|
20 May 99 - 05:28 PM (#80214) Subject: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. I hesitate to write this knowing what I want to say and who to say it to and how it will come across and I'm mad as hell, but after today in Atlanta, for the sweet love of God, how many is it going to take? You got an alternative, how about go out and get active about supporting it. How many, dammit, answer the question. Better yet, take the usual NRA coward's way out and say nothing when the heat's on. If you were in front of me right now, by God, you'd answer my question. Can't help it, Chet W. |
|
20 May 99 - 06:04 PM (#80226) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Richard Bridge The fault is I fear in much of Western society, particularly that of the USA, not in the fact that guns are available. |
|
20 May 99 - 06:49 PM (#80249) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Rick Fielding I'm afraid nothing will change Chet, but I think I know what you're feeling. It's another sad day. rick |
|
20 May 99 - 06:59 PM (#80253) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. I know that the absurd easy availability of guns is not the only problem, but only a fool would say that it's not one of them. Let's work on the rest of the problems too, now that the Senate has finally found the guts to say something that makes sense about guns. Passionately, Chet W. |
|
20 May 99 - 07:04 PM (#80254) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac Ok, here is another .02 worth. How come libril parents won't disipline their children. Never correct or heaven forbid spank them. (cosnider a slap up along side the head, a brain alignment.) So I blame the parents. If the kid is a problem at the age of two, they are not going to get better at 18. Unless the parent does something about it, then, when the kid is 14 or so, it is way too late. So the parents are too lazy to raise the kids right. So they get older and raise hell, the whole population has to pay for the parents folly. Being a parent isn't easy. Five minuits of fun rolling in the hay, can give you an 18 year comitment.
So here is the other penny.
Remember the TV add, telling people to take the keys out of their cars, "Don't let a good kid go wrong." If he is a good kid, what to heck is he doing checking out my car for keys?
So don't blame TV, Drugs, the hole in the Ozone layer, whales, Honda cars, or Rap music, for a failure of a parent to parent. If you can't handle the toughest job on the planet, then for God's sake, don't reproduce. |
|
20 May 99 - 07:15 PM (#80256) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. Ok, What are YOU doing to improve parenting in your community, or is it all someone else's responsibility? Would you join an organization to improve parenting, the way many cowards who won't speak their own piece join the NRA? |
|
20 May 99 - 09:03 PM (#80296) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. If it's not time to get angry now and organize against this madness, then that time will never come. Consider that a shoestring organization of heroic attorneys at the Southern Poverty Law Center succeeded in bringing the Ku Klux Klan to its knees financially. We could do the same with the "cold dead fingers" crowd. Sincerely, I who feel at least as strong as you do about holding criminals accountable, and much more informed about it, being a teacher in juvenile prison, Chet W. |
|
20 May 99 - 09:11 PM (#80298) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: katlaughing I agree with you, Chet. Thanks for this thread. You might like the one I just started about POSITIVE things-alternative to STRESS threads. kat |
|
20 May 99 - 09:28 PM (#80301) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Tucker What can I say people? you no longer hold folks accountable for their actions, instead, inanimate objects, like guns, stones, bricks, irons, wheelbarrows! Get off it for Christ sake! Domestic violence doesn't happen because there is a gun somewhere, it happens because there is a people problem and all the singing of Blowing in the Wind isn't going to help it. Don't want a gun, fine, don't have one. See someone violating laws, report them! Oh and by the way, if you are in Portsmouth Ohio mention that I reported a felony, the address of the felon,submitted evidence and still nothing has happened! I am sure this is the frustration that is happening everywhere in America, Millions of laws, no one enforcing them |
|
20 May 99 - 09:51 PM (#80315) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. Again, you respond to only a part of what I said because you can't deal with the whole thing. I dearly want criminals to be held accountable, and no mistake, and I don't want to take your guns or blame them. But I sure as hell wish those kids in Colorado or the one in Atlanta today had had wheelbarrows instead of what they did have, what was it?, oh yeah, guns. As far as enforcing the law, there are ways to get involved with supporting your local law enforcement (they don't get nearly enought support, only blame, like teachers) and vote to remove judges that won't send criminals to jail. People who are informed and sincere and prepared in mind can do a lot more than all the gun-gripping (till their fingers are cold and dead) one-thoughted people protecting their cabins with firepower. By the way, I have a close friend with whom I used to have this same argument (his grandfather had come here because of some IRA activities in Ireland, and guns are a big part of his identity) until I realized that it wasn't really an argument or a discussion because he wouldn't think with his whole mind. Now we don't talk about it, and we're still friends. Have guts, address all the issues, don't ignore the ones you can't support intelligently before God and the world, is my advice. Chet W. By the way, how many dead children will it take, and how close do they have to be to your house. |
|
20 May 99 - 11:51 PM (#80342) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Don Meixner I fear we will have this debate unendingly. Line will be drawn over this single issue and folks who would otherwise be friends will not speak to each other because of the stand taken. We can't speak about guns and gun ownership with out one side feeling that the other is trvializing what is viewed by them to be a horrible device. I am not in the NRA. But I shoot and I was trained to handle guns with care. Some people view all guns as weapons while I view some guns as weapons. If the universal weapon view is held then all knives are weapons and all bats are weapons. A Yo Yo is a weapon in its original form as are the discus and javelin. Are they still? I know that many people view my right to own a shotgun and the odd pistol as an idea whose time has been and gone. They are fine with their opinions. My thought is this, I've never used my guns foolishly or dangerously. My kids know all about them, how to be safe with them and they ignore them. I'm sorry some damaged children whose lives were set on this path years ago have come to this pass. But I will not let anyone criminalise my legal and rightful use of private property because of the crimnal actions by a very few people in the general population. Enforce the laws we have. Accept the standard provision in the law that allows for the rightful use of rifles, shotguns and pistols by collectors, sportspersons, and any member of the popularion who wishes to own a gun. Don Meixner |
|
20 May 99 - 11:55 PM (#80345) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Nan Guns don't kill.........People WITH guns kill! |
|
21 May 99 - 12:16 AM (#80349) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: katlaughing Again, guns are made for one reason only, tested for only one thing, ultimatley, their killing power. I am liberal as all get out. If you read my editorial in the other thread you will know I was raised targeting practising. My kids were taught about guns. I disciplined my kids, yes even with a swat on the butt. They all three grew up to responsible adults, with no guns, no run-ins with the law and everywhere they go I am complimented on their demeanor, courtesy, abilities,and talents.
Please quit generalising!Fingerpointing and using labels, esp. in an irrational manner will do nothing but deepen the polarisation that is already tearing our country apart!As Chet W. says, how many children does it take? How many before everyone joins in with reasonable actions on stopping the violence? How much longer will people be driven by paranoia, instead of compassion? kat |
|
21 May 99 - 12:22 AM (#80351) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Don Meixner Thats correct people with guns kill other people and animals. So do people with : Cars, knives, AIDS, poisons, alcohol, baseball bats, hockey sticks, black belts and no belts, viscious dogs, bad cooking skills, illegal drugs, explosives, screw drivers, matches...... The one constant in all these tools of death is not the tool, its the people. Left to their own devices, the desire to kill or cause harm will always rely on the tool at hand and many of these mentioned are more eficient than a hand gun. Don. |
|
21 May 99 - 04:54 AM (#80397) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: AndyG
This was going to go to the other guns thread but I couldn't post it yesterday.
To be fair I don't believe the USA is capable of withdrawing weapons from the populace given the present enormous distribution. But some serious and universal, carry, possession and purchase laws, (including weapon type restrictions) would surely be a move in the right direction.
For those in the "guns don't kill, people do!" lobby I suggest the following thought experiment.
AndyG |
|
21 May 99 - 05:05 AM (#80398) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Banjer All I've read is well and good. I can see logic and reason on both sides. BUT, as with anything else that gets outlawed or banned, we the law abiding citizens will comply, and then only the outlaws will have that which was banned! |
|
21 May 99 - 09:37 AM (#80444) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Bob Schwarer Kat: Not all guns are made for killing, tho they can. You would play hell trying a masacre with a bench rest rifle. Made strictly for punching holes in paper, real close together. Sure, you could kill some one if you tried hard enough, just like you could run down someone with a car not made for killing. Most of my rifles are single shot. The benchrest guns require me to make my own ammunition. On top of that they weighs 15 pounds. Not something I carry under my jacket. Bob S. |
|
21 May 99 - 09:41 AM (#80446) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: hank Those who would trade freedom for safety niether deserve nor will get either. Guns are made to kill. And not just people. We have in the country a severare problem with overpopulation of animoles. Guns are the only usefull way to control that. If you don't control the problem you will soon starve to death all (Not just the excess) of our wildlife. We need guns because the DNR cannot mantain wildlife iwthout them. And don't say we need more preditors, it sounds good until there is a bear eating your garbage, or a wolf snapping at your heals. Both are currently afraid of people in general, but campgrounds in some areas are in danger because bears have come to see people as in the way of food, and then they kill to get at the food you carry. Wolves will be next. I have never heard of a gun sitting on a shelf killing someone. I have heard of people mishandling a gun and killing someone (this is rare, but it happens), I've heard of people intentially killing anouther with a gun. There are also many people who handle a gun safely. Hunting is the safest sport we have today despite the fact that there is almost always someone in range of a hunters gun, and there is no supervision of hunters. The reason is that hunters know and respect the deadlyness of their weapon, and (generally) kill only what they intend to kill. Guns are not the common link in kids killing other kids. They are a common link in kids shooting kids, but that is not logical as you have defined guns when shooting, and of course they are a common link then. Bombs have destroied schools in the past, bombs made from standard household chemicals. Quit defining your goal and then restricting your scope to where your goal is achived and your logic will improve. I have yet to see a convincing arguement that people are not the common link in all these school shootings/bombings, or other killings outside of school. And finially, isolated incidents do not a crisis make. Yes of course I would be sad and angry if someone shot my sister. But I would not use that as an excuse to apply mislogic. Guns are not a big problem in our socity, they look like an easy fix, but it is not. |
|
21 May 99 - 09:53 AM (#80448) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Uilleand So many people, so many different points of view. But there are some common themes here. I see several issues raised and rationals brought forth in favor of guns. Maybe to separate them out would help to look at the different angles. Note also that not all of us who are for gun control are against guns or the ownership there of. One issue brought up is the one of national defense. And although I personally feel that that is the least persuasive argument for personal gun ownership, I think it needs to be addressed as I feel it's the one for which the 2nd amendment was intended. This country hasn't seen ground war on its own soil in over 100 years. The technology for war and large scale invasion is so sophisticated by now that the thought of defending your own home even with a granade launcher seems ludicrous, aside from the fact that we have one of the finest military defense systems in the world. Another 'war' argument brought up is the one of defense against our own elected government. This may work well for the fanatic 'Freemen' in Montana or the Branch Davidians, but I wonder how many average Americans use that argument and truly believe it, knowing full well the priviledges we enjoy as being one of the most democratic countries in the world. Guns for sport is another issue. The one I am most likely to support. But someone who owns and uses guns just for sport (hunting, target practice)really shouldn't have any difficulty with strict gun control. There are gun clubs and hunting clubs overseas that have very tight controls on how and where a gun is kept, licensing requirements and background checks. It works very well. The most contentious issue I see here in the threads is the one about personal protection. And that is also where most of the accidents happen. To say that the kids were just 'bad' or had parents that didn't do their jobs is abdicating the responsibility to our own communities. It is a way of sticking your head in the sand and saying that because people are inherently good or bad, I don't have to do anything but defend my rights. The fact is that even the most attentive parents cannot prevent children from exploring. And best intentions go awry many times. People get angry and sometimes people get violent. By having much stricter gun controls we can prevent those situation from being serious or even fatal. It is about giving ourselves time to think and exercise that which separates us from animals:choice. Regarding personal protection against attackers and intruders: there are other options. I am afraid that by making guns as the method of choice for self defense we are teaching our children a terrible lesson. Self defense can be passive: alertness, alarm systems, and many times plain common sense. Sorry for the length of this dissertation. |
|
21 May 99 - 10:43 AM (#80459) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac My two cents worth. I hate to break anyones bubble, but not all guns are built to kill people. Some are built to kill the very deadly empty tin can. Others are built to shoot down in a powdery crash, the once famous clay pidgen. We really don't need more laws, just enforce the ones we have now. Passing another law, only to have it ignored later, is just a big waste of time and effort. For example; It is considered ileagle to drive an automobile while under the influance of alachol. However there are something like 50K deaths a year attribuited to drunk driving. OK so lets make booze ileagle. They tried that in the 1920s. The main result of that was the Mafia.
Of course in America, you can have someone run you off the road, killing you and your family, and killing themselves and thier family, to beat you to an exit because they are late for the "anti war" rally, because they are aginst killing.
BTW, somebody asked what I do for parenting. Well I'm a parent of two. (both grown up now, both engineers.) And I still work with youth in the Civil Air Patrol. (Funny thing about CAP, they specilize in saving lives, yet sometimes I'm REQUIRED to have a gun in the airplane. It is part of my survival kit. Yes it is there to kill, so are my fish hooks, gill net, and snair. For some reason I feel that people are more important than bunny rabbits. Expecily when you are 250 miles from downtown nowhere.
At least it is Friday. Have a good weekend... |
|
21 May 99 - 11:16 AM (#80467) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Rick Fielding The postings from Hank and Fadac have rendered me speechless.(cheers heard in background) I am emigrating to another galaxie. (louder cheers!) |
|
21 May 99 - 11:29 AM (#80471) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: tomtom Hank, Hunting is the safest sport we have today? I would vote for ping pong, although it's been getting more and more dangerous nowadays--what with the plastic balls getting harder and the technical advancements with the paddle. I know, I know, you can kill someone with a ping pong paddle, too. tomtom |
|
21 May 99 - 01:15 PM (#80492) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Uilleand I hear all about the casualties when laws are ignored. What about the statistics of lives saved, because of these laws? How many people think twice about getting into a car after having indulged in an alcohol beverage? How many fines and jail sentences for DUIs and DWIs have prevented accidents? How many arguments did not result in injury or fatality because there is gun control? Those are the statistics that really matter. And would anyone truly be surprised to find out that they outnumber by far the instances where someone successfully fended off an attacker with a gun. The tragedy is that these statistics are much harder to obtain or most likely we wouldn't be having these kinds of arguments in the first place. |
|
21 May 99 - 01:26 PM (#80495) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Don Meixner Bob: Bench rifle. I have a .32 Cal Schutzen black powder that I never ever fire. I use my 45-70 trap door instead. Hank: Hunting is not a safe sport unless you hunt alone. There are so many untrained Nimrods out there that I have quit hunting. One fellow recently was pulled from the woods with an arrow in the back of his head. Hell of a shot. BUT shooting can be very safe and fun. I draw a definate distinction and still believe strongly and completely in the constitution. Rick: Stay on the planet, we need the loyal and rational opposition. Andy: Why do people always pick up an AK 47 to kill their pigs. A Mac 10 is just as poorly made and in accurate. I'd use a Shilleleigh, be cause they never misfire. Don
|
|
21 May 99 - 02:09 PM (#80501) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: LEJ Andy G mentioned the pig-killing analogy, deciding that guns would be the easier method of killing. I think he leaves out the dirty little secret about guns that even casual gun owners are aware of;guns are FUN.Why use a knife or a blunt object when they are so inefficient and dirty. Guns are clean and powerful; from 200 feet you can inflict sudden instantaneous death. You can't tell me that this isn't part of the thrill of big-game hunting. You can drop an animal who is far stronger and much more likely to kill you in a face to face confrontation, and you can drop him from a distance such that the animal has no idea what hit him. It's like a bolt from God. This is the insidious danger of firearms, the strong attraction to them as equalizers. Could Harris and Kleybold, the Columbine killers, have inflicted much damage with knives or baseball bats? I doubt it. They were wimps compared to many of their victims. Only with guns could they have the pleasure of watching many who were clearly their physical and mental superiors cower before them. Only with firearms could these two losers feel potent enough to take on themselves the power of gods. LEJ |
|
21 May 99 - 02:11 PM (#80502) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: katlaughing This is sickening. Why not have a pig-killing discusion privately? You missed my point again. None of the other things you've cited were made expressly for killing, as guns are.
Rick, glad you could join me; now, does that make US the aliens, or what!???katlaughing, disgustedly |
|
21 May 99 - 02:44 PM (#80514) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Sapper_RE As an ex-squaddie who enjoyed weapon training and an occasional day on the ranges, I looked at target shooting over this side of the big pond as a supurbly disciplined sport. Until, that is, I moved to Derbyshire, adjascent to the now defunct Derbyshire Shooting Centre. Listening to some dickhead blasting off 8 to 10 rounds in less than 5 seconds with something over 9mm caliber made me realise that, so far as civvy street is concerned, I was wrong. Neither did hearing what sounded suspiciously like an SMG on a couple of occasions. Here we have had Hungerford and Dunblane. Neither of which would have happened had the then law been enforced. The latter has led to a knee jerk reaction that has destroyed the enjoyment of a lot of law abiding people. However, there were enough potential psychos in the British shooting fraternity to make the current law the lesser of two evils. You, our American cousins, may be forced to catch up with us one day, despite the differences in circumstances. Bob. |
|
21 May 99 - 03:15 PM (#80525) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: DennisM let your mind be your guide. this thread could run forever. guns, dynamite, razors, rocks, it takes a person with a brain to use or misuse what he has available. crazy's do crazy things - period. |
|
21 May 99 - 03:36 PM (#80530) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: LEJ Kat... you apparently are missing the point. I don't think that pig-killing is the subject, the subject is the attraction of humans to using guns. Andy made an analogy, Don and I commented on it. |
|
21 May 99 - 04:26 PM (#80547) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: SeanM Could I ask, for the future of the 'cat, that this subject be declared an 'agree to disagree' subject? In my short time on the 'cat, I've never seen a topic create such vitriol amongst people who are otherwise friendly. Let's call a truce before we do some serious damage, please? Two full threads worth of disagreement with excursions in to several others should be a strong enough hint that this is a polarizing issue, and perhaps we should reconsider continuing this same polarization... Sean
|
|
21 May 99 - 04:47 PM (#80554) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: katlaughing The analogous pigs and I agree with you SeanM. Thank you! kat |
|
21 May 99 - 05:58 PM (#80569) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Bert I' m not taking sides on this thread but I just found this joke... A female newscaster is interviewing the leader of a youth club: Interviewer: "So, Mr. Jones, what are you going to do with these children on this adventure holiday?" Mr. Jones: "We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting." Interviewer: "Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?" Mr. Jones: "I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range." Interviewer: "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?" Mr. Jones: "I don't see how, we will be teaching them proper range discipline before they even touch a firearm." Interviewer: "But you're equipping them to become violent killers." Mr. Jones: "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're not one, are you?" |
|
21 May 99 - 06:11 PM (#80571) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac Bert, Legend has it, that she cut the interview just before the last line. Then broadcast the interview with a bunch of on street interviews of the sort, "Should youth clubs be teaching kids to shoot guns, that kill people?" Then when called on it, she screemed "Freedom of the press!" How convient. I agree, this thread has gone on too long. I don't think anyone changed anyone elses opinion, however a lot of steam has been let off. (pffffft) Remember: Accordions don't play Lady of Spain, Accordionsist do. |
|
21 May 99 - 06:23 PM (#80575) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. I agree with ending this, as far as I'm concerned, but not for the sake of civil discourse. Those who make the loudest arguments against gun control, always ignoring that we are not saying "gun banning", are not really coming up with adult ideas, so this is not really a discussion or an argument among equals. It's a bunch of adults, angry at this point in time, trying to communicate with programmed robots. If this is vitriol, then so be it. I must say that quoting Thomas Jefferson, about being willing to give up freedom for security, is entirely out of place here. One last thing, if you can find a French movie from a few years ago called "Hate", you may see what a big difference there is between an open gun culture (like ours in the US) and a controlled one (obviously, France). When violence comes, as it does everywhere sooner or later, a lot less people end up dead when guns are not growing on trees. I'm done, Chet W. |
|
21 May 99 - 06:31 PM (#80578) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Don Meixner Ms. Laughing, Because you have asked I will quit being a party to this thread. We will never agree or change our minds be left to our own devices we will rail against each other until we out cute each other. I said early on this was a no win discussion. But people will know that I am a gun owner even if I say nothing. They will smell the Hoppes # 9 faintly on my hands when we meet. Or they notice I am a little deaf in my left ear or I'll forget and wear my yellow glasses. I can hide it from some by putting a 4 foot level and a fly rod in the gun rack in the backwindow of my truck but others will know. Yes, others will know. Or maybe not. Your Pal til hell won't have it. Don |
|
21 May 99 - 08:15 PM (#80613) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: L:EJ Just so you know, this discussion has influenced a change of heart for some of us. I got personal e-mails from Tucker, Don M, and fadac confiding that I had won them over, and voicing their whole-hearted support for handgun control. I have asked them to send their firearms to Katlaughing for safekeeping, although I would like to borrow the grenade launcher for an experiment in whole hog sausage production this weekend. I for one enjoyed the argument. Thanks to all on all sides who participated...LEJ |
|
21 May 99 - 08:24 PM (#80618) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Bob Schwarer Last post. Don: Bench gun is a 6PPC tight neck. Love to shoot the old Trapdoor. Pull the trigger & wait forever to hear the bullet hit. Got a .32-40 for Schutzen work. A Stevens replica. |
|
21 May 99 - 09:30 PM (#80639) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: katlaughing I shall turn them all into pisspots and plowshares! |
|
22 May 99 - 12:27 AM (#80675) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: bseed(charleskratz) You can decide what this means, if it means anything: judging by this discussion, people who favor gun control spell much better than those who oppose it. --seed |
|
22 May 99 - 07:55 PM (#80854) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Bob Schwarer 10 Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, `I am strong!` Joel 3:10
|
|
22 May 99 - 08:03 PM (#80859) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Rick Fielding Hi Kratz, interesting point - and am I glad YOU made it. Might check out sentence structure while you're at it. |
|
23 May 99 - 01:35 AM (#80920) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: bseed(charleskratz) Rick, I noticed some syntactical/grammatical/other mechanical shortcomings as well, but figured I could make the point with spelling...it's easier to grasp. --seed |
|
23 May 99 - 02:22 AM (#80928) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Alex I was hoping that this would just go away, and I decided to stay out of it - but it just seems to keep going. If it continues further I intend to start a new thread on the lines of the Monty Python skit "Spot The Loony" (On Mudcat). I've already picked my choices! |
|
24 May 99 - 09:28 AM (#81233) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: hank Well, I'm staying away form these threads after this, so my last words: I've noticed that in both the school shootings that people are concerned about, the kids would have gotten the guns in the same way. In alanta they were locked in a safe, but the kid got them anyway. An adult purchased them, and had them well stored, but that doesn't stop criminals. For those who think they are cute picking on my (admitiadly) bad spelling: Would you tell a person in a wheelchair to get up an walk? Everyone has their difficulties, I don't claim to be perfect, please see byond them to me. (No need to respond to this, as I said, I'm staying away from this thread) |
|
24 May 99 - 09:38 AM (#81237) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: The_one_and_only_Dai --seed: I'm sooooo glad you pointed that out, I'd noticed it some time ago, but thought it inappropriate to comment, as I'm only British. Ta. |
|
24 May 99 - 09:41 AM (#81238) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: The_one_and_only_Dai Oh, and nobody answered my question. |
|
24 May 99 - 10:13 AM (#81244) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Cara Lucky I was out of town and miss this thread. Because those horrible NRA slogans were bandied about here again, let me say this again here: If only outlaws have guns, it sure will make it easier for the police to spot them. I think this discussion has been remarkably civil, all things considered. It's one I've never been able to have with my family because of the high emotion involved (and their unfortunate placement on the wrong side of this debate) so having it here, in a "safe" environment, has been great. Chet, I like your thoughts on doing something. It's an excellent point; if you don't like the way things are, do something about it. I try to live my life that way, and these mmost recent shootings have prompted me to consider taking a break from tutoring and doing some volunteer work for gun control. Gotta put my money where my mouth is, as they say. Good on us, for (largely) reasonable debate (except for all of you who are wrong, wrong, wrong of course). kat, if you melt down some of that steel and fashion it into a peace sign and send it to me I'll wear it around my neck forever, fashion be damned. |
|
24 May 99 - 10:29 AM (#81247) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again L:EJ NOT SO! From: Fadac 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. |
|
24 May 99 - 10:36 AM (#81249) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: The_one_and_only_Dai Still nobody's answered my question. |
|
24 May 99 - 11:26 AM (#81264) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac 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. |\/\/\/| |
|
24 May 99 - 11:45 AM (#81267) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: The_one_and_only_Dai 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. |
|
24 May 99 - 12:11 PM (#81269) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: LEJ 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 |
|
24 May 99 - 12:28 PM (#81274) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Cara 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. |
|
24 May 99 - 12:29 PM (#81276) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Cara 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. |
|
24 May 99 - 12:51 PM (#81284) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac (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? |
|
24 May 99 - 12:55 PM (#81286) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac LEJ, Thanks for the post. Wasn't sure, dosn't seem to be much room for jest on this thread. |
|
24 May 99 - 01:10 PM (#81291) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac 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. |
|
27 May 99 - 06:47 PM (#82223) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
27 May 99 - 09:19 PM (#82256) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. 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. |
|
27 May 99 - 10:01 PM (#82265) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Don Meixner 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 |
|
27 May 99 - 10:41 PM (#82272) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. 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. |
|
27 May 99 - 11:40 PM (#82292) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: manylodges (inactive) 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. |
|
27 May 99 - 11:45 PM (#82295) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: katlaughing ChetW. and Manylodges: both breathes of fresh air. Thanks to you, both, and to LEJ, who has also had a voice of reason. Kat |
|
28 May 99 - 02:18 AM (#82314) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: SeanM 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 |
|
28 May 99 - 03:07 AM (#82327) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: bseed(charleskratz) 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. |
|
28 May 99 - 11:12 AM (#82392) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac 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. |
|
28 May 99 - 12:14 PM (#82406) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: katlaughing 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. |
|
28 May 99 - 12:52 PM (#82416) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac Please world, let there be some gray. Or perhaps some blue, green, yellow. Why does everything have to be black and white? Period. |
|
28 May 99 - 12:58 PM (#82420) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Penny S. Fadac, is that "way out of my range" intentional?! |
|
28 May 99 - 01:11 PM (#82425) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac 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. |
|
28 May 99 - 03:32 PM (#82448) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Penny S. 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. |
|
28 May 99 - 04:01 PM (#82453) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac 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) |
|
28 May 99 - 04:09 PM (#82457) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Bert http://www.digiserve.com/eescape/ramblings/essays/Finger-Pointing.html |
|
28 May 99 - 04:16 PM (#82460) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Penny S. 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. |
|
28 May 99 - 06:48 PM (#82495) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. 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. |
|
28 May 99 - 07:16 PM (#82498) Subject: ADD: Blow 'Em Away (Chuck Brodsky) From: Roger in Baltimore 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 |
|
28 May 99 - 08:55 PM (#82519) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. Thanks Roger, Good words. I'm ordering the book. I even love the song. Chet W. |
|
28 May 99 - 11:17 PM (#82557) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: bseed(charleskratz) 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 |
|
29 May 99 - 11:05 AM (#82641) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. 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. |
|
29 May 99 - 02:40 PM (#82662) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Bulldog Chet, Ask the IRA, Pathans and the Vietcong that question. Please! Cordially. Dave |
|
29 May 99 - 03:58 PM (#82675) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. If this were the place where problems were solved, all would be lost. Chet W. |
|
29 May 99 - 05:59 PM (#82692) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Roger in Baltimore 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 |
|
29 May 99 - 07:41 PM (#82722) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Chet W. 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. |
|
29 May 99 - 08:13 PM (#82728) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: bseed(charleskratz) 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 |
|
29 May 99 - 10:43 PM (#82776) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Roger in Baltimore 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 |
|
29 May 99 - 11:14 PM (#82789) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: bseed(charleskratz) 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 |
|
30 May 99 - 07:58 AM (#82852) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Roger in Baltimore 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 |
|
31 May 99 - 12:46 AM (#82969) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: katlaughing 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 |
|
31 May 99 - 01:05 AM (#82976) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: DonMeixner 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 |
|
31 May 99 - 01:32 AM (#82980) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: katlaughing 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.''
|
|
31 May 99 - 03:55 AM (#82990) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: bseed(charleskratz) 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 |
|
31 May 99 - 06:24 AM (#83004) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Roger in Baltimore 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 |
|
31 May 99 - 09:57 AM (#83011) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: katlaughing 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 |
|
31 May 99 - 10:20 AM (#83014) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Roger in Baltimore 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 |
|
31 May 99 - 11:17 AM (#83020) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: katlaughing 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 |
|
31 May 99 - 06:26 PM (#83067) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Don Meixner 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 |
|
01 Jun 99 - 10:43 AM (#83212) Subject: RE: Hesitatingly, GUNS again From: Fadac 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 |