Hide your guns

[merryman]

Gun Control is STUPID.



YOu do NOT have to buy a guy,. When in the 4th grade, a friend and I made and fired a gun we made with the most rudimentary of toos and equip--a short piece of iron pipe, a threaded pipe cap, a 1/4 drill, some tape, a piece of 2x4 lumber, a jack knife, a (or several) ball bearings and a bunch of match heads. As 4th graders, it probably took us all afternoon. I could do it in my shop now in 15 minutes. Want a repeater? use several short sections of pipe.

Safe? no. Effective? yes. If we take away ALL guns, the criminals will make them, and all we will have accomplished is to deprive citiczens of rights.

When I was a kid in the 40's, we often heard of "zip" guns--just what I described above, a simple, homemade muzzle loading effective at close range gun.

Gun control is citizen control, and its primary purpose IS citizen control. All the rest is just excuse for citizen control.



Vaughn

 

[Crash_AF]

First of all, let me make one thing perfectly clear. I have nothing to hide from the Government. I am a law abiding citizen who has never had more than a speeding ticket.



Let me also quantify this by asking you this question, Are you currently, or have you ever been in the armed forces which defend our country?



I am a current member of the US Air Force. I signed my name on a piece of paper that I would willingly LAY DOWN MY LIFE to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.



Also, I lost a friend because another friend got pissed off over being hit with a water balloon, went and got out his dad's . 45, and shot him once in the head, so I too know loss resulting from the misuse of firearms, but you know what? I'm not crying for more gun control. I don't blame the gun for the crime any more than I blame the brick that I might accidentally drop on my foot. I blame the parents who don't have the sense to teach their children anger management and consequences of their actions.



Later,

Joe

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by EMDDIESEL

This debate will obviously never end. I would not have even responded in the first place but i wanted to point out that ONCE AGAIN, you are mixing trucks with the issue of firearms. In my post i clearly wrote:



"Dont respond with some IRRELEVANT sh*t about "Cars kill people too" or whatever other pointless analogy. This is about guns, nobody mowed down the ATF agents at Waco with a CAR, 13 people were not killed in Columbine with a CAR. My friends was not killed with a CAR, they were all killed with ILLEGALY OBTAINED FIREARMS. "



Did you miss that part of the letter?

I don't argue "issues". "Issues" are political tools used to separate you from your money.



My post was not about "issues", it was about principles... And liberty.



As I said, I own none of the things mentioned, it's not about me. It's not about what I'm likely to own, either. It's about the concept of limited government and maximum possible personal liberty. This notion of micro-managing things from the federal government, from the size of our toilet flush to the capacity of a clip is wrong, entirely wrong. We are not solving the problem of crime because we're not even interested in the cause, only the tools used. Why? It's intellectually taxing to deal with crime itself. It's intellectually easy to blame guns and knives and poverty and racism, when really the problem is that people lack any fundamental committment to morality of any kind. How could they? An impassioned plea for examination of the principles of what's at stake in the "gun wars" is referred to as "s**t".



Once upon a time, leaders debated principles and decried anyone who failed to demonstrate integrity in what they said and did. Now a plea for nothing more than that is lambasted as "right wing drivel". Principle is now "fantical bible thumping" or "wacked out fundamentalism". Yet, the results of this complete lack of commitment to any princples whatsoever is evident all around us - inner city violence, gangs, a flood of illegitemate children, and an overall heightening in the tension between "identity groups" such as "african-americans" or "women's movement" or whatever the latest fad in victimology.



But, here we are, all tied up in knots over the "issue" of the day, blinded with emotional rancor over the "issue" of guns, and entirely blinded to what's important... Fundamental principles.

 

[Amianthus]

Wow! Did this explode.

I couldn't help but notice how this topic has developed. I have a few things that I'd like to add. Not directed at anyone just some food for thought.



As far as purchasing guns of any sort. I have no problem with anyone carying a gun. Unfortunately, that includes the idiot gang-bangers and thiefs. Just as I do not want MY speech limited because some dork has just finished his book, "The White Race. How it is Superior. " and has offended some people. I do not want my right to bear arms infringed upon because somebody misused a firearm. My logic is this. Do you know why other countries don't try to invade us? 80 million gun owners! Not to mention the most potent military on the planet. Guns empower people. That's why the USA isn't really effed with (screw with us and, POW! You'll get a punch in the nose). That's why criminals have guns. It gives them power over their victims. Now, if Joe citizen also carried a gun, a criminal may be forced to think twice about attacking a citizen, or burglarizing a residence for fear of being shot. Should you shoot someone with criminal intent, you should have your due process without exception. And if convicted, hanged in public with your crimes made known. Would this be another deterent? Who knows? Magazine capacity, caliber, to me, are inconsequential to the argument. These things are just symantical to whether or not guns should be a right or a privilage.



As far as Cops are concerned, it disheartens me to see stories of LE Officers shooting at a suspect 42 times, hitting them 19 times. That is crap! I believe every LE Officer should be given as many rounds as it takes to qualify his service pistol such that he is not only proficient, but that they are also accurate. A good friend of mine just finished from the academy and he told me horror stories of people attending classes that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a shotgun let alone a service pistol. Talk about inadequate training.



Where government is concerned, I look at my neighbor and see my government. I look at my co-worker and see my government. I look at my parents, and see my government. We have a republic. And such being the case we have entrusted elected individuals with our fate. The democracy does not rule in the USA! The republic does. And the repubilc is made up of those people we elect. It's sad to see that the majority doesn't have more of a say in the operation of the country. I think things would be different, albeit move at a snails pace. The perfect way to screw things up is to get a chip on your shoulder with today's cause (flavor) of the week, get elected and carry out your wishes. If you are upset that a gun killed your best friend, get elected and change the law to keep that from happening again. Screw what the majority wants. Get what you want, or is most favorable to your success. But this could be applied to any cause of the day. The second half of my government discussion is based on the Constitution and it's Bill of Rights. I don't look at it as a law. I believe it is a contract between the Citizens of the United States and the Republic which represents it. These are the rules that keep the Republic from running rampant on the citizens. But somehow, I believe that this is lost somewhere and the elected are looking at themselves as rulers and not public servants tasked with preserving Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Am I wrong in this? Perhaps.

I just wanted to add this as food for thought. Okay, now I'm ready for the opposing viewpoint. Gene, nows your chance. Speak up.



P. S. - Crash, many a brick have met an untimely doom (claw hammer) for falling on my feet without my permission.

 

[Sled Puller]

Your post is dead on. I can't argue one sentance, hold on, I'll read it closer and lie if I have to!

 

[midnight1black]

Note ! GUNS DON'T HURT OR KILL PEOPLE , PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE, AND THATS ALL I GOT TO SAY ABOUT THAT.

 

[DRR-24V]

I try not to get involved in these subjects. But as an NRA member and after serving 28 years on the CHP I can't let some of these comments pass. In that time I was involved in two shooting incidents. Never was the perpetrator an average citizen. In both cases they had been thru the criminal justice system and had spent most of their lives in prison. They did not want to go back.

Myself and any other Law Enforcement Officer I ever met (except for FBI types) had no problem with ordinary citizens having a firearm. To be naive enough to think a criminal would even worry about a background check or an unregistered weapon borders on the ridiculous. They will steal or buy it from another crook. ! We have plenty of gun law on the books right now. ! Enforce the ones we have. I FEEL BETTER NOW!

 

[fest3er]

Originally posted by NVR FNSH

Couple of questions/observations: But first step back from the 2nd Amendment 'right to bear arms' mantra & slippery slope arguement for a second.



1. What purpose does a 50 round clip serve? ...



2. Do you really think ANY person should be able to walk into a store and purchase a firearm w/o ANY background check or prior training? ...



3. Would you support a requirement for firearms training & showing proof of this training to purchase guns if the guns were not licensed/tracked? ...



4. The 'circle-jerk' gun sale is illegal in CA. CA requires ALL firearm transactions to go thru a licensed dealer.



Brian

1. I've got 2 17-round mags with my Glock-17. They're both always full (except when I'm practicing, during which the one with FMJ rounds empties; I don't normally use the one with hollowpoints). Have I *needed* the gun as yet? No. *Might* I need it someday? Yes. HAve I *needed* the 17 round mag? No. *Might* I need it someday? Yes. That's why I have it: just in case, which is the same reason the Glock comes with me when I drive about the country: just in case.



2. Yes. "... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " This is not a Constitutional right; it is a basic human right. The Constitution does not define the right; it merely states that the right shall not be infringed. I believe anyone should be allowed to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. Arms that are used for unlawful purposes should be confiscated and destroyed, and the person so using them should be tried, and sentenced if found guilty. And once his sentence has been fully served, his debt to society is paid and he should be able to, once again, keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. Granted, it might be considered irresponsible of the gun *seller* to fail to ensure the buyer has basic arms safety knowledge, but that's a different can of worms.



3. No. Such requirements infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Communities may strongly suggest participation in such programs, and even actively recruit participants in such training, but to require it violates one of our basic human rights that has been explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution.



4. Well, CA is weird anyway. I could never live there. And, God willing, I never will.



Fest3er

 

[DRR-24V]

This is the last response I will post on this subject. But if you think the Police will protect you and your family and you do not need a firearm I really feel sorry for you. The response time in LA County is 45 minutes. Can you imagine what can happen in 45 minutes from your 911 call ? The Police are not lazy, they are stretched thin. ! You owe it to yourself and your family to learn how to protect them in this interval. Let the NRA help you to help yourself !

 

[mdlowry]

A ways back in this post, someone was asking about why people would need a 50 rd clip. Most likely there will be no need. However, there may be some time where it may be necessary. I remember hearing about people in the LA riots that were defending their property against groups of rioters with large capacity "assult riffle. " How many people think that these rioters would stop and let you change a clip? I don't. Personally, I'd prefer accuracy to the "spray and pray" method. The above situation may be one of the few exceptions.



There was a case that went to the US Supream Court a while back (don't remember which one) that the court ruled that a right cannot be licenced. (Must have been refering to the first ammendment. ) How many people here are licenced to "keep and bear arms?" Quit a few it seems (except maybe some of you in VT).



What have these laws done for us? When firearms laws are relaxed, it results in lower rates of violent crime. Look to Florida, and other states that have institued a "shall issue" CCW law. Also look at VT. VT does not have any law against people carrying concealed (federal laws still apply--you must be able to legally purchase and own one). VT is one of the safest states in the nation.





Do background checks work? As mentioned before, there has to be a record, for it to work. Also, not all gun sales require a background check. In some (most?) states, you can purchase a firearm in a private sale, and John Doe's Trunk o' Firearms will never require a background check. Will a background check stop some? Maybe, but there are always other ways to get around the system. You are also relying on the government to keep these records. Does anyone know of any government department that works well? There are some states that will almost routinely issue a restraining order in a divource (even when there has been no need for it. ) Should these people be denied a purchase?



As far as waiting peroids and training, I don't think they should be required (but are recommended). If someone is being threatened or stalked, do they sign up for the training class scheduled in 3 weeks so that they can purchase after they complete the course?



Enough from me for now.



Michael

 

[Thunderball]

Hey Guys

I am Proud to be a member of the TDR, And I will also say I am Proud to be a life member of the NRA, Life Member of the North American Hunting Club, A Husband, and Father of 4 children.



No I have never served in any Armed Forces, I was to young for Viet Nam, My Father serve in WW2, and my Great Gandfather serve in the Civil War, Yes for the South. . I am Proud of what they and others did for this country. Just as Proud of them as I am in our Fore Fathers.



But when I think that there are some that would take away, What they and others fought so hard for, I get mad as H##L.



Look I did not agree with the NRA when they fought to stop the banning of so call (Cop Killer Bullets), Teflon Coated Bullets. I didn't think there was any good reason for a person to own such bullets. Then I found out what was really trying to be banned was the size of the bullets, Like 30-06, 243, 270, and 308. NOT the Teflon on the bullets. Its not my fault if some Company wants to put Teflon on my hunting bullet, But it is my fault if I let my gov bann that bullet. I AM GLAD THE NRA WAS THERE One thing about the NRA , If your are a life member, you can vote for there membership board.



When we talk about high cap mag, I think about something that happen here awhile back. A Henrico Co police officer was in a shootout, at I-64 & West Broad St , The perp was on Drugs and hit the officer 3 times. 1 in the vest, 1 in the shoulder, and 1 in the grion, The officer fired 3 clips, hitting the perp almost every shot. The officer gun was a sig-45 cal, you know the so call man stopper. Thank God the officer was alright and able to returned to work. Not so for the perp.



Now does this mean if the officer clip would have held more bullets, then maybe he would not have been hit ?. I doubt it, But I guess we'll never know.



As for me I do own guns with high cap mags, 20 and 30 rounds mags. Am I a danger to you or anyone else, Only if you try to hurt my family. Do I need 20 or 30 rounds to hunt ?. No I am not that bad of a shot, but I know some that are, . Do I need the 20 or 30 rounds clips ?. Yes they look much better hanging down from my AR-15, than a 10 round . All kidden aside, did our four fathers know what type of guns we would have today. No, But at the same token, They didn't inten for us to still be useing musket guns either.



If you think back ground checks or gun banns will stop crime. Then I don't know what to tell you. The FBI said so call assault weapons make up less than 1% of guns used in crime. A cheif of police from NY city, stated before congress, that he and his officers were more affrayed of a perp with a shotgun than an assault weapon.



So my fellow truckers and Sportmans wake up, there are some among us, that would take what we love, ( FREEDOM ) Will you let them ? I know this sounds like an ad for the NRA, It's not. But if not them, then who????.



Thanks Guys for letting me say my 2c

Where else could we do this.

 

[John]

Originally posted by NVR FNSH

And yes, you are required to obtain instruction prior to operating that 200mph Ferrari on public roads - it's called a drivers license.

The difference between driving a car and owning firearms is simply this, driving a car is a privilege, owning firearms is a Second Amendment right! Don't degrade our Second Amendment rights by likening them to a drivers license.

 

[Archive]

Originally posted by John





The difference between driving a car and owning firearms is simply this, driving a car is a privilege, owning firearms is a Second Amendment right! Don't degrade our Second Amendment rights by likening them to a drivers license.

Amen!

 

[Karl2500]

Mandatory safety courses?

Mandatory safety courses? …. OK what is to stop the Feinstein Schumer McCarthy crowd from creating a 6-month course that’s harder to pass than the bar?……

Never happen right ……just like they would never use civil law suits to shut down gun makers when there legislative efforts failed.

Sorry just spewing my paranoia

Karl,

 

[NOMOFO]

Tragedies and accidents happen with or without FREEDOM. I'll take my chances with FREEDOM thank you.

I can't think of any tragedy greater than an inept, overbloated government with an attitude and a bigger concern for image than substance taking away anybody's FREEDOM.

 

[NVR FNSH]

The difference between driving a car and owning firearms is simply this, driving a car is a privilege, owning firearms is a Second Amendment right! Don't degrade our Second Amendment rights by likening them to a drivers license.

John,

Before you get your panties in a bind about me likening our 2nd Amendment rights to a drivers license I suggest you determine the original introduction of the automobile comparson as it pertains to this thread. It was not me. It was many of your like minded brothers in arms. I was merely addressing Shovelheads question about training requirements for the use of a 200mph Ferrarri.

Are CARS or roads more "evil" and "abusive" than earlier years?

I mean, why do you drive that big huge diesel pickup? I feel threatened by it in my Omni. I think your dangerous vehicle should be banned. It should be confiscated, as a danger to society, and you be compensated with a nice ribbon that says "I was a danger, but I've been reformed". You owe money or invested $55,000 in it? Well, it's not my fault you invested money in something dangerous looking. I have a right to not have people like you drive big trucks like that. They make me feel threatened, just knowing you could be around the next corner and smash into me.

Now insert the word Ferrarri instead of the word gun or 50 round clip.

So how do I get the name of the original poster to appear with the quote?



Brian

 

[Power Wagon]

This argument is probably never going to end. But, that's the price of self-government. It's the price of freedom of speech. Is it a big burden? I don't think so. I don't see it as a burden at all.



But, this is a situation where the price / value is relatively clear. We all value the freedom of speech, the freedom to disagree, whether we are on the popular or unpopular side.



However, people don't view the 2nd Amendment right as being important, and for many reasons. One, the reason for it is not a present day "daily life" issue. We can thank the power of the 2nd Amendment for that, as well. Defending ourselves isn't a big issue in the vast majority of the country, and much of it so, because the people are NOT helpless. They DO have weapons and know how to use them. And, those who would seek to do evil cannot do so with impunity because of that random "preparedness" factor. It's like posting a sign that says "This property patrolled 2 nights a week by a nervous man holding a hair trigger machine gun. Guess which 2 nights. "



Freedom of speech remains because controversy over speech has never ceased. There are always those who must fight for thier right (or at least, they believe they have that right), and rarely, if ever, do we criticise them for it. Gun laws, however, are not in that realm. A large segment of the influential has branded that right as "not a right" or "old fashioned" or "out of date" or some other term of supposed irrelevance. And, playing on the indifference of the populace at large, they have created a movement in which the argument is not about what the boundaries are (as in free speech), but whether such a right exists and even if it should - and always in terms of NOT.



I tried, in both previous posts, to say that the issue really isn't about guns, but about whether or not a right is really a right at all. Imagine if we granted freedom of speech based upon whether most of the people felt like we should say what it is we want to say. Yet, I read people's posts who I am sure would never even consider infringing the right to free speech, freedom of worship, and say, the freedom of unreasonable search and seizure, go on here about how owning a clip of 50 rounds can't be allowed because of well... how they "feel" about someone having the ability to shoot 50 rounds without reloading. By thier own admission, there is no evidence to suggest that there is anything inherently dangerous or evil about a 50 round clip... but, the argument is: "We have to do <i> something. </i>" Ok, you want to do something? Dance around your yard on your hands. It's doing "something" and it has an equal effect on crime and the behavior of bad guys as making sure the clip has only 15 rounds instead of 50 - with one large exception, it does NOT infringe on my liberty.



If you want to say that owning AK-47 with a 50 round clip isn't a right, because some bad guy could shoot me 50 times with it. . So you're going to limit it to 15 (or 5?? doesn't matter to me), so he can only shoot me 15 times before he slams in another clip. Well, thank you so much. I'm sure that I'm much better off dead from 15 holes than dead from 50. Or maybe not. Oh, so you say, make owning the gun illegal. Well, I suppose daying from 22 stabbing wounds is better than 15 gunshots, but I'm having trouble deciding - get back to me later on that, after I consult with the death experts to see which is a better or worse death.



Dang, with all this discussion about making evil people follow gun laws, and making sure they can only kill me a little and not a lot, perhaps we could just make killing me illegal and be done with it.



Oh, wait, I thought it was..... ???

 

[Shovelhead]

Brian,

The Ferrarri analogy was intended to portray the issue of high capacity magazines, not the training requirements needed to own one.

I appologize for not being clearer on this.

I still think that as a nation we have found it easier to blame an object instead of seeking justice against the individual.

I'll agree that there is a problem with criminals having guns,

but until I see a long line of bad guys at the police station waiting to turn their guns in, I'll keep what I feel I may need to protect my family.



My wife is from Peru, down there justice is much different.

If you harm someone in my family we won't call 911, we will hunt you down and deal with it. Maybe primitve, but it works, doesn't take years to come to trial, and doesn't cost a couple of thousand dollars for lawyers.



I'm sorry for your loss. We have all lost loved ones due to circumstances that seem unjust ( my 21 yr old stepson died from leukemia in '95) I just don't see how a new law that criminals will just ignore (just like the many on the books now)will solve diddley.

 

[Scot]

Originally posted by NVR FNSH

2. Do you really think ANY person should be able to walk into a store and purchase a firearm w/o ANY background check or prior training? Brian

Please tell me what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

 

[Scot]

Originally posted by NVR FNSH

And yes, you are required to obtain instruction prior to operating that 200mph Ferrari on public roads - it's called a drivers license. No, you don't need special training to purchase one, just to use it. I believe most sanctioning bodies require some sort of 'licensing' to participate in their events.



Brian

I can buy as many Ferrari's as I can afford and park them bumper to bumper, door to door on 100 acres if I had the means.



I can purchase one with an automatic if I want.



I can buy an engine with the most cylinders a manufacturer can cobble together.



I can do with a vehicle whatever I want on my property.



I do not need any sort of license to operate it on private property.



I can drive in any state in the U. S. on any public road with my TX drivers license.



I can buy a car from any dealer in this country without delay.



I can buy 100 cars per day.



Shall I go on?



Sorry pal, if you go comparing gun registeration/confiscation schemes to auto ownership, you're swimming upstream.