"Bad things don't happen on the trail..." a/k/a "If she only had a pistol..."

[Don Rearic]

alright i said i wouldnt post again but i want to say that im not against guns or americans being allowed to carry them but i do not see why people try to push these laws on canadians.

Dude, it's OK if you post again. I'm glad you're not against guns or Americans being allowed to carry them. It's nice that you say that even though you don't really have a stake in it.

I don't see anyone pushing it on Canadians, I see people criticizing the critics, that's all.

My half-brother had an Orthopedic Specialist up at Union Memorial Hospital who was a Canadian. He came down here years ago because he didn't like the way the laws were going in Canada. I know a few Canadian gun owners online who still live there, they don't like the laws but they love their country. Some of them want to come here, some don't. Some just want to bitch because they don't want to leave the country they love, the country of their birth but they don't like the laws. There is a lot of frustration to go around. Everything is OK.

I also would like people to realize that guns are not the only way to protect yourself and in some cases they are not at all the best solution

Go back to the first post I made when I created this thread, please. Tell me what you get out of my own words.

there have been plenty of people who have said canada is a lesser place because of thier gun laws...

I don't know that I would call it a "lesser" place because of the gun laws but if I did, Caleb, what of it? I know Canadians that are far more harsh on Canada than I am or have ever been.

Let me put it to you this way. I cannot carry a handgun concealed in the State where I live. When the State I live in informs me that they are going to tell me that I will NOT have a firearm outside of a safe in my own home and that I must keep it unloaded or partially disassembled - whatever, that's the day I must escape the State's madness and move to another.

I mean, on one level, come on. A woman in Canada cannot legally spray an attacker with pepper spray but you can have it against bears...now, be honest, is this stupid or what?

It seems to be perfectly acceptable in todays liberal PC dominated culture, for anyone, from any where, to make any stated or implied criticism of any part of U.S culture or Government an object of protected speech.

Of course the reverse (Such as stating the fact that a number of countries reject the whole concept of self-defense as taboo) is 'country bashing' and not to be tolerated.

5K, I really cannot argue with that statement, it's been that way for a long, long time now. We're evil in the world and that's that.

We cause toenail fungus as well.

Mr. Rearics Original Post was a valid and obviously thought provoking one.

Too bad we didn't stay with discussing it.

Well, a lot of people are passing over the whole hiking staff, cane and knife comments, over and over and over again, what is one to do?

Tough crap if you don't believe it it's what I believe. And you can't change my mind on it.

Well, neener, neener, neener. No, your Momma, is there anything else you would like to stamp your feet about?

And don't go on quoting gun laws and politicians names at me. I am an NRA member, a gun toter and I said I would like a silencer (oops sorry supressor is the NRA politically correct way to say it)

NO, you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts, my friend. (That's a little quote from the now deceased, extremely anti-gun senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.)

"Silencer" is not the correct term, the NRA doesn't have a thing to do with and it is not a "PC" term, it's the science of firearms and I don't care if you like that, either. They're suppressors, they suppress muzzle blast, they don't silence ANYTHING.

Make silencers legal and easy to get for everyone and the cost for them drops wayyyyy down and before you know it every two bit thug with a gun would have them. Now not only is it a $200 tax stamp but they also cost as much or more than an actual gun. I like it that way and it should stay that way.

You just made the anti-gunners argument about ALL guns, congratulations. There will be a BLOODBATH, there will be blood in the streets, there will be...gunfights in the street like the O.K. Corral...you don't even see you're doing it, do you?

Just like machine guns, SBR's and sawed off shotguns.

But hey I also think we shouldn't be allowed to have rocket launchers and hand grenades too.

You do know that you can own hand grenades and landmines and stuff, right? They're "destructive devices" and you can own them.

I also believe in background checks and that felons and people with protection orders or domestic violence or mental illness histories shouldn't be allowed to have guns. I believe guns should be registered to a specific owner and that the person to person tranfer of guns without having to go thru the same process as someone buying a gun thru an FFL dealer should be illegal.

You're just the kind of gun owner the NRA needs!

99 of you in the U.S. Senate and 1 Charles Schumer and we wouldn't have anything.

 

[stabman]

I mean, on one level, come on. A woman in Canada cannot legally spray an attacker with pepper spray but you can have it against bears...now, be honest, is this stupid or what?

Wrong.
She cannot CARRY it for that purpose; it's for dogs don't ya know.
BUT, she CAN use it against an attacker, because you are allowed to use force to defend yourself, up to and including deadly force if the situation warrants it.

 

[Don Rearic]

So, someone using pepper spray designed for animals will not be charged with a crime for using it on a human being in Canada? I heard otherwise. If what you say is true, I think that is wonderful, but I have heard differently.

 

[stabman]

So, someone using pepper spray designed for animals will not be charged with a crime for using it on a human being in Canada? I heard otherwise. If what you say is true, I think that is wonderful, but I have heard differently.

As long as it was a justifiable usage, meaning a situation where a weapon was warranted, then they'll be okay legally.
Not to say they won't be charged(the cops often lay charges and let the courts figure it out), but they'll get off in the end.
Also, the law here is generally more forgiving when it comes to women, as in the case in Windsor where the woman slashed her attacker with a knife(2 attackers, one who got slashed). They didn't even bother with any charges, and said she had done the right thing.

 

[stabman]

I think the truth is that we get bombarded with propaganda on both sides of the border regarding what happens in the other country.
Makes it difficult at times to discern what the actual state of things is.

 

[Don Rearic]

I have Canadian friends in the past tell me you will be charged if you use O.C. on a person.

As far as the stupid games of, "Yeah, this ain't for self-defense," we have to play that game down here as well with a lot of things, including knives.

 

[stabman]

I have Canadian friends in the past tell me you will be charged if you use O.C. on a person.

Heck, I meet people here all the time who tell me that handguns are illegal, even though all mine are perfectly legal to own. They've absorbed the propaganda without fact checking for themselves. Also meet many who think carrying a knife is illegal, or any of a number of other fallacies.

 

[shecky]

They you havent been reading what I have been writing. The studies done have isolated all of the other variables, i.e. population, economics, demographics, etc.

When all other factors have remained the same, and a dramatic change occurs, scientifically, the cause must be the sole remaining factor.

Link?

The facts say differently.

The problem you seem to be avoiding is that violent crime in the US has fallen, particularly in some areas with the most stringent gun laws. New York City has seen a fairly dramatic drop in the last decade and a half. So has Los Angeles. Both places that are not friendly or even hostile to firearm ownership. By your analysis, strict gun control has a desirable effect on on crime.

However, this conclusion would be false. The results are not the same in other cities. And some cities that are friendly to gun ownership and carry have worse violent crime? Why the discrepancy? Those pesky details like demographics, culture, etc get in the way of gun rights propaganda. In the end, guns have little if any effect on crime in the US.

The key to successfully defending gun rights is no not spout bogus information in defense.

No, I merely havent managed to convince you. Thats a big difference.

If you want to take the position that a 70% national increase in armed robbery after private citizens were forced to turn in their firearms is attributable to some other factor, then by all means die on that hill. Its going to be quite lonely however.

Can you back up this? It seems common for gun advocates to continually point to England (and Australia) to show a link between guns and violent crime. Yet, I haven't seen any studies that showed anything but correlation.

 

[shecky]

How's this for causation.
Human hunting pressure on animal predators causes an avoidance of humans armed or unarmed.
In areas without human hunting pressure animal predators are more aggressive and less fearful of humans with or without firearms.
Do you believe humans lack the common sense and ability to learn animals do?
Some may be lacking in common sense but those get shot first.The rest learn a conditioned response two legs or four paws.
Guns cause less crime.Why? There are more good people with guns than bad.
A small percentage of people are criminals.Until there are 51% of the armed population committing crimes, guns will prevent more crime than cause crime.
It's simple math and common sence.

Can you back up your common sense with actual statistics?

You seem to indicate that criminals respond to incentives (or in this case, disincentives) in a rational manner. This presents a problem. Violent criminals are in some cases definitely not rational actors.

Furthermore, some areas that have had increasingly stringent gun laws have experienced falling crime rates. By your common sense and math, the effect should have been the opposite. Clearly, there are other factors at work.

This isn't to say that guns have no effect. It's just that vanishingly few credible studies have found guns to have a significant effect either way in the US.

 

[Bushman5]

Heck, I meet people here all the time who tell me that handguns are illegal, even though all mine are perfectly legal to own. They've absorbed the propaganda without fact checking for themselves. Also meet many who think carrying a knife is illegal, or any of a number of other fallacies.

sure you can own handguns, with proper permits , proper storage, and proper permits (everytime you need to move the handgun) to TRANSPORT them to and from the ONLY place you can use them....the Range. You sure cannot carry them for defense or EDC, EXCEPT if you are Law Enforcement/similar careers, a Conservation Officer or if you have a EXTREMELY hard to get Wilderness Carry Permit, which RESTRICTS you to VERY specific regions (ie in the mining camp, in the logging blocks, at the remote research area etc.

NO ONE except LE can carry a handgun in Canada as an EDC item.

 

[akthor]

They don't don't just suppress the flash those are called "FLASH SUPRESSORS" I have one on my AR. Silencers the things they want to call "Supressors" also supress the noise and the recoil. Get your scientific facts straight. Watch the show I linked to and you can see them fire a 5.56 AR-15 with and without one and watch the difference.

And you are just some flat out crazy kook if you think people should be able to buy and sell guns willy nilly with no checks and balances. It's a plain fact of life that there are people in this world who should not have access to guns.

You need a license to drive, to fly, to fish, to hunt, can't get back in the country legally if you are a US citizen without a passport. Hell you need a permit for a fire sometimes and of course you should meet a certain criteria to have the RIGHT to OWN a gun.

You may have been born a US citizen with all the inherent rights. But if you did something to have some of those rights revoked or disallowed that's just too bad ain't it?

I worked with the mentally ill for 7 yrs in Vocational job Training and trust me you don't want the mentally ill to have guns.

Do you want ex felons to have them?

What about the guy who beats his wife and has been arrested for domestic violence or has a protection from abuse order on him? You want him to be able to buy a gun and finish the job?

I mean what do you want??? Want them to allow kids under 18 to go buy em' too? I mean hey you can't drink till your 21 but here's a machine gun go knock yourself kid.

BTW Destructive devises are legal in some states and not other and yes you can own them if you have the proper licenses etc. Which by the way is as it should be.

Humans do bad things to each other. There has to be laws that affect the many to protect us from the few. Personally since I've done nothing wrong I don't mind spending the extra 10 minutes to fill out paperwork to get my gun and I think everyone else should have to do it too.

I AM exactly the kind of person the NRA should have as a member. A law abiding citizen who only wants guns in the hands of other law abiding citizen.

And I repeat my earlier post, it's gun nuts like you that scare Joe Average Citizen. It's people like you that make them want to keep adding more and more gun laws. You want to allow anybody to buy any firearm made with no background checks, allow people access to machine guns and supressors. And you wonder why they freak?

Dude, it's OK if you post again. I'm glad you're not against guns or Americans being allowed to carry them. It's nice that you say that even though you don't really have a stake in it.

I don't see anyone pushing it on Canadians, I see people criticizing the critics, that's all.

My half-brother had an Orthopedic Specialist up at Union Memorial Hospital who was a Canadian. He came down here years ago because he didn't like the way the laws were going in Canada. I know a few Canadian gun owners online who still live there, they don't like the laws but they love their country. Some of them want to come here, some don't. Some just want to bitch because they don't want to leave the country they love, the country of their birth but they don't like the laws. There is a lot of frustration to go around. Everything is OK.



Go back to the first post I made when I created this thread, please. Tell me what you get out of my own words.




I don't know that I would call it a "lesser" place because of the gun laws but if I did, Caleb, what of it? I know Canadians that are far more harsh on Canada than I am or have ever been.

Let me put it to you this way. I cannot carry a handgun concealed in the State where I live. When the State I live in informs me that they are going to tell me that I will NOT have a firearm outside of a safe in my own home and that I must keep it unloaded or partially disassembled - whatever, that's the day I must escape the State's madness and move to another.

I mean, on one level, come on. A woman in Canada cannot legally spray an attacker with pepper spray but you can have it against bears...now, be honest, is this stupid or what?



5K, I really cannot argue with that statement, it's been that way for a long, long time now. We're evil in the world and that's that.

We cause toenail fungus as well.



Well, a lot of people are passing over the whole hiking staff, cane and knife comments, over and over and over again, what is one to do?




Well, neener, neener, neener. No, your Momma, is there anything else you would like to stamp your feet about?



NO, you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts, my friend. (That's a little quote from the now deceased, extremely anti-gun senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.)

"Silencer" is not the correct term, the NRA doesn't have a thing to do with and it is not a "PC" term, it's the science of firearms and I don't care if you like that, either. They're suppressors, they suppress muzzle blast, they don't silence ANYTHING.



You just made the anti-gunners argument about ALL guns, congratulations. There will be a BLOODBATH, there will be blood in the streets, there will be...gunfights in the street like the O.K. Corral...you don't even see you're doing it, do you?



You do know that you can own hand grenades and landmines and stuff, right? They're "destructive devices" and you can own them.



You're just the kind of gun owner the NRA needs!

99 of you in the U.S. Senate and 1 Charles Schumer and we wouldn't have anything.

 

[Gadgetaholic]

NO ONE except LE can carry a handgun in Canada as an EDC item.

Here in NZ NOT EVEN LE can carry a handgun as an EDC item!

Of course a lot less criminals in NZ have guns either. This is something that can't be acheived in the USA, stronger gun laws could take guns off the honest citizens but the criminals aren't going to be handing theirs in.

If I was a citizen of the US of A then I would probably buy a gun or 3 - but I can respect peoples individual rights to not carry a gun if they don't like them. There are plenty of people that don't EDC weapons and yet also don't get murdered - the woman mention in the OP was unlucky.

 

[Gerberblades]

I find it disturbing how anyone could kill a human being in cold blood, but then could not an animal. Dont get me wrong, I like animals but human life is much more valuable, and anyone that thinks different has their priorities wrong. That guy deserves to get the chair...

 

[Gerberblades]

Have you read the recent issue of NRA American Hunter? Gun sales UP Crime rate DOWN.

Can you back up your common sense with actual statistics?

You seem to indicate that criminals respond to incentives (or in this case, disincentives) in a rational manner. This presents a problem. Violent criminals are in some cases definitely not rational actors.

Furthermore, some areas that have had increasingly stringent gun laws have experienced falling crime rates. By your common sense and math, the effect should have been the opposite. Clearly, there are other factors at work.

This isn't to say that guns have no effect. It's just that vanishingly few credible studies have found guns to have a significant effect either way in the US.

 

[RobbW]

They don't don't just suppress the flash those are called "FLASH SUPRESSORS" I have one on my AR. Silencers the things they want to call "Supressors" also supress the noise and the recoil. Get your scientific facts straight. Watch the show I linked to and you can see them fire a 5.56 AR-15 with and without one and watch the difference.

You're confusing "flash" suppressor with "sound" suppressor. The sound is not "silenced", it is only suppressed or reduced--even the very best sound suppressors still make a pretty loud signature. Even the click of a firing pin carries a long ways.

And you are just some flat out crazy kook if you think people should be able to buy and sell guns willy nilly with no checks and balances. It's a plain fact of life that there are people in this world who should not have access to guns.

Call them crazy or kooky, but that's what our founders wrote into the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Crazy buncha fellas.

You need a license to drive, to fly, to fish, to hunt, can't get back in the country legally if you are a US citizen without a passport. Hell you need a permit for a fire sometimes and of course you should meet a certain criteria to have the RIGHT to OWN a gun.

Check out the difference between a privilege and a right. Driving, flying, fishing and hunting are all privileges. The government has no obligation to furnish permission to you to do those things. It sets up licensing procedures with standards to determine who will be granted those permissions. On the other hand, our government has an obligation to furnish a right. Rights are inalienable. Unless specific powers are granted to the government (interpretation, for example), the government must furnish those rights to its citizens. For example, you do not have the right to a garden. This means that the government is under no obligation to furnish you with a garden. But if you do plant a garden, you do have a right to have that garden unmolested by others or by the government. You can take legal action against the perpetrator. Similarly, your right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms means that the government, according to the Constitution, has an obligation to furnish or provide you with that right. Unfortunately, anti-second amendment groups have successfully supported laws undermining the clear language of the second amendment, based on a different legal theories and interpretations than what is fairly clear in the language of the Constitution and Federalist Papers themselves. The pendulum is swinging back the other way, however, and now even the ACLU has become neutral on interpreting the second amendment, rather than openly hostile as it was in the past.

Do you want ex felons to have them?

I support ex-felons having all rights of citizens including the right to vote and RKBA. I don't believe in two classes of citizenry. If there is any question, keep them in prison longer (less parole) or increase sentencing guidelines. If the government deems them safe for society, they should be able to vote on the laws that affect them and protect themselves and their families like any other citizen. And yes, I support the death penalty for those who intentionally and cruelly and repeatedly disregard the sacredness of innocent human life. I do believe the operative word is innocent.

You asked about machine guns and sound suppressors. They are already legal under federal law. Unfortunately, I can't get them in my state, even with the tax. I wish I could. I think sound suppressors, combined with plugs and muffs, could save a lot of hearing, especially for target shooters like myself. I'm with the Brits and some of the Scandinavians, it's good manners and it saves hearing. I couldn't afford a fully-automatic weapon, and even if I could, I couldn't afford the ammo. I have had fun shooting some of the governments full-autos and let me tell you it is a treat! I wish the founders had worked in free ammo for all into the Constitution.

As to the OP, a true tragedy and my heart goes out to that young woman and her family and friends who must be deeply grieving. I'm sure she did all she could given the situation as it unfolded, to defend herself. I do believe, sadly, that at some level she either failed to prepare or prepared to fail by not having appropriate defense tool(s) at hand. If she'd have died of hypothermia in a freak storm without reliable tools to make fire or shelter, and I'd have thought the same--not to judge her harshly, just as a vicarious lesson for those who can learn from it.

 

[grunt soldier]

shecky , can you show the statistics your talking about. i bet when you do people can say exactly the same stuff to you. let me ask everyone one simple question because its been proven in England and Australia.

If you were a criminal or bad guy and you had the option to choose a house where the home owners where unarmed and you knew this because they are law abiding citizens and turned in their weapons or you could pick a house at random in a free state and country where there is a good chance the home owner is going to have a gun and will probably do to the criminal what he deserves? which would you or the hypothetical criminal pick??

no matter what you think statics say or what you believe with out a doubt every single criminal will pick the unarmed house because it's a easy target and this is what most of them are looking for.

now with out a doubt the same can be said for every single person on the street. if your going to rob someone and you know they are unarmed because legally they can't carry a gun or weapon you will pick that person over the person who looks like they are printing and possibly has a nice big surprise for you under there jacket or shirt.

i mean the above is statistics, fact's and common sense no if and or butts about it sir. and if you try to argue it, i am gonna need to see your statistics where criminals who have been interviewed said i would much rather try to rob or abduct someone who has the possibility to defend themselves with a weapons vs trying to rob or abduct a easy target who doesn't have that option

 

[InfidelShootist]

They don't don't just suppress the flash those are called "FLASH SUPRESSORS" I have one on my AR. Silencers the things they want to call "Supressors" also supress the noise and the recoil. Get your scientific facts straight. Watch the show I linked to and you can see them fire a 5.56 AR-15 with and without one and watch the difference.

And you are just some flat out crazy kook if you think people should be able to buy and sell guns willy nilly with no checks and balances. It's a plain fact of life that there are people in this world who should not have access to guns.

You need a license to drive, to fly, to fish, to hunt, can't get back in the country legally if you are a US citizen without a passport. Hell you need a permit for a fire sometimes and of course you should meet a certain criteria to have the RIGHT to OWN a gun.

You may have been born a US citizen with all the inherent rights. But if you did something to have some of those rights revoked or disallowed that's just too bad ain't it?

I worked with the mentally ill for 7 yrs in Vocational job Training and trust me you don't want the mentally ill to have guns.

Do you want ex felons to have them?

What about the guy who beats his wife and has been arrested for domestic violence or has a protection from abuse order on him? You want him to be able to buy a gun and finish the job?

I mean what do you want??? Want them to allow kids under 18 to go buy em' too? I mean hey you can't drink till your 21 but here's a machine gun go knock yourself kid.

BTW Destructive devises are legal in some states and not other and yes you can own them if you have the proper licenses etc. Which by the way is as it should be.

Humans do bad things to each other. There has to be laws that affect the many to protect us from the few. Personally since I've done nothing wrong I don't mind spending the extra 10 minutes to fill out paperwork to get my gun and I think everyone else should have to do it too.

I AM exactly the kind of person the NRA should have as a member. A law abiding citizen who only wants guns in the hands of other law abiding citizen.

And I repeat my earlier post, it's gun nuts like you that scare Joe Average Citizen. It's people like you that make them want to keep adding more and more gun laws. You want to allow anybody to buy any firearm made with no background checks, allow people access to machine guns and suppressors. And you wonder why they freak?

Forget it.
Not worth it.

 

[rwc53]

Dr, John Lott has done an amazing amount of research on firearms, personal defense, and crime. His work bears looking into, if you are truly interested in seeing good, statistical data concerning gun ownership and crime.

Regards,
Ron

 

[Don Rearic]

They don't don't just suppress the flash those are called "FLASH SUPRESSORS" I have one on my AR. Silencers the things they want to call "Supressors" also supress the noise and the recoil. Get your scientific facts straight.

Buddy, I have my facts right and I just don't think you know as much about firearms or their history as I do. I don't care how old you are, if you were in the Army or anything else you can drum up as some type of appeal to authority.

Now you are throwing in flash suppressors to deliberately muddy the waters.

A suppressor, a sound suppressor, almost totally eliminates flash. Oftentimes in movies, flash is added to suppressed firearms because most of the public is ignorant and don't know that a suppressor eliminates most, if not all flash.

I absolutely have my "scientific facts" straight on this issue, you do not.

YOU are the one that has an erection against the private ownership of suppressors, I never brought it up in this thread - YOU did. You apparently have this as a pet peeve of your's, I'm just correcting your mistakes.

While it is true that suppressors have been referred to as "silencers" for years and mostly by people that don't own them or know much about them, here is where you lose the debate on it entirely - the NRA did not invent the term "suppressor" as some sort of "PC" term for "Silencer." Your assertion is incorrect and either you are simply spreading a falsehood on the issue or someone told you this nonsense or you are just making it up as you go along.

Again, you brought suppressors into this thread, I did not. You are the one that has a problem with these things. You make gun control arguments and say you are pro-gun. I don't believe it and furthermore, I don't care.

I am also not trying to convince you or change your mind on anything. You can wallow in your opinions, I don't care. I'm not typing this to change your mind, I'm typing this to change other people's minds - mostly people that have not even posted to this thread but I have watched them reading it now for a couple of days.

Those are the people I intend to sway to my side, not you.

Watch the show I linked to and you can see them fire a 5.56 AR-15 with and without one and watch the difference.

You go watch it, I don't care.

And you are just some flat out crazy kook if you think people should be able to buy and sell guns willy nilly with no checks and balances. It's a plain fact of life that there are people in this world who should not have access to guns.

Yeah, I'm a crazy kook in the same way Jefferson was.

Of course some people should not have access to guns.

You need a license to drive, to fly, to fish, to hunt, can't get back in the country legally if you are a US citizen without a passport. Hell you need a permit for a fire sometimes and of course you should meet a certain criteria to have the RIGHT to OWN a gun.

Do you need a license to have freedom from unwarranted search and seizure (4th Amendment)? How about freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom from religion (1st Amendment)?

Well! Sometimes you do for speech, but who said those permits are OK?

You may have been born a US citizen with all the inherent rights. But if you did something to have some of those rights revoked or disallowed that's just too bad ain't it?

Strawman Argument.

I worked with the mentally ill for 7 yrs in Vocational job Training and trust me you don't want the mentally ill to have guns.

Did you know that the NRA tried to add legislation in the 1980s that would open up the medical files of the mentally ill and the ACLU stopped it? So...I don't think anyone is lobbying for the mentally ill to have the absolute right to anything except perhaps a hospital bed in an insane asylum.

Do you want ex felons to have them?

If they are an "ex-felon" that would mean they are no longer a felon and had their record expunged or they had a Presidential Pardon.

I have no problem with people who have served 100% of their sentence to own guns - they can get out and purchase knives, bows and arrows, hatchets and a vehicle.

If we cannot trust them with a gun, they shouldn't be on the street anyway and if we trust them with all of these other killing implements, then SANITY should dictate that they be safe enough to own a gun once again - it worked for over 100 years in this country.

But, hey, I believe in Thomas Jefferson and he's just an old, dead white man nobody cares about anymore. But! He did have a good idea - "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." Or something similar, I'm banging this out on the keyboard double-quick as I just got home from work and I'm ready to take the Wifey to work.

However, the quote is close enough for our purposes. Jefferson believed a free man should have his rights reinstated - what a concept! Freedom! Maybe if we stopped making criminals second class Citizens for the rest of their lives and shut doors in their face constantly, maybe we would not have such a high recidivist rate. Just a thought.

What about the guy who beats his wife and has been arrested for domestic violence or has a protection from abuse order on him? You want him to be able to buy a gun and finish the job?

If he beat his wife, no, I don't particularly want him owning a firearm. However, I would prefer a legislature would make that a felony. A lot of people are losing their rights over misdemeanor convictions for simply getting into a shoving match with their spouse, both male and female. It's not as black and white as you suggest. In some states YELLING at your spouse can mean you lose your guns, spanking your child could be considered domestic violence, you lose your guns. SO, NO, I don't agree with what you say 100%.

Truly abusive, actually physically assaulting and damaging people, they need to go through the system and do whatever the system demands of them and then we'll see.

I mean what do you want??? Want them to allow kids under 18 to go buy em' too? I mean hey you can't drink till your 21 but here's a machine gun go knock yourself kid.

This is simply childish and absurd.

You remind me of anti-gun people, and I don't believe you are pro-gun, who argue, lose the debate and then say, "YOU WANT PEOPLE TO OWN ATOMIC WEAPONS TOO?!?!?!"

I don't have time for it.

BTW Destructive devises are legal in some states and not other and yes you can own them if you have the proper licenses etc. Which by the way is as it should be.

Correct. Apparently you had to learn that from me according to your prior comments where I informed YOU of that reality.

And I repeat my earlier post, it's gun nuts like you that scare Joe Average Citizen. It's people like you that make them want to keep adding more and more gun laws. You want to allow anybody to buy any firearm made with no background checks, allow people access to machine guns and supressors. And you wonder why they freak?

I have been civil with you.

 

[J. Doyle]

Rather than try to explain my view on the second ammendment, I'll post this vid. Ted Nugent sums it up perfectly for me. This is the best 3 minutes of vid I ever watched.

Before anyone gets bent out of shape about guns, Ted or anything else, I ask that you give it a honest open minded listen. Ted is extremely intelligent and this is very well spoken. I'd be amazed if anyone, even anti 2nd amend folks, that had a fully funtioning mind, could honestly rationally opose this, especially the first half of the vid.

I couldn't get the video to load directly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCHtw6WbbnM