BS: The Second Amendment

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 04:35 PM

They pulled off their revolution in Egypt without stupid stuff with guns.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 11:38 AM

*I* was not gonna refresh this topic....but....

Where did you hear that "...the government of Wisconsin decided that force against the people might be a good idea."???
I just saw a headline saying.." Wisconsin Protesters High-Five, Shake Hands With Police"

WHO is armed & dangerous? Do you really think even the **idea** of a couple of protesters in Wisconsin having guns is relevant? IF those pro-union activists started trashing the buildings or doing more than waving signs and 'sitting-in' were to happen, it would STILL not require firearms to quell things. Tear gas, tasers....lots of things would be used first.
   There is NOTHING about this situation that would suggest the need for guns on either side.

...and what difference does it make what some Middle-Eastern politician says?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 10:36 AM

"anti-gun nuts".    Right.   Now exactly which of us is meant by that delightful description?

I have not seen one posting which would support that position.

As I have said more than once, I am not for restricting rifles any more than they are right now.

I am not even for restricting pistol ownership more than we now have.

Except semi-automatic pistols.

And--still---nobody has come up with any argument why semi-automatic pistols should be owned by anybody but the police and the military.   Especially since: look what is often the weapon of choice in the senseless carnage we read about.

And of course I'd make no move to take semi-automatic pistols from those who now have them.

Just no more sales of them to the general public.

And it is striking how even on Mudcat--overwhelmingly left of center---even this reasonable request is bitterly opposed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 10:05 PM

So, Wisconsin? Bring in the militia? I saw a video of a middle east politcian saying he is in support of the Wisconsin "uprising".

Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain... Wisconsin? Noooooooooo... not in USA... can't happen... they wouldn't sic the National Guard on the protesters would they? But the governor... WTF?

No, they wouldn't... because the protesters are armed and fucking dangerous.

How odd that this thread fell off the page after the governments of the middle east and the government of Wisconsin decided that force against the people might be a good idea.

Debate what the "founders" meant but reality is staring you anti-gun nuts in the face... right now... on the TV... in real time... and people are dying.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:45 PM

What is it that actually drives large numbers of people to extreme acts of violence...killing people? It's organized activity that is aimed toward some specific material or political objective that does it. In other words...

1. War - the biggest organized killer of them all.

2. Criminal activity - the modern drug trade, contraband liquor tade during the Prohibition era...(which was the key drug trade of that time period), robbery, mugging, protection rackets, housebreaking, etc.

3. Revolution, terrorism, and various politically-motivated acts of violence.

4. Oppressive governmental action by security forces upon a domestic population - In this case it's really a war by a government upon various elements of its own people. Extreme examples of this have been seen in: Present-day Burma, Cambodia under the Khymer Rouge, Germany under the Nazis, the Armenian persecution by the Turks, and there are many other examples.

None of these things happened because guns exist...or because drugs exist...or because violent films exist. They happened because organized groups of people devoted themselves very deliberately toward specific objectives they had in mind...either for profit or for some abstract political (or religious) objective that they held dear....and that objective caused them to act violently and take the lives of other people.

That's what we've seen again and again throughout history. Hundreds of millions of lives have been lost needlessly due to people seeking unwise and destructive objectives that required them to endanger other people.

As for the War on Drugs, it's a miserable failure and it cannot succeed. Personal use of drugs should be de-criminalized, in my opinion, and addicts should be treated as people with a medical problem, and supplied with medical aid and prescriptions to manage their habit while they are assisted in getting off whatever they're addicted to.

*****

Moving to another subject altogether, I would agree with olddude that kid culture was far more physically violent when he and I were kids than it is now in modern North America. And you go back a generation or two earlier...it was even more violent. What I mean is, there was a lot of corporal punishment in schools (and by parents) that isn't allowed today...and there was a heck of a lot more fighting between boys back then than there is now. This was partly because kids were a lot more involved in physical outdoor life back then...and partly because the society looked differently on boys fighting back then too. It was considered "normal". Boy, were there ever a lot of fights. I remember. There was a place near the school where guys would go to fight after school, and all their buddies would show up to watch. If that was going on now, the cops would probably put a stop to it, but back then the adults did nothing about it...as long as it was off school property. Then there was the generation before mine...kids who grew up in the 30s and 40s. I knew an old fellow who worked for my dad, and he told me about the fights between rival neighborhood schools in the town of Orillia when he was a kid. He said that all the boys from one school would meet all the boys from the other school at a pre-arranged location after classes and there'd be a huge donnybrook involving maybe a couple hundred or more kids, beating each other up with fists, stones, sticks, whatever was to hand. Incredible. And the adults did nothing about it. He said it could happen two or three times in a week in that small town.

Nevertheless, the society of that time didn't seem to have much of the problems we have now with shootings, and so on, and I'll tell you why: they didn't have a giant illegal drug trade going on in their cities, that's why. It's organized human activity by adults (and young adults) that leads to the problems we see now...not casual violence in itself. It's violence with a commercial or a political purpose that is causing most of the really serious problems in the world.

For that, you must look to the leaders, the kingpins, the commanders who are organizing that violence. That would include politicians, drug lords, secret police chiefs, captains of industry, and some religious leaders in certain places. The rot comes from the top down, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 10:19 AM

The real violence started to occur in the 70's on with the proliferation and profits of the illegal drug trade.

Yup, just about the time the "War On Drugs" hotted up. Sure has caused a lot of collateral damage. Way past time to give up on this obscenely expensive, damaging, and fundamentally useless program.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 09:51 AM

by the way, I apologize for my outburst on this thread. I should know by now not to post when I am having a bad pain day ...
sorry about that

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 09:46 AM

The kid culture in the past was far more violent I think. Remember when your teacher in grade school or high school could deal out corporal punishment. In my middle school God help you if you were a kid that was "autistic". Outbursts were deal with by the "board of education" a wood stick for spanking. Nobody at that time had any idea of disabilities only "unruly children". In the homes the rule was "spare the rod spoil the child" that was the culture of the 50's. You bet playing with toy guns was the norm for a boy growing up .. Yet we had no problems at all .. none.. I think what LH said is indeed true. Crack cocaine, huge drug profit, violence to enforce the territory ... and the incredible rise of addicts ... all contribute to this culture today

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 02:59 AM

I think you've hit it, Little Hawk. For that reason, it seems to me that it should be 'curable'.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 01:12 AM

I think you are absolutely right, olddude, that the burgeoning illegal drug trade is the primary factor causing a great rise in the incidence of violent crimes in the USA...in Mexico...in some other Latin American nations...even on the streets of Toronto, Canada. There are now far more shootings in Toronto yearly than was the case a few decades ago, and it is almost all associated with young members of various drug gangs fighting each other over turf, etc...sometimes killing innocent bystanders who get caught in the crossfire. The majority of these offenders are young Caribbean Blacks, it seems, and most of their victims are people from that same community.

And it doesn't happen because those kids are watching violent movies, it happens because they are dealing illegal drugs and trying to control local territories.

Regarding Japan, I don't think you have anything like a comparable situation in the domestic illegal drug situation...plus, Japanese culture emphasizes public responsibility and obedience to laws in a way that is strikingly different from the more individualistic western societies. You can still drop a wallet on the street or in a Japanese bus, and chances are very good that some private person will recover it, track you down by phone or some other way, and return it with all the money and everything else in it intact. How likely is that in North America? ;-D It's a completely different mindset in Japan than it is here. People are far more law-abiding, despite the existence of the organized criminal gangs (Yakuza)...they have their own longstanding traditional structure within which they work.

While violent movies do de-sensitize people to watching violence on film, and cause them to expect to see more of it, I doubt that they have much to do with causing most violence. Rather, they may help to defuse a good deal of it through allowing people to discharge their frustrations vicariously by watching a video. This certainly seems to be true in Japan where there is a great deal of extraordinarily violent pornography and other sadistic material freely available on film and in magazines...most of it catered to by men. It does not appear to cause those men to go out and actually be violent to anyone.

I think back to when I was a kid. All the boys played "guns" in those days, just as a standard thing. It was part of growing up. It didn't make us violent. What made certain kids violent, though, was this: they witnessed and were the victims of domestic violence in their own homes, violence usually perpetrated by their father. That is the real source of violence in most young people who turn violent, learning by direct experience at home or on the street...not from movies or from playing with toy guns. If violence frequently becomes your actual experience when you are young, if you are repeatedly victimized in that way or if your mother is, then you may start to see it as a normal way of "solving problems"...or maintaining and defending your own identity. If so, then you're heading down the slippery slope to repeating the most tragic errors of the past.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 01:38 PM

Strings
There are those groups that stand outside the political rallies as you say are completely wrong. They are also very much part of the problem ... However, I would submit they are not the rise in violence. Those groups existed from the time of Washington. The real violence started to occur in the 70's on with the proliferation and profits of the illegal drug trade. You then saw the profits create these rogue bands of drug gangs that will not let anyone (innocent or not) get in the way of their profits. They take ownership of city blocks and enforce it with blood - anyone's blood. Likewise addicts who need the next fix cause the rise in home invasions, street muggings and the like. So now there are two sides, the profit driven gangs and the addicts. As I see it, it comes from one source, illegal drugs. Militia groups, yes they preach the hate but they are not the ones firing rounds into homes mostly (maybe some are) but the real problem is the gangs.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 01:21 PM

America's 'culture of violence' makes me wonder about Japan. I understand that Japan has an extremely violent literature, from comic books on, and yet their violent crime rate is low.

According to Wikipedia: "Ownership of handguns is forbidden to the public, hunting rifles and ceremonial swords are registered with the police, and the manufacture and sale of firearms are regulated. The production and sale of live and blank ammunition are also controlled, as are the transportation and importation of all weapons."

Why do I think of committed crimes in America as being heavily influenced by our constant exposure to violent content featured in our media, and in our literature and movies when the same thing apparently does not happen in Japan?

Is it perhaps due to the easy availability of firearms in America and the relatively difficult access to them in Japan?

And if so, how does that affect our 'good guy' proponents' views on the right to carry?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 12:42 PM

McGrath, the Swiss are more civilized in their use of firearms than the trigger happy Americans. They don't carry to political rallies to intimidate people.

The NRA is cold-hearted and responsible for the epidemic of gun violence
in America.

There is a culture of violence in America that has been fostered by the Religious
Reactionary Christian extremists who want to intimidate those who disagree
with their anti-abortion stance as well as the proliferation of militia groups
of a neo-fascist persuasion.

There is a litany of propaganda that is broadcast by those who make money
selling weapons and bribe senators that promote this gun violence. Other countries do not have this problem that America has.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 11:14 AM

In Alaska the right to keep and wield a sword shall not be abridged.

Fairbanks Incident

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 12:35 PM

Ah, yes, the "pursuit of happiness". I've got a passage in one of my songs that goes this way:

"God save America for a better destiny,
Than the pursuit of happiness at the expense of sanity,
When everything of value falls and every conscience burns,
And men will bulldoze paradise for the money they can earn."


(For those who might object to my use of the word "God" in the above, be advised...it's a metaphor. ;-) And it's a handy one-syllable word too...it works better than any other in that spot.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 04:47 PM

Kevin didn't maintain thatit WAS part of the U.S. Constitution, PeeDee.

But the pedantry is appreciated, all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: pdq
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 02:19 PM

It is the United States Declaration of Independence that states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

No, it is not part of the Constitution.

Also, early drafts said "inalienable rights" but the final draft used "unalienable".

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:36 PM

I dunno... maybe the Swiss can make it work. They don't have the extreme diversity and frontier mentality we do in the US. They may regret it someday.

Note:57 to 43 is a good margin, but not overwhelming. Many Swiss think caution is better.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:28 PM

In Switzerland they had a referendum today, on whether to tighten up their gun control laws and voted not to, by 57% to 43%. Switzerland rejects tighter gun controls

The point being of course that they saw this as something that should be determined by what people choose, rather than by some notion of "inalienable rights". That seems to me a much more sensible way to decide about things like that, rather than have a set-up where the wishes of a majority would be seen as irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 12:58 PM

Yeah, Jack. I second the motion and not the interpretation given by some of the Second Amendment.

This Tea Party nonsense has gone far enough. How many Gabby Gifford incidents do we need?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 12:01 PM

If you are going to have civilization, you need regulation. You have to look at the needs of society balanced against the so called rights of the individual. Does one need a semi-automatic weapon with thirty rounds in the clip to defend your home against intruders? Of course not. But having those weapons available makes it easier for gangsters and psychos such as those in Arizona recently and Colorado a few years ago to maximize their death toll.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Feb 11 - 10:59 AM

Exactly, brucie...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 12 Feb 11 - 10:49 AM

What we need is guns that fire backwards.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Feb 11 - 10:00 AM

I feel the need to address gnu's main point. I do not believe that allowing deadly force in home defense insures the safety of the home owner. Texas has allows the use of deadly force and has a heavily armed population, but home invasions are at least as common as they are in New Brunswick.

But unless things have changed very recently, deaths from overall gun violence are way higher in Texas than in all of Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 10:48 PM

999... sounds good until you figger what that would cost if we caught & convicted a bunch of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 05:12 PM

How about this: people who unlawfully have auto or semi-automatic weapons receive an automatic prison term of life without parole.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 07:43 PM

That's the point I've made over and over, Saul... I mean, if there are "facts" no one would believe them since the NRA has demonized any studies that might go against gun $ale$...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: saulgoldie
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 07:25 PM

Irrespective of how people choose to parse what is known as "the second ammendment to the US Constitution," does anyone have any figures--facts--as to how many intruders have been shot by a resident defending his/her home, or how many of *the wrong* people have been shot who someone *thought* was an attacker?

It is interesting to note that a legal gun carrier was present in Tucson, and had *the safety off* pointing at ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS!! G-d only knows what stopped him from making a very bad situation even more tragic.

Nevermind what a part of the Constitution, written in a different time with vastly different realities and concerns than exist now may or may not have been intended by the authors. The fact--and it IS an unarguable fact--remains that in any given confrontational situation, if there are no guns present, then the likelihood of human carnage goes down precipitously.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 01:12 PM

It does make sense... but the bill 'sounds' to me like what I call the "jaywalking law"... it is illegal to jaywalk in many places, but everyone knows people WILL do it, so they have a law to establish blame in case something bad happens. (I posted a pic a couple of years ago of what is necessary if they actually want to prevent jaywalking in certain areas...it was an 8ft. high welded steel fence with bars about 8" apart.) Prevention of certain types of violence would need similar measures....like metal detectors at courthouse entrances....or.......

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 01:04 PM

Oh, just what we need... Laws telling you that if Bubba has a gun and you have a gun and Bubba threatens you that you have to shoot Bubba or get arrested???

Hmmmmmm???

Beam me up, Scotty...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 12:55 PM

Here is an interesting article on justified self-defense. I don't know where I stand on this, for sure- but 'leaving the scene' when possible makes good sense to me.

Responding with Force or Leaving the Scene

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 07:41 PM

Like I said before, if an independent statistician were to come to the US and do an exhaustive study on handguns and present the findings to the American people I don't think we'd be having these conversations...

Right now there is a major information void... Yes, there have been studies and no matter how they turn out one side or the other blames the stat-men... And that is fair... We just don't have ***acceptable*** information... The entire argument is so contaminated by people's opinions, lobbyists, community groups, Brady & NRA folks that no one can form an intelligent opinion...

Anecdotes are fine but they never tell the entire story...

This is what is wrong with America (and perhaps Canada, I don't know)... We allow ourselves to accept an opinion based on someone's else's agenda... It doesn't matter the issue... I've said it before and I'll say it again: people aren't stupid, they are misinformed...

Okay, some are stupid...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 07:14 PM

I carefully did NOT address gnu. Others are reading, and I was merely referring to his posts.

It is also the case that my opinion was not that already convicted criminals would get guns, but that **potential** criminals could legally get them, and thus, that more guns would also be available in illegal ways. This IS how it happens in the USA. It does...every time there is a gun show, or a robbery of a house where **legal** guns are stored. There ARE statistics to prove this. I live on the I-95 corridor where guns bought 'legally' in Richmond, Virginia are transported to places like Philadelphia & New York and sold illegally.

Now, please do not upset gnu by PMing him. I respect his need to opt out of this, but *I*, as you can tell, have an ongoing concern. I refer to his posts because they represent one classic viewpoint...and one with which I disagree. I suppose that, if this continues, I will have to choose very abstract references and not name anyone. I am NOT attacking a person, but a position.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 06:33 PM

Ohhhh... I got a PM... and I GOTTA...

Bill D... if I say I am gone, you should leave me out of your posts.

You said... I see that gnu & I can look at exactly the same information and reach totally different opinions about what it means.

Not so. I have proferred arguements and you have ignored or twisted them. As far as you not understanding what I posted, that is not MY problem.

Bill D said... My contention is that if acquiring guns is legal, MORE potential criminal can get guns...legally or illegally.... and will feel the odds are in their favor, since most folks, gun owners or`not, will NOT be ready enough to stop him.

I say, if it is legal and regulated and the police and courts do their jobs, criminals CANNOT get guns. As far as... will feel the odds are in their favor, since most folks, gun owners or`not, will NOT be ready enough to stop him... THAT IS THE POINT OF ALLOWING SELF DEFENSE.

Right... I cannot continue to argue. So, please, Bill D, do not use my abscence from this thread in vain again. It detracts from your credibility.

I enjoy your posts and your humour Bill D, but I must take leave if you will allow. Please do not address me or my posts in this thread anymore. Thank you in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 06:12 PM

Right, Strings... The NRA is 100% about selling more guns... It's all about $$$$$$$$$...

BTW, like Don I was a member of the NRA back before big $$$$$ got in the way of what they used to be...

And, like who ever said it, these arguments are just going round and round... Nuthin' new in the last 100 posts... Mine included... SOS...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 05:58 PM

I see that gnu & I can look at exactly the same information and reach totally different opinions about what it means.

When I think of a criminal wondering about his chances of breaking into a house, my instincts tell me that he will NOT seriously expect the owners will be 'armed & ready'. Gnu believes that if defensive weapons are legal, he WILL hesitate because he suspects they ARE ready.
My contention is that if acquiring guns is legal, MORE potential criminal can get guns...legally or illegally.... and will feel the odds are in their favor, since most folks, gun owners or not, will NOT be ready enough to stop him.

Now, you can choose your subjective stance on that quandary. My general belief is that the harder it is to get guns, the **generally** safer we will all be... and all the tragic & unfortunate exceptions to that do not invalidate my reasoning. It is very much like the nuclear arms race in the 50s thru the 70s....each side thought they needed MORE bombs to 'deter' aggression....but the more bombs, the more chances for some VERY unfortunate occurence, accidental or not.

I see Don Firth and Stringsinger mostly agree with me about how it all works. Others disagree... It seems we are testing every day the 'others' theory, and I keep reading about more & more & more tragedies.

Do you really think it is fair for YOU to 'feel' safer while others are dying at those rates?

Once again... the USA leads ALL nations in both per capita guns and gun deaths per 100,000. Isn't it time to try the other path?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 05:46 PM

The Wild West wasn`t all that wild. Most of what we think we know is the product of Hollywood fiction. fwiw

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 05:25 PM

`You folks who think you can really protect yourself by owning a weapon are in delusion.`

You may be right, Stringsinger. Any proof for that contention?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 05:23 PM

The next felon who tries to take you out knows how to use a Glock better than you do because that's his job. In the meantime, a thirtyshot clip can do a lot more damage than for just two macho John Wayners who get into a gun battle. You folks who think you can really protect yourself by owning a weapon are in delusion.

This whole thread begs the question about keeping the guns out of the hands
of nuts and ideologues. The whole of the U.S. is turning into Dodge City.

The NRA doesn't care about people since people kill people and not guns, so they mis-state. Guns didn't invent themselves, they were made for people to kill people, not just for hunting. I never have heard of a knife that had a semi-automatic thirty shot clip or a useful Glock device for killing quite a few people at one time.

When the PTSD hits some of the returning veterans, making Glocks available
on the Gun Show Market, you will see more tragedies like those in Arizona.

There are ways the NRA has made it easy for criminals and the insane
to get these weapons through buying the U.S. Congress and Senate.

No Founding Father, including Jefferson, ever conceived of the ingenious ability of
mankind to kill each other. BTW, there's nothing in the Second Amendment that mentions using rifles for hunting either.

You want the Wild West back? You got it!

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 05:08 PM

Gnu, I agree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 04:58 PM

Guns don`t kill people. Bullets do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 04:54 PM

Bill D... "How would 99% of criminals or various dangerous/deranged people KNOW you were ready and armed? There is no database of..."

Good lord man! Read the posts. THAT is THE POINT!!!! They WOULD NOT KNOW!!!... if the laws allowed home defense with a gun. It ain't rocket science. THAT is why criminals did NOT used to waltz in. But, if they know law abiding... oh, what is the use? BTW, there is a database in Canada because we have gun registration and owner "registration".

Bill D... "olddude & Don M make a very good case for NOT having guns "at the ready"... they are people who I don't 'totally' agree with, but I'd feel safe knocking on their door. I'm not sure I'd be quite so easy about knocking on the door of someone who feels as you seem to."

That's just silly... inane... beyond response.

Bill D... "You quote me:"Bill D... "IF one has weapons right at hand..(as a friend of mine used to do 45 years ago) it requires extraordinary care and training to stay even reasonably safe, and few laws are in place to require that degree of care."

then you say:
"No, it doesn't"

I 'think' you are saying that it isn't hard to be safe with guns "at the ready"....and you seem to be in favor of Canadian laws allowing loaded & ready guns. I cannot believe that most average folks would manage to defend themselves properly, even IF it were 'allowed'. I would bet that relaxing the laws would INCREASE sad statistics...but I hope we never have to test that bet."

I can't speak for "most average folks" but I can speak for me... if you break down my door and come into my house with a gun or a knife or a crew yer goin out feet first.

You would bet that allowing people to defend their homes and families would increase sad statistics... I disagree... less defenseless people would be subject to robbery, rape and murder.

Ìf you don`t wanna come to my house, fine with me. I just wish you would stand outside my door and keep out the criminals. Of course, you can`t... nor can you provide police security to do so.

That`s it. I really gotta go on accounta this thread is a replay of many and it is going nowhere fast. Take the guns away from law abiding citizens and there will be lawlessness. It`s a fact. Whether it`s common criminals or political criminals. It is history. This ain`t fuckin Star Trek.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 04:19 PM

olddude, this might be the time for YOU to get a clue as to what you are talking about.

Perhaps what you say is true where you are, but there are police departments all over the country and they ALL have their own rules as to the use of Tasers, Mace, pepper spray, and such. And they all have their own rules as to when and when not to use deadly force to stop a suspect, whether threatening or attempting to flee.

There are also (at least here in Seattle—and most other municipalities I know about) police review boards whose job it is to investigate any incident in which a police officer—AND, if I am correct, any private citizen—discharges a firearm, save in such locations as the range at the Kenmore Gun Club. And there are civilian review boards that oversee the procedures of the police review board.

An acquaintance of mine got hauled up before a police review board because he inadvertently found himself on the scene where the police were trying to apprehend a couple (man and wife) fleeing from a crime scene (hit-and-run). The couple had just come out of a tavern, and they were staggering drunk. They got into their car and as they drove off, they sideswiped another parked car. They stopped to assess the damage, and noting that, despite the expensive gouge in the unoccupied parked car, their car was undamaged, so they fell back into their car and were preparing to drive off.

Two police officers who were sitting in their squad car parked nearby, saw the whole thing and, through the bull-horn mounted on the top of the squad car, ordered them to stop. They hesitated a few seconds, then started to make a run for it. My acquaintance drew his Colt .45 automatic (for which he had a concealed weapon permit), stepped out in front of their car, and in a spread-legged crouch and a two-handed hold, pointed his gun at their windshield. They hit the brakes and came to a screeching halt, horrified. But—they could have probably simply run him down before he had a chance to pull the trigger.

And if he had pulled the trigger, he definitely would have been run down!

Trying to play "cowboy" can get you killed!

The police arrested the couple. Drunk driving, hit-and-run, attempting to flee from the police—the book!

By the way, it would not have mattered that much if the couple HAD got away (barring the possibility of further auto accidents). The two policemen had already written down their license number.

But they also arrested my acquaintance. His gun was confiscated and his concealed weapons permit was rescinded. He could have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Driving while intoxicated and hit-and-run, grievous offenses that they are, are generally not considered serious enough to justify the use, or the threat to use, deadly force in order to apprehend the perpetrators.

As for being threatened with deadly force:

"Deadly force" is not an either-or thing. If someone is pointing a gun at me, that's one thing. But if he's coming at me with a switchblade knife or nunchucks, that's quite a different level of "deadly force." Could kill me just as dead as a firearm, but he has to get close enough to me to make effective use of his weapon.

Here's something to point a brain cell or two at:   by the time you're aware that there is a gun involved, chances are that his gun is already out and pointed at you. Now, you CAN try to play "Fast Draw McGraw," but the odds are that you are going to wind up face down in the dust in the main street of Tombstone. Very romantic. Very historical. Also, very dead!

And that's just as true whether you are armed with a Glock and a little red wagon piled high with 17-round magazines OR a can of Mace.

Now is the time to negotiate! That doesn't mean you can't be sneaky. But if you go for your Glock when he's already got a bead on you, chances are you'll earn yourself another eye between the two you already have. Again:   negotiate!

By the way—I'm reading a lot of the same stuff from a couple of people here about the "right to carry" and the use of "deadly force" that I used to hear coming from my gung-ho, too-much-testosterone, gun-toting acquaintance.

Don Firth

P. S. I dropped out of the NRA when I became fully aware of how obstructive the organization was (is) when it comes to matters of trying to enact, both nationally and locally, reasonable legal restraints on the ownership and wielding of firearms.

Who the hell NEEDS a "street sweeper" for hunting deer or defending their home from burglars? How many burglars are you anticipating, really? Oh, that many!?? Well, maybe it would be more intelligent to move to a safer neighborhood.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999----- --sorry for the sixth time today.
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 02:09 PM

`You can only use deadly force if your life is in imminent danger. If you can stop someone without using deadly force. IE your life is not in imminent danger then you will go to jail for murder be it police officer or civilian if you use your weapon.`


I wish someone had told that to the RCMP foursome who murdered a man in the Vancouver airport a while back.

That`s not aimed at you specifically, Dan. BTW, they used a taser on him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 02:08 PM

`You can only use deadly force if your life is in imminent danger. If you can stop someone without using deadly force. IE your life is not in imminent danger then you will go to jail for murder be it police officer or civilian if you use your weapon.`


I wish someone had told that to the RCMP foursome who murdered a man in the Vancouver airport a while back.

That`s not aimed at you specifically, Dan. BTW, they used a taser on him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 11:19 PM

Don, I didn't tut at you. :)

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 11:19 PM

Police officers are trained to use a taser and pepper spray to subdue a person in regard to an unruly or uncooperative subject. They are trained to Never use a taser or pepper spray for a deadly force situation. If you pull a knife on a police officer I assure you he will shoot you, likewise if you attempt to pull a gun he will do the same. It is all situation dependent, if there is enough distance and a knife is involved an officer will order you to drop it. If you do not as in the case of the guy in DC outside the White House 10 years ago or so, they will shoot you. You can only use deadly force if your life is in imminent danger. If you can stop someone without using deadly force. IE your life is not in imminent danger then you will go to jail for murder be it police officer or civilian if you use your weapon.

Any person police or not that has a loaded weapon near their bed is insane and it will end up in a tragic situation. I am sorry to hear that but a reasonable person who is highly trained won't do that unless the area they live it is so dangerous that they have little choice. In which case I would move.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 11:09 PM

Some of us hear you loud & clear, Don.....but it is a bit like preaching to the choir.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 11:07 PM

tut tut

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 11:01 PM

Used to be a member of the NRA, olddude. And it would be easy enough for me to look up the CURRENT gun laws in various states. I AM internet literate. I've engaged in this argument--from both sides--so many times it bores me to tears.

And you ARE getting a bit abusive here.

One of my aunts was married to a policeman who insisted that when he was working (night shift), she keep a gun in the drawer of the bedside table.

One night he got off early. She heard someone enter the house quietly, tip-toe up the stairs, and come into the bedroom. She sat there on the bed holding the gun with a two-hand hold as he had taught her. Had it not been for a street light glinting on the buttons of his uniform, she would have blown him away.

I can cite a number of REAL incidents, but I fully realize the futility of it.

There is this:   You don't have to use deadly force to stop someone else from using deadly force. All you need to do is STOP them before they can do so. A Taser or a can of Mace can do that quite effectively. A swift kick in the family jewels is also quite effective. It doesn't take much imagination to work out a whole variety of options.

But as I say, I fully realize the futility of what I'm saying.

Don Firth