giving bricks to the LA rioters schtick. Face it, the guy's got opinions, he expresses them more than colorfully--and in lots of areas, I agree with him. He didn't bring up the Netherlands as a bad example of legalized (leagelized?) drugs in Quinn's, luckily--that might have got me shouting over the din. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: SeanM Date: 28 May 99 - 02:18 AM I promised I'd stay out of this, but I really want to see what the disconnect is here. It appears that the short version of the gun control side (minus the rhetoric) is: Safety regulations (trigger locks, parental responsibility laws, etc.) Personal responsibility for your firearm through registration. Restricted access to firearms by 'borderline types' via waiting periods and background checks. Decreased likelihood of guns missapropriation/theft via 'x guns per month', registration, and increased penalties for violation of 'gun responsibility' laws. Did I miss any? Now the part that I'm trying to figure, is where is the problem with this? Several of the 'pro' gun commentaries have mentioned doing these same things. Are we really just so ideologically polarized that we're standing on the same side of the fence, but are yelling just because we feel we have to? M |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: katlaughing Date: 27 May 99 - 11:45 PM ChetW. and Manylodges: both breathes of fresh air. Thanks to you, both, and to LEJ, who has also had a voice of reason. Kat |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: manylodges (inactive) Date: 27 May 99 - 11:40 PM Chet W. I agree with your analisis of the constitutional rights. I personaly own a gun, but it's a black powder muzzleloader. I don't want someone to take my gun away, but I also will take personal responsiblity for it. I am in favor of gun control. I don't care if I have to wait to purchace a gun, or if they do background checks to get one. I don't think any one who is responsible cares. There are some serious problems with gun show sales, who will sell anything to anyone regardless of age for cash. I want those people who victomize others with there errisponsable acts stopped. I also see no purpos for automatic anything. you don't hunt with an a k 47. And any parent or adult who puts a wepon in a childs hands without supervision should be held accountable. How can a parent not know if a son or daughter has a gun, unless they pay no attention to the child. If my kid wanted to belong to a group known as the black trench coat gang, that would be a flag to me saying I'm not carring enough about my kids, and I need to get involved with their lives. I to feel the freedom given to us by the constitution, comes with a price. I don't belong to the NRA, but I do belong to the National Muzzel loaders. What am I doing to solve the problem, I am loving my kids enough to spend time in their lives, And last year our group brought four hundred grade school kids to a rendezvous to see and hear the guns shoot. We also teach a gun safety class, and we teach each day to have respect for each other and others property. I was sick at the sight of what is happening to our kids. They are crying out for parents to help them, and we are too busy makeing money. I personaly will be a paulper before my kids grow up alone. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. Date: 27 May 99 - 10:41 PM By the way again, the thing that makes our US constituion the best document of its kind in the world is that the authors intentionally left most provisions of it very vague, thereby increasing the probability of real freedom but also guaranteeing that the nation would stand only as long as its people had the good sense, courage, and compassion to interpret it in such a way that all people are, perhaps after a struggle, treated equally. This is what prompted Jefferson to say that this democracy would last only if we had an "enlightened electorate". When the time comes that we don't, then the experiment in democracy will be over. It was in a similar vein that US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once remarked that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact", meaning, I suppose, that if an interpretation of one of the provisions in the Constitution is clearly against the best interests of the people, then some other interpretation is to be preferred. There are many signs that this experiment in democracy is in the middle of a real slump, but hopefully we will be smart enough to stop short of the cliff. Chet W. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Don Meixner Date: 27 May 99 - 10:01 PM Cara, Why wear a steel peace symbol when I'd be happy to make you one in sterling silver or 14 K yellow gold at a very reasonable fee. Postage included ofcourse. Don |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. Date: 27 May 99 - 09:19 PM If you defenders of the 2nd amendment would stop ignoring the thing you don't want to address because it trashes all your programmed arguments, the popular sentiment is not to take your guns or to make it impossible for you to get more. It is just that law-abiding, non-felon citizens like yourselves should take ALL of the responsibility of gun ownership. If having to register a gun the way you register a car is so repulsive to you, then please to make your arguments against that, NOT to the notion that some fanatical fringe is trying to take your guns. As noted above, they are not. As it is, it's like I was asking you to paint my house and you keep yelling that you are not interested in cleaning my septic tank. As for the comments about illiteracy above, I don't claim to be smarter than anybody, but over the long run I would rather have my intelligence than all of your combined arsenals. (Your next line, by the way, is "try using your intelligence when some punk is trying to physically harm you and your family", just so you don't have to go and look it up.) Chet W. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 May 99 - 06:47 PM I am more than a little put out by the suggestion that opponents of gun control are less intelligent or educated than others. I am surprised to find the English (or British) blindly supporting gun control outside the pages of the more downmarket newspapers. But perhaps the most dangerous thing I see said here is an expression of support for the proposition that in a democracy it must always be democratic for the (appropriate) majority to be able to alter the constitution. That way lies an even greater possibility of oppression than the oppression so widely already practised by the successful or popular against the unsuccessful or unpopular on which I have already commented. To take away the constitutional rights generally of the minority must be an even greater betrayal of the huddled masses, downtrodden, sick and poor who were once eagerly sought to populate a new land than simply to remove their power physically to rise up against their oppressors. Freedom of speech is most worth defending when what is to be said is unpopular - and I think the analogy is obvious. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac Date: 24 May 99 - 01:10 PM Care, You are correct. However, untill the Constitution changed, by DUE process, I Will support and defend it. Then I will S & D the revised version. I'd sure like to see some other changes too. Probition, made the Mofia in this country. Also made some folks very rich. (Kenneys of Mass, for one. They were bootleggers.) There is one proposed amenent that I do support. The Equial Rights for Women amenment. Equal work for equal pay. Not just a good idea, should be the law. If you can do the work, you should get the pay. In my industry, this is the norm. I'm in the computer services biz. Here, at least, everyone gets the same pay for the same work. Anyway, thanks for the post Cara. Fadac. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac Date: 24 May 99 - 12:55 PM LEJ, Thanks for the post. Wasn't sure, dosn't seem to be much room for jest on this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac Date: 24 May 99 - 12:51 PM (sigh) I hope people think I hate the Brits. I don't, however, as Churchill said, we are two peoples seperated by a common tounge. (Or something like that.) Not, better, or worse, just differant. I guess that is what I'm trying to push. What is right in one place, may be just silly somewhere else. So who decides what is right? I'm not saying that everyone should carry a handgun. But if they did, what would happen to the mugger rate? Here you can't sue a policeman for not preventing a crime. Even if he is standing right in front of you. He can only act AFTER the fact. So between the policman licking of the dougnut past on his teeth an you getting held up, what do you do? Who has the responsabity of your safty? I think a sword cane might be enough protection, however it is a crime to have one of those. Just having a switchblade is a fenoly (sp?) here. (carring a hidden handgun is not a crime in some places. Takeing it out and waving it around is. Other places it is a misdomeaner.) I don't have a souliton. If all violance could be stopped by my getting rid of my handgun, I'd be the first one to light the cutting torch. But then, who has the responsabilty for my protection? It's out of my hands, so who gets it? The police? Nope, it has to be someone that can be held accountable in a court of law. So the question is who? |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Cara Date: 24 May 99 - 12:29 PM I mean to stop posting here but I am compelled onward. Fadac, the Constitution isn't meant to stand complete, or fall as one document. That's the whole Amendment part of the equation. The Constitution can be amended to suit the needs of the United States--that was an integral part of the democracy that our forefathers designed for us. They did not ask for blind allegiance to the Constitution. I support the defense of the foundations of our democracy, but I don't like seeing the ideals of that democracy twisted by the defense of it. The authors of the Constitution did NOT intend for the Second Amendment to provide shelter for people who want to own grenade launchers and Ouzis. Surely we all see that the original intent has been manipulated by special interest groups, no matter where we stand on this issue. Prohibition didn't work so well, and the amendment was repealed. Now, the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the U.S. regulated and monitored. Food for thought. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Cara Date: 24 May 99 - 12:28 PM I mean to stop posting here but I am compelled onward. Fadac, the Constitution isn't meant to stand complete, or fall as one document. That's the whole Amendment part of the equation. The Constitution can be amended to suit the needs of the United States--that was an integral part of the democracy that our forefathers designed for us. They did not ask for blind allegiance to the Constitution. I support the defense of the foundations of our democracy, but I don't like seeing the ideals of that democracy twisted by the defense of it. The authors of the Constitution did NOT intend for the Second Amendment to provide shelter for people who want to own grenade launchers and Ouzis. Surely we all see that the original intent has been manipulated by special interest groups, no matter where we stand on this issue. Prohibition didn't work so well, and the amendment was repealed. Now, the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the U.S. regulated and monitored. Food for thought. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: LEJ Date: 24 May 99 - 12:11 PM Fadac...sorry, I thought the balance of the post made it clear that I was joking. To other Mudcatters...Fadac did not send me a secret e-mail pledging his support for handgun-control. And for that matter, neither did Don M or Tucker. They also did not send me e-mails stating that they were going to send their guns to Katlaughing to be turned into pisspots and plowshares(sorry Kat). Neither did they admit the basic redundancy and fallacy of their arguments. No, instead let me admit that it is I, LEJ. who have been won over. I now have an Elk Head and a large picture of Charlton Heston hanging in my den. I have become a lifetime member of the NRA, and lie awake at night with an M16 under the bed, PRAYING for a burglar to break in. Contritely, LEJ |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: The_one_and_only_Dai Date: 24 May 99 - 11:45 AM Thanks Fadac, I was starting to think an untermensch like an inbred Brit wasn't worth replying to. Oh, and thanks for beating the Germans, like. Incidentally, the Home Guard were run by the Government (cf. the National Guard) and eventually wore uniforms. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac Date: 24 May 99 - 11:26 AM One and only Dai. The right to keep and bear arms, etc. 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. Yes this was written when we were at war with the UK. As was Fredom of the Press, etc. Also at that time, a gentelman just didn't go out on the streets, without being armed. (usualy a sword, but still armed) Even on the streets of London, men went armed. Lets compaire with "An Englishmans home is his castle." Does that mean that your grandmother can toss out a Royal from her flat, and you can't? But they remove houses to make hiways, don't they?
Anyway, I am not able to go back in time and ask our forfathers what they ment. So I have to assume that they have told me what they mean by what the left behind. Freedome of the press. (ok some press go out of bounds here, perhaps they should be regulated too.
Think back to the dark days of WWII. The UK was wating for the Germans to come washing up on the beach. So the questions is, what is the differance between the "home guard" and a malitia?
Anyway, this is my attempt to answer your question. If all the other parts of our constuition make good sense, and folks have problems with just one. I wonder at their motives.
When I was in the Army, I swore to protect the Consituiton of the United States. Not just the parts I liked, all of it. So for me, it stands compleat, or it falls as one document. The old boys did a good job on it. Mucking with it only leads to other problems. Prohibition comes to mind. Look at all the problems that caused.
Anyway, squeeze on. |\/\/\/| |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: The_one_and_only_Dai Date: 24 May 99 - 10:36 AM Still nobody's answered my question. |
|
Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again L:EJ NOT SO! From: Fadac Date: 24 May 99 - 10:29 AM L:EJ, Please don't put words into my mouth. I have not sent anyone here any personel email. Everything I have said, I have said in the open. My mind cerntley hasn't been changed here, execpt that people like to find one thing in a statement and blow that up to fit what ever argument that is running at the time. So, don't put words or feet into my mouth. I can do that very well by my self, Thank you. |
| Share Thread: |
