Sorry for taking the other thread off topic, but I was very interested in hearing everyone's views on this so if you want to continue it here, I would love to hear more about perspectives different than mine.
Dangerous topic here, there are strong opinions on either side. Lets hope that people keep it civil.
100% for gun rights, I love guns. I had a Hunting/Shooting topic going at one point but it's gone.
Hugs, Devlyn
I do believe it's fine to have firearms handy. It's certainly better to have a gun and not need one than need a gun and not have one. I was once a member of the NRA and have handled firearms of all descriptions at one time or another.
That being said, I do find the second amendment a bit vague. At the time it was written, "arms" meant single-shot muzzle-loading weapons. It could be construed now to mean "surface-to-air" missiles, military grade weapons or even WMDs, depending on whom you ask. It is not clear where the line was meant to be drawn, despite US v. Miller (1939) and other rulings.
There are most definitely people who should not have guns under any circumstances, but legislating that has proven difficult, if not impossible. If someone REALLY wants a gun, they most definitely will be able to obtain one illegally. It's not exactly rocket science. Fifty bucks will get you a weapon with no serial number every day of the week. I'm guessing that getting caught with one is the least of the perp's worries.
I am not anti-gun. I do not own guns, and don't have a desire to. I voted for conceal carry when it was up for a vote here because I felt like there were reasonable requirements involved to obtain a permit, and I support personal liberty as much as I feel I can.
I was obviously being facetious when I said that people could carry anything anywhere, but it does feel that way here sometimes. When a drug dealer in Missouri can claim that he needs a firearm for protection on his "job", and his possession charges are dismissed because he is only a felon, but not a violent felon yet, it just feels like we have gone too far in the opposite direction. The authors of the amendment have admitted that they didn't intend for these challenges to happen, but why not? If any rule is an infringement then why would it be wrong for a violent felon to own and carry a weapon.
I hope it stays civil too, because I am very interested in hearing other points of views, and I know how quickly these topics can get locked. I think if people just stay away from personal attacks, it could be productive.
When my children were very small we were dirt poor and if it wasn't for me being able to take my rifle out just around dawn a couple of times a week we wouldn't have done as well as we did. I owned a Swedish Mauser made in 1900 and it was a beautifully engineered rifle that did exactly what I needed it to. Then when I looked in the mirror one morning and suddenly knew who I really was and shortly afterwards started HRT it was like a switch clicked over in my head and I could no longer kill anything anymore. I sold my rifle and handed in my firearms licence and that was that.
I am in Missouri. I have guns in my house and I carry a gun in my vehicle. My kids are in high school and college and they have never messed with my guns without me. I have raised them to know how to handle guns safely and respect them. I live in the country, not St. Louis, so my perspective is probably a stark contrast to yours, Kylie. However, I have said it before on this forum: I grew up in Flint, MI and it had a higher murder rate that your neighbor to the east (E. St. L.). Didn't feel a need for a gun there. Out in the country I am miles from police/sheriff/HP and we are the first line of defense. Broad sweeping gun control is not the answer, IMHO. Someone always loses on either end of 'no control' or 'strict control'. Punishing the masses for a few is something I loathe. I thinks some regulation is needed, of course, but I do not find Missouri to be so violent. And yes, I lived in St. Louis (met my wife there. :) ), and I found it to be like any other city: full of good and bad people. Why punish the good?
Hi y'all
This is a complicated topic for Europeans to understand. In most countries in Western Europe private citizens cannot carry guns. The only exceptions are for hunting, and there are fairly strict controls over all aspects of hunting weapons.
I know that the US Constitution enshrines a right to bear arms, and it's an important document - a cornerstone of democracy. This said, many people in my part of the world totally don't understand why this is viewed as so fundamentally important in the USA: what we see is a lot of gun crime, and a frequent question is whether this could be reduced somehow by reducing the ease of access to weapons. But since it's in the Constitution, this isn't easy to achieve.
I grew up in a country where my ID document had 10 pages for gun licenses, and people spent all day shooting at each other. I used to make bullets and go target shooting with my dad, but my view is that giving civilians the right to bear arms unfortunately brings major repercussions.
Julia
I'm a pro-freedom (for humans that is) kind of cat. One of those freedoms is the ability to use tools for self defense (guns included). The kicker is that freedom is the ability to choose (actions that hopefully don't infringe on the rights of others).
It's not a judgment if one prefers to own and use small arms (handguns or rifles or shotguns) or if one does not want to own small arms. Criminal use is criminal no matter what part of the world one lives in and laws aren't going to stop someone who has decided beforehand that they supposedly deserve something the victim has (or to inflict harm on the intended victim).
The only thing my "assault rifle" (sic) has done to anybody is assault my bank account and I intend to keep it that way unless a criminal decides they think their spechul snowflake status is more important than my right to be left alone from outside harm. If somebody wants to depend on other people with weapons and color of law to use them (police) then that is their choice to make and not mine to judge.
very sensitive topic,
we all have exposure and beliefs about firearms both good and bad
for me as child I had to learn about the balance between spirit and nature before I was allowed to provide food for my family and friends, because of these teachings we learned many things about harvesting food both from land and sea
and how to use many tools to harvest for survival not waste
when I was 17 I enlisted in the service then I learned about weapons and waste
it is the people who make a weapon cry, I will never not own one until I return to my home
with all of spirit leaders I speak to protect me from ever having to draw it from its sheath
it is a right to own them here but delivered without thought or understanding, I do not understand how this could be so misinterpeted we are supposed to be wise
I will not comment anyfurther with this topic to do so I will become offensive to many, it is with great disappointment that I am in a position to say I support owning firearms
Quote from: ainsley on April 13, 2015, 03:52:46 PM
I am in Missouri. I have guns in my house and I carry a gun in my vehicle. My kids are in high school and college and they have never messed with my guns without me. I have raised them to know how to handle guns safely and respect them. I live in the country, not St. Louis, so my perspective is probably a stark contrast to yours, Kylie. However, I have said it before on this forum: I grew up in Flint, MI and it had a higher murder rate that your neighbor to the east (E. St. L.). Didn't feel a need for a gun there. Out in the country I am miles from police/sheriff/HP and we are the first line of defense. Broad sweeping gun control is not the answer, IMHO. Someone always loses on either end of 'no control' or 'strict control'. Punishing the masses for a few is something I loathe. I thinks some regulation is needed, of course, but I do not find Missouri to be so violent. And yes, I lived in St. Louis (met my wife there. :) ), and I found it to be like any other city: full of good and bad people. Why punish the good?
Hi Ainsley, fellow Missourian :). I totally get where you are coming from, I come from a family of farmers near the bootheel. I'm all for your right to own a gun, as I said, I voted for conceal carry here. I have 0% interest in keeping law abiding citizens from having guns. I just think that it is a responsibility as well as a right, and it seems like we are moving further away from the responsibility aspect in this state each day. I may be having ferguson fatigue too. We have had quite a string of violence since November.
Also, sorry to be so disparaging of the state if you happen to like it here. I guess I feel like we are just going backwards the last couple years in almost every respect. I think the hot topic in our legislature this week is making sure that the pledge of allegiance is only allowed to be said in English in schools. Thank god they are finally tackling that pressing issue.
As an Australian I'm so glad that we don't have rampant firearm ownership in this country. Yes, I have used both a rifle and a shotgun, when I was a kid visiting relatives in the country (I'm quite the shot too it would seem) but it did nothing for me and I can't understand the significance people place on them. We had our last mass shooting incident almost 20 years ago, the firearm ownership rules were changed - you can still own a firearm but need a really good reason. Yes people are still shot and shot at each year, but the numbers are comparatively small and involve either cops shooting crims, crims shooting up each other or domestic violence (where technically the guns are available to either party anyway). Most murders around these parts involve knives instead. Personally I feel much safer knowing that the massive majority of my fellow citizens are not packing, I have never once been threatened with a firearm and I hope to high heavens that continues. My caveat on that though is that I appreciate that Australia is a lot harder to get guns into than many other countries that share borders with countries where gun violence is exceedingly common (eg Mexico, Middle East) so we are not swimming in illegal unregistered firearms. And yes the nut cases who are intent on harm will get their hands on one regardless (like the Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney five city blocks from when I worked) but in 2011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) we had 0.86 deaths by shooting per 100,000 of population compared to the US at 10.3 deaths per 100,000.
So, y'know, if your country says you have the right to bear arms then bear away, that is your right and nothing I say above should be construed as me saying you don't have that right. Me personally I'm glad my country says I don't have the right and neither do the majority of the people who live here. I feel much safer for it. :)
Quote from: Kylie on April 13, 2015, 06:09:47 PM
Hi Ainsley, fellow Missourian :). I totally get where you are coming from, I come from a family of farmers near the bootheel. I'm all for your right to own a gun, as I said, I voted for conceal carry here. I have 0% interest in keeping law abiding citizens from having guns. I just think that it is a responsibility as well as a right, and it seems like we are moving further away from the responsibility aspect in this state each day. I may be having ferguson fatigue too. We have had quite a string of violence since November.
Also, sorry to be so disparaging of the state if you happen to like it here. I guess I feel like we are just going backwards the last couple years in almost every respect. I think the hot topic in our legislature this week is making sure that the pledge of allegiance is only allowed to be said in English in schools. Thank god they are finally tackling that pressing issue.
Kylie, I think we are on the same page. ;) And don't even get me started on our legislature! ha!
I live 3 miles south of a prison (medium security). I take active self protection seriously for that, and several other reasons. I am no gun enthusiast, nor NRA member, yada yada. Just want the best defense I can get. :) And, if anyone has ever faced off with 7 coyotes in your back yard in the middle of the day, they will want a shotgun, too.
I believe guns (and knives) are not something that should be available in the world as they are... I'm not Anti-gun, but I believe that having them in your environment will not end well if you were to turn to them for any other reason than to feed yourself, or to directly protect yourself from snakes, bears, wolves etc...
Like Grace I live in Australia, guns are a problem here, but not as much of an issue as elsewhere in the world, for those that do hold gun licenses here there are very strict rules about guns and ammo being kept separately, locked up and far enough apart to stop someone instantly being able to join the two. However more to the point, here there are a lot of illegal guns around, due in a reasonable amount to weapons stolen from peoples homes, therefore how many idiots are running around with guns, who are not responsible!
Oh and I did used to fire guns at a rifle club back in the UK, so I sort of know how to use them.
I got caught in a restaurant out here when 3 gunmen burst in during a local show/fairground close by that were having a firework display... They barged in the door, fired 2 shots into the ceiling and pointed a gun at one of the staff and waved a gun threateningly around the patrons, telling us all to crouch over the tables and not look at them or around...
It was our most terrifying experience associated with guns.... funnily I was a young adult working in and around London during the IRA terror attacks back in the seventies and early eighties, and despite all the risks and sudden traffic/pedestrian diversions, I don't think I was as afraid as in that Restaurant.
Oh, and I do understand the constitutional right in the USA to bear arms... So I'm not Anti gun per say, but I do wonder why so many need and own them????
L Katy
I'm an american gun owner although I do not like saying too much about this on a public forum for my own safety. I frequently carry a handgun (.357 magnum revolver). As far as me, I carry a gun for the following reasons:
1). To protect myself in case I needed it. It's better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it. I also generally carry pepper spray and that to me would be my go to weapon if needed.
I own guns in general for the following reasons:
1). To protect myself against criminals.
2). To protect myself in the event of a natural disaster which required me to abandon my home of where myself and my home were at risk.
3). In the event of public uprising or a sign of civil disobedience (although it is my fondest hope that it never happens)
4). To protect myself in the event of war/invasion/something bad like that (hopefully this never happens either)
5). Target shooting. I love target shooting with my rifles. It's fun.
I always advocate that if someone wants to carry a handgun that they get the proper training before they carry and understand gun safety. Putting on a handgun on one's person is a big responsibility and with it means that I will be held to a higher standard and I am okay with that. I have literally spent hours and hours in classroom time listening to and understanding the laws involving carrying, use of deadly force, etc. Some of the instructors are the same people who teach the police in the use of deadly force. But just knowing the laws is not enough. I invested further in scenario training. This is where I go out and they do real situations where I would have to respond quickly, like a car jacking, a shooting at the mall, etc. That training was quite eye opening to find one's self jumped with a knife to the throat.
I understand that such things are not for everyone. I get it. In my case, I like to have a fighting chance at survival if something did go down. I don't want to be in a dark alley with some giant brute of a man who discovers I used to be a a different person a long time ago and decides he wants to slaughter me and be defenseless in that situation. That doesn't mean I put myself deliberately in those types of circumstances just because I want to draw a gun on someone. Quite the opposite.
The training also teaches that de-escalating a situation is always the best route. There is no harm in running away. There is no way I could out fight 5 guys hell bent on my destruction, heck I couldn't out fight 1. So I carry for the same reason every woman who carries does, self protection against rape and violent crime.
I have even been toying with the idea of getting my FFL license and maybe investing in guns, since many are very collectible. FFL licenses allows me the ability to own a whole different category of weapons including machine guns.
As for the second amendment I always wondered about the clumsy wording and thought it was weird myself. In my own research I discovered that the founders of the country mirrored this right after british common law after an event that happened where catholics were disarmed against protestants, who were later disarmed by the catholics. Yes there were actual laws that said if one was a protestant they could not own a gun. The insanity of having whole groups of people disarmed is why the founders enshrined it and wrote it the way they did. Every armed citizen, including me, is a potential soldier if needed, or in peace another citizen ready to take up arms if needed. Today I totally get it. I can have all the other freedoms in the world, but if I am bleeding out in a dark alley from a vicious criminal, my freedom of speech or any other freedom is worthless if I am unable to defend my own life.
Past supreme court decisions like cruikshank were used as part of racist decisions (the infamous jim crow laws) handed down by the court after the civil war in order to deny blacks from having guns at all. This had the same effect of disarming a whole group of people like catholics vs protestants. It was not until recently (the Heller and McDonald decisions) that the court finally addressed the fact that the founders were right all along and that being able to defend one's own life is a right even if it results in the death of a another person.
In many ways the gun control debate today does exactly that as well. In fact many state courts have relied on the cruikshank decision to justify gun control. But now that cruikshank has been relegated to the ash dump of history, the views on gun ownership and control are changing.
The problem I see is that the current system of licensing is creating haves and have nots. People like me who can "afford" lots of training get permits, and people who cannot do not get them. So now what we are going to see is that people with money will have all the guns and the poor will be left defenseless since they are unable to afford the requirements to get a license.
I maintain though that a right is a right. It's not something that can be voted away. I also feel that just because someone chooses 'not' to exercise that right they shouldn't say "doesn't matter to me, take the right away". People apathetic to gay marriage say the same thing "I'm not gay, never will be, so why do I care about gay marriage?". Therefore I would rather err on the side of people have a natural right to self defense.
I know people think that criminals should not get guns, but I have an interesting story of a neighbor who is a 30 something guy. He met a girl, they fell in love, and had a kid. Later she left him and as part of the separation filed a restraining order against him as a way of winning a custody battle. In Massachusetts it resulted in instant forfeiture of his gun license and any guns he had. Keep in mind he never hit her or laid a finger on her. He grew up with guns and went hunting with his father all his life and was an avid hunter. This girl knew exactly how to hurt him and she did. I feel sorry for him that now he is treated like scum because of this and take him to the range because I know he is still a good person who was treated badly by the system. Are there some bad people who shouldn't have guns. Sure. But not everyone who gets accused of doing a bad thing is really a bad person.
This always bring me back to the point where a right is not a right if people can just take it away from you. I support many things, in fact me personally I have a very weird collection of things I support. I support gay marriage, lgbt rights, pro-choice, help for people who need assistance, and yet at the same time I also understand that self-protection is just as equal a right and not subservient. I honestly don't know where this puts me politically. If I vote republican I might as well kiss lgbt rights and gay marriage good bye. If I vote democrat, I might as well kiss gun rights good bye. To me neither option is an option I want to choose.
Thanks for the thoughtful post explaining your position. I can see a lot of your points, and never considered the issue of the money involved in obtaining permit training. I guess my problem is in just making it a free for all which seems like what is being advocated more and more. Perhaps you can shed some light on a couple questions I have:
1. Why are background checks and chain of custody registrations so offensive?
I have a problem with a state taking away your right, but I don't have a problem with them reasonably regulating that right. I think you said you lived in Massachusetts, but it sounds like you are able to reasonably exercise that right despite their stiffer regulations. Your neighbor is obviously getting the shaft, but like any bad law, it could be fixed. I also think a conceal carry permit should suffice as a background check.
2. If we are literal about "shall not be infringed" should we not be as literal about the stated purpose for the arms in the amendment "a well regulated militia" not because it is necessary for recreation, personal protection etc.?
I actually like shooting trap and skeet. I got turned off to hand guns when I was in high school. One of our classes went to a shooting range, and with the gun in my hand, I looked around at my classmates. I didn't like the power, it actually made me physically shudder. I never had the same reaction to rifles or shotguns though. I shot a bird with a BB gun once, and made my mom take me to the humane society to get it fixed. I felt horrible for weeks. I'm just not cut out for killing things.
I do support the right to bear arms. I don't own a gun and I don't care to. I have practiced with my 2 nephews' guns and of my 2 brothers-in-laws' guns in the past few years. Various pistols, a .22 rifle, a shotgun and a hog leg. This for peace of mind. I even made a portable target frame for those family shoots at the cabin. I have window shopped for pistols the past few years as well.
Does anyone here know if talking to a therapist about gender will cause you to lose your cpl/ccw. I carry for work.
This thread has strongly affirmed my aversion to visiting or immigrating to the United States. If I must leave Canada, a Western European country or Japan may be fine.
Quote from: toniwest on April 15, 2015, 10:10:58 PM
Does anyone here know if talking to a therapist about gender will cause you to lose your cpl/ccw. I carry for work.
No, unless you are enough a threat that a report (to police) has to be done or if you have been committed (inpatient) by a court order or another way of having been formally declared "mentally ill." Privacy regulations especially apply to outpatient mental health providers although the party that pays for services tends to be the weakest link.
Quote from: Kylie on April 15, 2015, 07:07:19 PM
Thanks for the thoughtful post explaining your position. I can see a lot of your points, and never considered the issue of the money involved in obtaining permit training. I guess my problem is in just making it a free for all which seems like what is being advocated more and more. Perhaps you can shed some light on a couple questions I have:
1. Why are background checks and chain of custody registrations so offensive?
I have a problem with a state taking away your right, but I don't have a problem with them reasonably regulating that right. I think you said you lived in Massachusetts, but it sounds like you are able to reasonably exercise that right despite their stiffer regulations. Your neighbor is obviously getting the shaft, but like any bad law, it could be fixed. I also think a conceal carry permit should suffice as a background check.
2. If we are literal about "shall not be infringed" should we not be as literal about the stated purpose for the arms in the amendment "a well regulated militia" not because it is necessary for recreation, personal protection etc.?
I actually like shooting trap and skeet. I got turned off to hand guns when I was in high school. One of our classes went to a shooting range, and with the gun in my hand, I looked around at my classmates. I didn't like the power, it actually made me physically shudder. I never had the same reaction to rifles or shotguns though. I shot a bird with a BB gun once, and made my mom take me to the humane society to get it fixed. I felt horrible for weeks. I'm just not cut out for killing things.
The problem I have is with the "reasonable regulation". Was is it exactly? Massachusetts gun laws are so byzantine that not even cops know how to enforce them. What guns people can own and carry changes like the weather here. Even cops themselves have run afoul of the laws since they cannot understand how they work. I have started to like the idea of "constitutional carry", BUT, at the same time I like the idea of having a license if only for the fact that if I am stopped by the police they know that not only am I armed but not a threat to them either, so we can both go home happy and alive.
In the US, it's army is made of volunteer citizen soldiers. Although some people choose a life as professional soldier, it all starts with the individual. The US wanted to get itself off to a good start and wanted it's citizen soldiers to preserve the good marksmen, after all they had just finished fighting the worlds biggest army with citizen soldiers for their own independence. You can't have a fighting force if there is no one who knows how. They also wanted "the people" to own the implements of war, not the government. This is why we have the system we have today, although it has run pretty far astray giving the advances in technology. But I do agree with the fact that "shall not be infringed" has been twisted and warped like so many other parts of our constitution. This whole war on terrorism concept has been used to lull people into a false sense of security by freely giving up their own rights like protections against illegal searches, civil asset forfeiture, airport security that needs to see your naked body before letting you on a plane, no cruel and unusual punishment (for poor transwomen sent to prison and denied hormones and basics). Either our rights mean something or we might as well just put it all to a vote and we better hope that some people come down on our side, because we will be in an awful place on that day.
One thing I just cannot bring myself to do, I guess I can qualify with yet, is to hunt. At my range we frequently have deer and wild turkey running around. If one wanders into the range I treat it as another club member who wandered into the range and wait for it to leave. There are definitely some women hunters out there. I recently came in contact with a group called "shoot like a girl" and they were very helpful and informative for me. They also have women only hunting trips and I am thinking of doing one, just for the fun of it. If I decided to get into hunting that's when this starts to get expensive with hunting gear, hunting rifles, etc. Target shooting with an ar15 by contrast is a low risk, low cost (besides the rifle) fun activity to just plink silly things. A few weeks ago I was shooting pumpkins and having fun shooting one off of a dirt mound and then trying to shoot it back onto the dirt mound. I know it's silly but if you were there you would have been laughing hysterically with me.
Quote from: ChloëAri on April 15, 2015, 10:38:12 PM
This thread has strongly affirmed my aversion to visiting or immigrating to the United States. If I must leave Canada, a Western European country or Japan may be fine.
It's still not a bad country to live in, has lower taxes, is pretty safe and you can pretty much do your own thing. If you don't like guns then don't exercise that right. That's your choice. Lots of people are non-gun owners. That's fine and that's how they live their lives. Not everyone wants the responsibility that comes with it. It's not exactly a cheap thing to get into either, licensing, buying a gun safe, gun safety classes, ammo, holsters, gun cases, reloaders, never mind the guns they're the cheap part). To get myself started I probably spent a good $5k and only about 1300 of that was the guns themselves. Once I got myself off the ground though and was able to try different guns is when I found the things I like.
Quote from: Jill F on April 13, 2015, 03:10:44 PMIf someone REALLY wants a gun, they most definitely will be able to obtain one illegally.
This is the entire reason I'm pro-gun, really. If you disarm the law-abiding citizens, then the only people with guns will be the police/military and the criminals...as Jill said, better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Quote from: Zumbagirl on April 16, 2015, 08:22:45 AM
It's still not a bad country to live in, has lower taxes, is pretty safe and you can pretty much do your own thing. If you don't like guns then don't exercise that right. That's your choice. Lots of people are non-gun owners. That's fine and that's how they live their lives.
The U.S. isn't a bad country to live in, but there's at least 20 others I would pick before it. It is "pretty safe" compared with countries with a medium to high Human Development Index, but is not overly safe compared to other countries with a very high HDI. I don't like the use of guns (other than those used for hunting and paintball) by private civilians, and I don't exercise that right, because I, nor any of my fellow citizens, actually have that right.
Quote from: ChloëAri on April 16, 2015, 01:39:24 PM
I don't like the use of guns (other than those used for hunting and paintball) by private civilians, and I don't exercise that right, because I, nor any of my fellow citizens, actually have that right.
That's great that you choose not to exercise a right, just understand the point I am making is that because you don't exercise a right doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also, many people hunt with handguns and many even hunt with assault rifles since nearly all assault rifles will work with hunting caliber ammunition. In fact a lot of people hunt with military surplus rifles. I don't hunt but like to target shoot and yes I shoot the evil nasty "assault" guns, not because they are evil but because they are easy to shoot and over the decades have developed a reputation for extreme reliability. I like having the ability to choose. I choose to shoot this type of gun. Incidentally, the AR 15 is extremely popular among women. I have not met a woman yet who was a shooter and didn't own one.
*mod edit for content
Quote from: Zumbagirl on April 16, 2015, 01:52:51 PM
That's great that you choose not to exercise a right, just understand the point I am making is that because you don't exercise a right doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Please tell me how citizens of the Dominion of Canada have the right to bare regulated arms.
Additionally, I really don't care for the race of the gun-holder. Anyone holding a gun is intimidating to me.
Quote from: ChloëAri on April 16, 2015, 02:17:59 PM
Please tell me how citizens of the Dominion of Canada have the right to bare regulated arms.
Additionally, I really don't care for the race of the gun-holder. Anyone holding a gun is intimidating to me.
Of course I can understand your point of view. Even if I am armed, anyone holding a gun to me is intimidating too, whether they are white, black, purple or aliens. It's a lethal force weapon. But what I have learned is that armed citizens are not the ones you have to be careful of. It's criminals, gangs, addicts and people like that. If someone is desperate enough they will do grievous harm to any of us here. If someone pulls a gun on me the last thing I want is to have no way to fight back. Yes I have pepper spray but it isn't going to help in that moment. When transgender people get hurt we are not just harmed we are slaughtered in brutally sadistic acts. I don't want to be a statistic from that kind of violence. I myself marched in a TG day of remembrance, in fact one of the first ones ever.
I can't speak for Canada, I'm in the US and here I have the right to choose whether or not I want to be an armed citizen. If I tell you when I first got my concealed carry license I had little experience with guns. I had the same level of fear and apprehension of handling firearms as anyone who is new to it. When I bought my first handgun I was afraid to carry it. I kept it locked in a safe for week. One day I said get used to it, and carried it unloaded. I went for months carrying it without any ammo (unloaded). Nowadays I walk out with my handgun loaded and ready to fire. I have the skill and training needed so that *if* I ever had to protect myself from someone pointing a gun at me, I am ready. My gun is not there to intimidate anyone, in fact it's concealed. I would only pull it out under a very specific set of circumstances which I understand from my training.
One thing that people in the USA seem to forget sometimes is that police are protectors. They cannot fire their guns anymore than I can. They can go to prison just as easily. In fact if you asked a cop they will tell you that their sidearm is for their own protection. It's a self-defense lethal force weapon for the purpose of the one who carries it. It makes a bang noise, and puts holes in things, that's basically all it does.
In our lives we walk past people all the time who are armed and we don't even know it. The last thing they want to do is to pull their weapon and start shooting. That's the nature of good people. But there are some sick people in this world, drug addicts, career criminals, street gangs. They are no longer in the inner city anymore, they have fanned out across the country. That doesn't mean that no one is safe. It just means that crime has moved from gangs to individuals. An individual is more likely to be the target of a crime than a gang member is. That's just the changing nature of crime.
I'm more into surface to air missiles when I go geese hunting saves time you don't need to retrieve the goose or hand grenades for fishing , a lot faster then wasting a day sitting in a boat.
Zumbagirl: that makes sense. I guess it is truly something that non-U.S. citizens don't fully understand.
I am saying however that Canadians do not have the right to bear arms, unless a member of a provincial police force. Police have small hand guns, and rarely ever is it that they use it. What you may find humourous is that civilians are not allowed to carry stun guns or pepper spray either, and that the legality of police officers having them is and has been questioned. I guess it really is just difference of culture.
On a slightly unrelated note, I remember watching a show about the U.S./Canada border where Americans who were told to leave their arms at the boarder before entering the country simply backed up and drove away. Many also tried arguing with the guards before driving away. It was quite interesting really.
That's very interesting what you say about Canada. There is currently a case before the US Supreme court involving a US citizen, living in Canada, who was unable to ship specific firearms to Canada from the US for use in hunting. So apparently this person figured out a way to keep handguns and rifles in Canada and they aren't even Canadian. The case raises interesting questions on limitations of US government power. I get the in other countries people don't like keeping arms. But I am a fan of history as well. Germany conquered Denmark in 6 hours since they were unarmed and defenseless. This is the most heavily armed country on earth by comparison and it's still a pretty cool place to live. There are many ordinary citizens who have marksmanship skills far beyond the ability of the best military snipers and marksmen. So the balance of power is in the hands of the people.
Massachusetts was the last state in the US when they legalized pepper spray this January 2015. Before January, it required a special firearms permit to possess it, or a concealed carry license. It's a non lethal weapon with a very low bar for usage. In other words it doesn't require a life threatening event to deploy.
Stun guns are only legal in 46 of the 50 states, illegal in Massachusetts. So here the options are, pepper spray or shoot.
I own several firearms, rifles, pistols, handguns.
I carry concealed everywhere I go wherever I can now, which is all 50 states thanks to HR218/LEOSA.
I believe the 2nd amendment recognizes a natural right to self defense, to keep and bear arms and militia service is not required. I also believe that civilians should be able to own any type of bearable arm that the military can have, which includes fully automatic machine guns (which are rarely used in crimes anyway). This does not include tanks, nukes and whatever other extreme stuff the anti-gun crowd likes to throw down as a "slippery slope" argument.
Regarding the militia stuff, and the right being collective rather than individual - does the Government really need a constitutional guarantee to arm itself? I didn't think so. The right is for the people, the individuals.
That said, of course convicted violent felons should not have firearms. Everybody else? Sure, why not.
Quote from: ChloëAri on April 16, 2015, 09:14:20 PM
On a slightly unrelated note, I remember watching a show about the U.S./Canada border where Americans who were told to leave their arms at the boarder before entering the country simply backed up and drove away. Many also tried arguing with the guards before driving away. It was quite interesting really.
It kind of makes sense. I am not leaving my firearms with a Government bureaucrat who may lose or steal them. That said, if I am going to Canada (or Mexico) I make sure and leave them at home.
Quote from: ChloëAri on April 16, 2015, 02:17:59 PM
Please tell me how citizens of the Dominion of Canada have the right to bare regulated arms.
Additionally, I really don't care for the race of the gun-holder. Anyone holding a gun is intimidating to me.
I hear about shootings in Toronto all the time. A gun ban doesn't really seem to be doing much of anything.
Would you emigrate to Switzerland? Every adult is given a fully automatic gun as part of required military service. Their crime rate seems rather low too. Not saying it's the guns that cause the low crime rate, just that the two really aren't related.
Quote from: iKate on April 16, 2015, 11:44:22 PM
I own several firearms, rifles, pistols, handguns.
I carry concealed everywhere I go wherever I can now, which is all 50 states thanks to HR218/LEOSA.
I believe the 2nd amendment recognizes a natural right to self defense, to keep and bear arms and militia service is not required. I also believe that civilians should be able to own any type of bearable arm that the military can have, which includes fully automatic machine guns (which are rarely used in crimes anyway). This does not include tanks, nukes and whatever other extreme stuff the anti-gun crowd likes to throw down as a "slippery slope" argument.
It's great that you get to go to all 50 states as a LEO. But here I am, having to still get background checks and I can't drive beyond the state line. It just doesn't seem right. This is why we either need constitutional carry or reciprocity. If I want to travel out of state I need to have a pile of non-resident licenses. Not everyone wants to carry and I get that, but it's worthless to me if I have lock it up in the trunk of the car while you don't. The 1986 machine gun ban was one of those crazy middle of the night bills that got squeezed through congress and looking at it now it doesn't make sense. I have never met a machine gun owner yet who wasn't a fervent collector. That's the typical MG owner.
Quote from: Zumbagirl on April 17, 2015, 05:08:30 AM
It's great that you get to go to all 50 states as a LEO. But here I am, having to still get background checks and I can't drive beyond the state line. It just doesn't seem right. This is why we either need constitutional carry or reciprocity. If I want to travel out of state I need to have a pile of non-resident licenses. Not everyone wants to carry and I get that, but it's worthless to me if I have lock it up in the trunk of the car while you don't. The 1986 machine gun ban was one of those crazy middle of the night bills that got squeezed through congress and looking at it now it doesn't make sense. I have never met a machine gun owner yet who wasn't a fervent collector. That's the typical MG owner.
I fully agree and support national reciprocity 100%, especially the stutzman bill backed by GOA (I'm a member) since it recognizes constitutional carry states like VT. I've written my congressman about it and he supports it. LEOSA isn't really a free pass either but it does allow carry in places like NYC and DC. You have to carry concealed unless the state allows open carry, and in NJ qualify twice a year. But it is better than what civilians have and I fully agree everyone should have reciprocity, if not for nothing to prevent more shaneen Allen type incidents.
I'm hoping natl reciprocity can be tacked on to a must pass bill like how we got carry in natl parks through the credit card act.
BTW I do have regular (civilian) CCLs in other states. I want to get the Utah instructor cert but when I change my name.
I'm currently in the process of getting my CT license. The only part that will suck afterwards is that I will not be able to bring the AR and AK to CT since they are banned. I love VT gun laws, literally nothing and yet they do not have crime problems or crazy issues. If you ever come up to MA let me know and I can take you to my club I belong to. Shooting is somehow more fun with another person! :) besides I always welcome tips and advice on my carry gun.
Quote from: iKate on April 16, 2015, 11:47:34 PM
I hear about shootings in Toronto all the time. A gun ban doesn't really seem to be doing much of anything.
Would you emigrate to Switzerland? Every adult is given a fully automatic gun as part of required military service. Their crime rate seems rather low too. Not saying it's the guns that cause the low crime rate, just that the two really aren't related.
Sure, Toronto has shootings. Just like anywhere else. It's proper population is greater than that of Paris. Toronto has one of the lowest homicide rates in North America, which is about 26 times lower than Detroit and 10 times lower than Atlanta. Gun bans are greatly effective, while not solving the whole problem.
I would absolutely emigrate to Switzerland. Only adult men between 20 and 30 are given such guns, and carry them unloaded while travelling. They mostly leave them in their houses. In addition, civilians wishing to carry a gun must state a specific reason for wanting a gun, must prove they have the required skills and knowledge of the related laws, and permits are normally only given to those who work in security or military.
In any case, the statistics on gun-related incidents prove that their system is working.
Quote from: ChloëAri on April 17, 2015, 11:36:43 AM
Sure, Toronto has shootings. Just like anywhere else. It's proper population is greater than that of Paris. Toronto has one of the lowest homicide rates in North America, which is about 26 times lower than Detroit and 10 times lower than Atlanta. Gun bans are greatly effective, while not solving the whole problem.
I would absolutely emigrate to Switzerland. Only adult men between 20 and 30 are given such guns, and carry them unloaded while travelling. They mostly leave them in their houses. In addition, civilians wishing to carry a gun must state a specific reason for wanting a gun, must prove they have the required skills and knowledge of the related laws, and permits are normally only given to those who work in security or military.
In any case, the statistics on gun-related incidents prove that their system is working.
Then how do you explain Vermont and Utah which have high rates of gun ownership and concealed carry? Machine gun laws are also pretty lax. Vermont has no permit required to carry, they don't even issue one. You can just carry. VT and UT are pretty low down on the scale of crime, particularly violent crime.
Vermont is a northern state bordering Canada, and northern states except for Michigan (due to Detroit) don't seem to be as much of an issue. I'm not fully sure about Utah. To be honest, I think it's more of a mental thing than anything. It's the "Bible Belt" states that intimidate me. I've collectively spent around 2 months in California and loved each time I went; especially San Diego (which is a very safe large city). The Bible Belt states may not necessarily be more unsafe, but that's just the mental part I guess.
Shows like "Doomsday Preppers" (I think that's what it's called) don't help. There was an episode where this guy built an underground bunker and when they were doing a simulation of a "dommsday" scenario the grandfather was like "everyone put guns in this bin" and like, each of the teens had like 1 or 2. Even the 11 year old girl had one and it was just so shocking for me.
That was in Texas though by the way.
Yup,
We start them early here. My nephew put up a video of his twin girls shooting with assistance at age 3, I supplied the targets for that. He has another one with his petite wife shooting a .50 cal Barrett sniper rifle with no problem. He's got overwhelming positive responses to both videos.
Joelene
Well, here in Canada our taxes pay for healthcare so I think people not being able to get them as easily is a good thing because I don't want to have to pay for people to get medical attention if they get shot. Gun violence is really not a problem in most places around here.
I don't expect to change any hearts and minds here but the data demonstrate that the USA is awash in guns with many times more people harming one another with them than in any other civilized country. People who own guns commit suicide with their handguns more than by any other method. The visceral and angry responses to even the most reasonable accountability or regulation seems fear based to me.
I grew up with guns in the home and was a high school marksman in our gun club. Then I went to Vietnam as an 18 yo soldier and lived in a situation where everyone had an automatic weapon. The result was that I saw brutality and "free fire zones" with people and cows shot for sport and as much "friendly fire" damage to our guys as inflicted by our so called enemy. The carnage in our country is shameful and preventable. Children and adults are no longer safe just going to school, the mall or a movie. There is a psychological response/reflex to holding that level of power in our hands that makes me uncomfortable around anyone with a gun. Our police kill people at an alarming and racially disproportionate level. People who own guns respond to even proposed legislation by buying more guns. How much firepower do we need to feel safe enough?
To me this is another situation where ideology trumps the truth about what a healthy community needs.
More guns = less safety.
Flame on! >:-) ;D ;D
Quote from: ChloëAri on April 17, 2015, 12:27:08 PM
Vermont is a northern state bordering Canada, and northern states except for Michigan (due to Detroit) don't seem to be as much of an issue. I'm not fully sure about Utah. To be honest, I think it's more of a mental thing than anything. It's the "Bible Belt" states that intimidate me. I've collectively spent around 2 months in California and loved each time I went; especially San Diego (which is a very safe large city). The Bible Belt states may not necessarily be more unsafe, but that's just the mental part I guess.
Shows like "Doomsday Preppers" (I think that's what it's called) don't help. There was an episode where this guy built an underground bunker and when they were doing a simulation of a "dommsday" scenario the grandfather was like "everyone put guns in this bin" and like, each of the teens had like 1 or 2. Even the 11 year old girl had one and it was just so shocking for me.
Vermont is a neghboring state for me. I travel to VT quite frequently. The state has literally no gun laws at all. Anyone can walk into a store, buy a gun and take it home. There is in my mind a direct correlation to lack of violent crime and armed citizens. NH has very lax gun laws as well, and open carry as well. Maine is about to switch to open carry. MA, CT and RI are very strict and have very very violent crimes, some shockingly violent.
In the US the nature of crime has changed. It used to be gangs knocking each other off for rights to deal and other criminal activities. The gangs have stopped knocking each other off and now crime has become more personal. There is a recent case in my own hometown where a guy was stabbed multiple time during a home invasion (still in a medically induced coma) for only a handful of things of any value. It's easier for criminals to ambush one defenseless person by themselves whether by home invasion or on the street than to confront another criminal who may have a dangerous weapon. Massachusetts has very strict gun laws, even a gun registry and yet has very bad gun violence. The crimes aren't being committed by law abiding citizens. It is criminals plain and simple. They know there is a population of people with no weapons and easy to steal, beat, rob, rape, what have you. Heck these days, criminals don't even care if they shoot cops.
At this point I am definitely convinced that there is a correlation between violent crime and armed citizens. If you and I were walking down the street, a criminal would think twice if he saw me carrying a weapon. It's not an easy ambush, because they know it's too easy for me to reciprocate the violence. Wait till your post-op and 5-6 years have passed and your all blended into the world and you will understand what vulnerable means.
Like I said, it's a right in the US. If you don't want a gun, then don't get one. You can opt out if you wish. Don't disparage the people who do. I'm not a doomsday prepper but honestly what do I care what someone wants to do with their free time? If they want to dig a hole in the backyard and hide out underground with a stash of guns, then who cares? They are not shooting at anyone or harming anyone. They are free to live thier own lives as they see fit. That's the American experience, you live your life and I live mine. You don't trample on my rights and I don't trample on yours. Everyone's happy.
Quote from: Tessa James on April 17, 2015, 01:09:46 PM
I don't expect to change any hearts and minds here but the data demonstrate that the USA is awash in guns with many times more people harming one another with them than in any other civilized country. People who own guns commit suicide with their handguns more than by any other method. The visceral and angry responses to even the most reasonable accountability or regulation seems fear based to me.
I grew up with guns in the home and was a high school marksman in our gun club. Then I went to Vietnam as an 18 yo soldier and lived in a situation where everyone had an automatic weapon. The result was that I saw brutality and "free fires zones" with people and cows shot for sport and as much "friendly fire" damage to our guys as inflicted by our so called enemy. The carnage in our country is shameful and preventable. Children and adults are no longer safe just going to school, the mall or a movie. There is a psychological response/reflex to holding that level of power in our hands that makes me uncomfortable around anyone with a gun. Our police kill people at an alarming and racially disproportionate level. People who own guns respond to even proposed legislation by buying more guns. How much firepower do we need to feel safe enough?
To me this is another situation where ideology trumps the truth about what a healthy community needs.
More guns = less safety.
Flame on! >:-) ;D ;D
People will still commit suicide if all they have are rocks and sticks. People have commited suicide since the days of drinking hemlock and will until our species is finally extinct from this earth. There is nothing any of us can do to change that.
A right is a right, as simple as that. Just like the right of free expression and being able to move to a new gender. No one can stop you (or me for that matter). In that same line of thinking no one can take it away either. Could you imagine having the ability to have a gender transition put to a vote or worse a constitutional amendment? That would be a rotten day for all of us I can tell you if we came up in the losing side.
I've said it over and over like a broken record, if you don't want a gun, then don't get one. Just don't think you have the power to dictate other peoples rights. Some people are boneheads, yes I will say that. Here comes gun ban A or ammo ban B and they go out and buy up all they can, you know why?? So they can sell it back to stupid people for 5 times what they paid for it. This isn't an idealogy of left vs right, because honestly I think both sides are stupid.
Quote from: Joelene9 on April 17, 2015, 12:35:11 PM
Yup,
We start them early here. My nephew put up a video of his twin girls shooting with assistance at age 3, I supplied the targets for that. He has another one with his petite wife shooting a .50 cal Barrett sniper rifle with no problem. He's got overwhelming positive responses to both videos.
Joelene
I have a friend whose daughter is a 9 year old competitive shooter. She gets good grades too.
Quote from: ChloëAri on April 16, 2015, 02:17:59 PM
Please tell me how citizens of the Dominion of Canada have the right to bare regulated arms.
Additionally, I really don't care for the race of the gun-holder. Anyone holding a gun is intimidating to me.
The English Bill of Rights 1689, transferred to us in 1867 by the BNA act give us that right.
I am a licensed owner of firearms living in Canada. My license permits me to acquire and possess both the non-restricted and restricted classes of firearm in Canada. To obtain that permission, I had several one on one interviews with Provincial Police, background checks, my spouse and neighbors were interviewed, and I completed several courses on firearms safety, history, technology and laws, and was examined on those subjects by a federally licensed examiner. The avatar (at the time of this post) is me. The picture is (at the time of this post) less than one month old. I don't think I'm intimidating :)
All that being said, you still won't find me out and about in public with a loaded firearm. I would not want the responsibility of having to decide if I should be using it to defend myself. I know that there are courses in Canada that deal with that very topic, but they are intended for restricted firearm owners who are applying to the US for carry permits, a very rare item in this country.
Just in closing, I would like to relate to you my first experience witnessing open carry. I was in Nevada, attending a professional conference related to my work. I saw a lot of people in this particular town out in public with sidearms holstered in plain sight. I did not feel intimidated, oddly, I felt safe, just as safe as I feel walking around in Ste. Agathe or Cornwall.
-ellie
Again, I do not expect to change your minds about guns but I do not see it as a left or right issues but more about what is healthy for our communities. More guns=more deaths. We have the highest level of gun ownership and the highest homicide rate of any so called "advanced country." Fear is the irrational part of the equation and is manipulated by the NRA constantly to stoke the flames. And then, even most NRA members are in favor of universal background checks.
Suicide is preventable and having seen a number of misses where people blow off their nose or part of their face- it doesn't always work as planned. Some one cleans up the mess folks.
Rights are reasonably subject to regulation. We also have a right to our "pursuit of happiness" and I expect no one is happy about the daily loss of life in the USA to gun violence. We all have a stake in creating a climate of peace. My not owning guns does not stop criminals from looking for guns when they break into homes nor does it prevent gun owners from going nuts and killing people---every day!
Don't people have the right to reduce violence and to work for a safer neighborhood? Gun rights end where the killing and wounding begins. If guns were primarily being used for hunting and sports we would have much less to be concerned about. Gun violence impacts and costs us all of us, not just gun owners. http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/graybubble.jpg
First some facts about murder: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Then some fun!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFWRPiNXOI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I don't know did Adam and Eve carry concealed weapons, Oh sorry that was paradise.
I'm anti-gun (Is that how you call it or gun-free? I don't care), I really don't understand this american obsession with guns, I was born in Europe (more specifically Italy) and moved to the US, and I wouldn't feel more safe with a gun, nor I like the fact that they are used for fun, they are not for fun. I also don't like that kids are using them, regardless if the parents are assisting them, or for some competition. No, you don't need a gun as much as you need transitioning, and you don't move your gender. I was always the same gender, my body liked to differ, and I'm changing that.
after earning my boy scout rifle badge, i was deemed to sharp of a shooter and suggested i never buy one whether for self protection or not. however, this seems to be one of the topic discussions in politics since they can't seem to stop gun violence itself
One problem is for me is that in moments of deep despair , it's so much easier to put the barrel of a loaded revolver in your mouth and pull the trigger. You can't after the fact say well maybe it will get better.
i actually know someone who would pull a madea on someone else.
Serena: I swear that I'm not judging you, but why would you leave Italy for the U.S.? I've visited Italy over a collective period of a month and cried when I had to leave both times. I would love to move there.
Quote from: stephaniec on April 17, 2015, 05:57:02 PM
I don't know did Adam and Eve carry concealed weapons, Oh sorry that was paradise.
Let's not bring religion into this.
Related question for the non-US folks. Is it okay for blades or bow/arrows?
Quote from: ChloëAri on April 17, 2015, 09:14:19 PM
Serena: I swear that I'm not judging you, but why would you leave Italy for the U.S.? I've visited Italy over a collective period of a month and cried when I had to leave both times. I would love to move there.
Because Italy is a deeply transphobic country, just the fact that most trans women there are seen as crossdressers who escort for money, and even just italian is really transphobic, because the whole language is genderized and use most of the time to misgender us.
But anyway, I didn't leave Italy, I am 18 now, but when I left, I was too young to decide to stay, because I was a minor so I had to follow my family with their decision, which I am happy about right now, beside the american selective service, and gun stuff.
Quote from: Kova V on April 17, 2015, 10:12:17 PM
Let's not bring religion into this.
Related question for the non-US folks. Is it okay for blades or bow/arrows?
No but they are far far less effective mass killing weapons than guns. But as a Dual UK/Irish citizen I can tell you that publicly carrying a knife will get you into EXTREMELY serious trouble. Again carrying pepper spray will also get you arrested.
Which lead me on to something else. I believe there is a whole cultural difference at play here which goes much deeper than the simple "right to carry a gun". A whole cultural difference of what are acceptable levels of violence.
I've been following this thread for a while and held back from contributing simply because I need to get my thoughts on these cultural differences straight in my head.
Quote from: stephaniec on April 17, 2015, 07:17:10 PM
One problem is for me is that in moments of deep despair , it's so much easier to put the barrel of a loaded revolver in your mouth and pull the trigger. You can't after the fact say well maybe it will get better.
It's easy to jump off a bridge or drop a hair dryer in the bathtub, walk into traffic etc.
Quote from: Serena ♡ on April 17, 2015, 06:34:30 PM
I'm anti-gun (Is that how you call it or gun-free? I don't care), I really don't understand this american obsession with guns, I was born in Europe (more specifically Italy) and moved to the US, and I wouldn't feel more safe with a gun, nor I like the fact that they are used for fun, they are not for fun. I also don't like that kids are using them, regardless if the parents are assisting them, or for some competition. No, you don't need a gun as much as you need transitioning, and you don't move your gender. I was always the same gender, my body liked to differ, and I'm changing that.
The "obsession" is quite simple.
This country would not be possible without guns. The founding fathers did not ask the British for independence. Quite simply, they shot them.
Quote from: iKate on April 18, 2015, 07:40:05 PM
It's easy to jump off a bridge or drop a hair dryer in the bathtub, walk into traffic etc.
No disrespect IKate but 18 month ago a close friend of mine (and support of my transition) in North Dakota committed suicide. After deep personal problems and alcohol abuse he did just that, i.e. pulled a gun and shot himself in front his partner in her front garden. And it wasn't even a hand gun, it was a hunting shot gun! Without guns in his house he would had at least to think about doing that and plan his actions. A gun is just too available to impulsive actions.
Quote from: CB on April 18, 2015, 07:53:45 PM
No disrespect IKate but 18 month ago a close friend of mine (and support of my transition) in North Dakota committed suicide. After deep personal problems and alcohol abuse he did just that, i.e. pulled a gun and shot himself in front his partner in her front garden. And it wasn't even a hand gun, it was a hunting shot gun! Without guns in his house he would had at least to think about doing that and plan his actions. A gun is just too available to impulsive actions.
I hate to sound selfish but that problem isn't solved by taking away my gun or anyone's gun. It's solved by treating the root cause of suicide. Our community should know this all too well.
Quote from: iKate on April 18, 2015, 07:48:08 PM
The "obsession" is quite simple.
This country would not be possible without guns. The founding fathers did not ask the British for independence. Quite simply, they shot them.
Well that was another time/era.
Quote from: Serena ♡ on April 18, 2015, 11:02:44 PM
Well that was another time/era.
While that is true, that doesn't mean that the underlying principle has changed. Take the first amendment, for example. We don't go and say it is invalid because "the press" is a website or cable television instead of a printed piece of paper. We also apply the 4th and 5th amendment to modern technology as well. So the 2nd amendment is valid today as well. Besides, whether or not there is a written law, gun culture is huge and growing. Women in particular are the fastest growing demographic of gun owners. Whenever I go to the range I see more women, and I have women friends who shoot as well.
But anyway I was pointing out how the gun is ingrained in the American psyche, because it's essentially how this country came to be.
By the way, the USA is not at the top in terms of the suicide rate, despite having so-called easy access to firearms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate (Data from the World Health Organization)
We are #30, well behind much of Europe and Asia, including Japan (#7) where there is no civilian ownership of guns or even swords.
Was the recent Scottish independence campaign executed using guns against england or with a referendum? I think time have changed. If the amendments are still applicable to non-violent things, then it's great, but gun is not the same thing.
That's the problem to begin with, americans are so easy to use violence, I don't want to go off-topic, but american cops can be very violent, let's just think about the black men that got killed because of that, and police officer would of course allowed to get guns, because that's their job, but citizens should not be allowed to do that, there is too many crazy people. This is my opinion I am sorry I am not going to change it.
Quote from: Serena ♡ on April 18, 2015, 11:16:32 PM
Was the recent Scottish independence campaign executed using guns against england or with a referendum?
Apples to oranges. First of all, it was unsuccessful. Secondly, because it was voted down, clearly the majority of Scottish citizens did not want it.
QuoteI think time have changed. If the amendments are still applicable to non-violent things, then it's great, but gun is not the same thing.
Are you serious? The 1st amendment is being used to beat you up as a trans woman and exclude you from society in some places. What makes the 2nd amendment so special over it anyway?
QuoteThat's the problem to begin with, americans are so easy to use violence, I don't want to go off-topic, but american cops can be very violent, let's just think about the black men that got killed because of that,
As far as cops being violent, sure there are a few bad apples but most of the men and women I worked with were upstanding citizens and would even go out of their way to help you. Some of the media outlets love to latch on to stories that play to their core base. The reporting of these shootings and other incidents is extremely disgusting. The latest one is where a guy was walking around a residential street
with a loaded gun, discharging it into the air. Who gets the flack for it? The officer who runs him over with a car to stop him! Unbelievable. Did I mention that this guy went on a violent crime spree and that the gun was stolen?
Quoteand police officer would of course allowed to get guns, because that's their job, but citizens should not be allowed to do that, there is too many crazy people. This is my opinion I am sorry I am not going to change it.
Do you even know that study after study has shown that concealed carry permit holders are more law abiding than the general population? Legal gun owners are usually pretty law abiding. So how then is a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen much more dangerous then?
I mean you can say that about a billion other things really, cars, alcohol, etc. If the solution was to ban dangerous things, then we'd ban practically everything.
Yeah I know but that's a modern example of how people are not using guns to achieve their goal of independence. Time have changed, and the one you were describing is a different era. Things need to move forward and change, just like for the selective service, guns, etc...
Im my male persona, I liked small arms and military science and did 5 years in the usmc, felt it went together like a pbj sandwich(right of passage to manhood). In my female persona I see it as tools, which should be handled with great respect and not a topic for polite conversation with most ladies I know. 2nd amendment always believed it. That said, I do own small arms, but keep them well locked up with valuables. I rarely share my interest of small arms with anyone, since most ladies and most men I know just dont know and/or have a like for them, sorry for saying it twice. Then again most women and men dont like auto mechanics either. [emoji12]
Quote from: Serena ♡ on April 18, 2015, 11:22:40 PM
Yeah I know but that's a modern example of how people are not using guns to achieve their goal of independence. Time have changed, and the one you were describing is a different era. Things need to move forward and change, just like for the selective service, guns, etc...
But you used an example that was not successful. I used an example that was.
Also, "change for the sake of change" is frightening. America will likely never ban guns. Gun rights have been expanding, and that trend shows no sign of stopping.
Who cares if it was successful or not, that wasn't the point, if it wasn't successful it's because the people there didn't want it to be so, while americans wanted it to be successful. It's a different time, we don't need guns to fight for independence, especially in the US.
I still hope they will ban them someday.
Owning weapons is as american as apple pie, goes back to the founding fathers, reason its included in the u.s. constitution, bear arms it says. Banning guns?, man that is going to an uphill fight from hell, if at all. Id love to see a bill that says ban firearms for all law abiding citizens, see how far it goes<pun intended>.
If bickering on this issue persists, this thread will be locked. If you don't have anything constructive to add to this topic, please find another one.
Quote from: Jill F on April 19, 2015, 12:05:42 AM
If bickering on this issue persists, this thread will be locked. If you don't have anything constructive to add to this topic, please find another one.
I'm surprised it hasn't been locked already ::)
However, as I said earlier I believe this goes much deeper than a simple right to own a gun. There is something very cultural going on here. Most people outside the US view the obsession with guns with disbelief and simply just don't understand it. The media in Europe (and elsewhere) often has documentaries trying to get to the bottom of what really is going on in the psych of American minds, not necessarily judging but simply trying to understand because they don't. When there's the latest school killing, people just shake their head with disbelief because it's beyond their comprehension. I believe not much will change until this obsession changes and I doubt that will be any time soon.
Personally I am so very glad I live in a society that is not awash with guns and where it would be legally impossible to ever get a hand gun and the level of violent crime generally is so much lower to begin with. I find them frightening and evil and am so glad I don't have to worry about them. But thats my opinion and I'm not going to tell Americans how they should live.
Since I own a couple of corvettes I belong to a corvette club that has international members, some of whom are in France. When the Charlie Hebdo incident came up and having unarmed police against armed terrorists, the subject of France's supposedly "tight" gun ownership laws came up. What surprised me was the answer from the french citizens. What gun control? Many of them owned a large number of weapons, including military grade automatics. One guy has a picture of him holding 2 ak-47 (the real assault rifles, not the ones ordinary people can buy) with the eiffel tower and his corvette in the background. This was not an american citizen in France, this was a real french citizen. The question came up about why own the gun if you can't use it, to which the answer came, the black market gun trade in europe is huge, and by that I mean gigantic. It's not just criminals who buy guns over there but ordinary people who keep guns in their homes, never report them, never sign up for licenses, never even take safety courses. Nothing. The obvious next question that came up was why? You know what the european answer was? They remember world war 2, that's why. All around them they have living history of what happens to unarmed people.
This is not just some crazy european right wingers, these are ordinary people in europe who no one would ever suspect. The bottom line is, just because you can't see a gun or think they are outlawed doesn't mean that there isn't one near you. It also means that the person who lives next door, who you think "gee what a nice person they are" is hiding some weapons, stashed away hoping they never need them again, but can still remember the death of their own aunts, uncles, grandfathers, and so on at the hands of invading germans.
The thing about America is the only people who participate in the black market are criminals. Everyone else can go to gun shows and gun dealers and buy what they want and then never have to worry about doing something illegal. I can go buy a gun, fill out the background check paperwork with the ATF, wait for the background check to complete (takes a few minutes), pay the other person, conclude the transaction and I am free to go. The person who sold the gun to me can breathe a sigh of relief knowing he didn't sell a gun to a bad person or someone with a criminal background. So because everything is done "out in the open" there is no need for black markets it makes it better to maintain your rights, rather than doing a transaction in a dark alley.
Quote from: CB on April 19, 2015, 05:33:01 AM
I'm surprised it hasn't been locked already ::)
However, as I said earlier I believe this goes much deeper than a simple right to own a gun. There is something very cultural going on here. Most people outside the US view the obsession with guns with disbelief and simply just don't understand it. The media in Europe (and elsewhere) often has documentaries trying to get to the bottom of what really is going on in the psych of American minds, not necessarily judging but simply trying to understand because they don't. When there's the latest school killing, people just shake their head with disbelief because it's beyond their comprehension. I believe not much will change until this obsession changes and I doubt that will be any time soon.
They watch a school shooting in a state that has heavy restrictions on guns, and then shake their heads because "America has a gun problem."
In fact, everything the shooter did was illegal, even acquiring the guns themselves. His mother also broke several laws by letting him have easy access. What's worse is that despite all of these laws, the ATF hardly enforces any. They prefer to go after dealers where it makes news and makes them look good, versus stopping individuals.
The view of non US citizens and non residents on the crime situation in the US and legal firearm ownership seems rather contradictory. On the one hand we have people saying they'll never visit the USA because they're afraid of people walking around with guns. On the other hand, most tourists visit places like NYC, DC and California with extremely strict gun laws and where possession is banned in public. I think there is a lot of misinformation being spread around, some of it on purpose by groups such as MAIG (Bloomberg). Speaking of him, his bodyguards carry guns everywhere he goes and his rich friends all have impossible to obtain NYC carry permits... Even "mr and mrs America, turn 'em all in" Diane Feinstein had a carry permit at one time. Makes you wonder why the elites all want us disarmed.
QuotePersonally I am so very glad I live in a society that is not awash with guns and where it would be legally impossible to ever get a hand gun and the level of violent crime generally is so much lower to begin with. I find them frightening and evil and am so glad I don't have to worry about them. But thats my opinion and I'm not going to tell Americans how they should live.
I lived in a Caribbean country with very strong gun laws, very discretionary license required, no more than 20 rounds of ammo per person, etc. It had one of the highest gun crime rates in the world. "Gun culture" isn't even a thing there. Most people politically are like American progressives, except when it comes to things like LGBT.
The problem is always deeper than the availability of guns. It has to do with society's mindset. This is why Switzerland has low crime despite civilians owning automatic weapons. This is why Jamaica has one of the highest gun crime rates in the world, despite having very strict gun laws.
Quote from: iKate on April 19, 2015, 02:53:33 PM
The view of non US citizens and non residents on the crime situation in the US and legal firearm ownership seems rather contradictory. On the one hand we have people saying they'll never visit the USA because they're afraid of people walking around with guns. On the other hand, most tourists visit places like NYC, DC and California with extremely strict gun laws and where possession is banned in public. I think there is a lot of misinformation being spread around, some of it on purpose by groups such as MAIG (Bloomberg). Speaking of him, his bodyguards carry guns everywhere he goes and his rich friends all have impossible to obtain NYC carry permits... Even "mr and mrs America, turn 'em all in" Diane Feinstein had a carry permit at one time. Makes you wonder why the elites all want us disarmed.
I lived in a Caribbean country with very strong gun laws, very discretionary license required, no more than 20 rounds of ammo per person, etc. It had one of the highest gun crime rates in the world. "Gun culture" isn't even a thing there. Most people politically are like American progressives, except when it comes to things like LGBT.
This is the issue I see that is disconcerting. As the bar to gun ownership keeps getting raised and raised, we will eventually reach a point where only the very affluent (or politically connected) will have weapons, and everyone else will be disarmed and at the mercy of not just the criminals but the rich themselves. I don't see any of that ending well to be honest. Just to make sure that I put this in perspective I happen to be one of those wealthy politically connected people and I think that the direction that all this is heading is very dangerous. People with great resources know that they can buy their way out of the justice system, so they fear it less. Think of the "affluenza" teen who killed 4 people while driving a truck while drunk and said he wasn't responsible because he was rich. We all know how that defense and lots of money worked out. In the end the 1% will not only own all the money, but the resources, land and weapons. The other 99% will be slaves.
In Massachusetts, concealed carry licenses are done with the acceptance of the local chief of police. A few towns over is a city with a chief who gives out almost no concealed carry permits at all (in Massachusetts we call it a red town). It is one of the most violent towns with something like 12 murders so far this year, that's just so far...since 1/1. In my town which has little political pressure on issuing concealed carry (a green town), there have been a grand total of zero murders or shootings so far this year. There was only 1 last year and it wasn't a shooting it was a stabbing.
In the end, no matter what any of us say, the rich will always get whatever it is they want (thanks to citizens united). They can now legally buy congressmen and get whatever laws they want passed. They own the gun companies and ammo companies and distributorships across the country. Which way would anyone predict it to go?
In many countries it is already like . As pointed out people simply acquire them illegally anyway and take their chances. In Trinidad I knew lots of people with illegal guns. My uncle and grandfather had legal ones because my grandfather was a farmer and my uncle owned a business (and likely paid a bribe to the right people). Ordinary people simply bought it from God knows where. I knew a coworker with a loaded .38 revolver in his desk drawer. He had no licence.
In NJ if you aren't LE or aren't connected you won't be able to get a carry permit. The judges have ultimate discretion over civilian permits. However you can carry at home or at your business and possess them at a shooting range or gun shop.
I,m from northeastern mexico/southern texas. In the town in matamoros, tamaulipas, mexico ordinary civilians are only allowed one handgun, yet organized crime gangsters carry fully automatic assault rifles and regularly get into gun battles with the mexican military and rival factions of organized crime not mexican police. Ive heard monterrey, nuevo leon is just the same or was the same between the zetas and the gulf cartel and the sinaloa cartel. Im talking about the gulf cartel/zeta at times the sinaloa cartel there. Crime rates across the border are 1/10 in the rio grande valley and san antonio, to compare to three cities of comparable size. There is a documented case in Mier, Tamaulipas, of organized gangsters turning that place into a Fallujah, yes like the one in iraq, google it and see what I mean. The less guns argument by law abiding citizens dont wash with me and never will, because of my hometown.
Quote from: SonadoraXVX on April 20, 2015, 03:04:59 AM
I,m from northeastern mexico/southern texas. In the town in matamoros, tamaulipas, mexico ordinary civilians are only allowed one handgun, yet organized crime gangsters carry fully automatic assault rifles and regularly get into gun battles with the mexican military and rival factions of organized crime not mexican police. Ive heard monterrey, nuevo leon is just the same or was the same between the zetas and the gulf cartel and the sinaloa cartel. Im talking about the gulf cartel/zeta at times the sinaloa cartel there. Crime rates across the border are 1/10 in the rio grande valley and san antonio, to compare to three cities of comparable size. There is a documented case in Mier, Tamaulipas, of organized gangsters turning that place into a Fallujah, yes like the one in iraq, google it and see what I mean. The less guns argument by law abiding citizens dont wash with me and never will, because of my hometown.
Especially when our own Government is shipping them south of the border...
Quote from: iKate on April 20, 2015, 10:03:12 AM
Especially when our own Government is shipping them south of the border...
I think the more correct statement is our Gov is
allowing them to be shipped by nefarious individuals for investigative purposes (whether you believe in the success of that tactic or not). ;)
Yet people are free to buy military grade weapons here and 1/10 the crime of mexico. Mexicos population is 120 million, and the u.s. is 320 million. The u.s. are a bunch of potheads and dopeheads, so says people south of the border, yet there isnt narco terrorism on the scale of colombia, but there is in mexico.
Reason that mexico is being called in a colombianization mode, by the MIIC, here in the u.s. and other super- industrialized countries.
Its a round robin accusation, but hey at least we're not falling apart like countries south of the border.
Im off my boymode now[emoji41] aka non argumentative mode.
Quote from: ainsley on April 20, 2015, 11:07:03 AM
I think the more correct statement is our Gov is allowing them to be shipped by nefarious individuals for investigative purposes (whether you believe in the success of that tactic or not). ;)
Ah yes, "I see nosssing..." LOL.
Quote from: iKate on April 20, 2015, 02:38:23 PM
Ah yes, "I see nosssing..." LOL.
haha, Sgt. Schultz, I presume?
Quote from: ainsley on April 20, 2015, 03:15:23 PM
haha, Sgt. Schultz, I presume?
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.ebay.com%2Febay01%2Fattachments%2Febay01%2F2124%2F195956%2F1%2FChris%2520Christie-Sgt%2520Schultz.png&hash=5caa451be6000eacb799ba1a59cff030b81225ba)
Is that Chris Christie? We could make meme trading cards of all the politicians satirizing common characterizations of what we think THEY think and sell them for a dollar!!! We'll make at least $13, then we can have a pizza party!
#merica #pizzaParty #chrisChristieNotInvited
Quote from: Kova V on April 20, 2015, 06:01:33 PM
Is that Chris Christie? We could make meme trading cards of all the politicians satirizing common characterizations of what we think THEY think and sell them for a dollar!!! We'll make at least $13, then we can have a pizza party!
#merica #pizzaParty #chrisChristieNotInvited
It is. It's a meme straight out of bridge gate.
Quote from: Kova V on April 20, 2015, 06:01:33 PM
Is that Chris Christie? We could make meme trading cards of all the politicians satirizing common characterizations of what we think THEY think and sell them for a dollar!!! We'll make at least $13, then we can have a pizza party!
#merica #pizzaParty #chrisChristieNotInvited
It is. It's a meme straight out of bridge gate.
Used to support him until he turned soft on gun rights, besides he vetoed the trans birth certificate bill.
Law abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves. Penalizing the law abiding citizen just makes the criminals more brazen. The police moved to more power weapons because the criminals were using AK-47s, Uzis and other powerful weapons. What's isn't addressed is the chronic problems in high crime areas: drugs, lack of opportunity and education, anger and the feeling of hopelessness.
:)
So to start things off, obviously I live in Ohio where we have some of the least restricted gun laws. Really the only thing that you can't own is full auto unless you are LEO or military.
Now to my views on it....well let's just say that my safe would give Diane Feinstein a heart attack. I have revolvers, semi auto hand guns from Glock to a $3,000 1911. I have shot guns, two AKs (one 5.45 one 7.62) three ARs in various calibers (5.56 300aac and SOCOM) an AR10 that I have reached out to 700 yards with regularly, some bolt guns and 4 or 5 suppressors aka silencers.
Obviously I'm all for it but I do feel that we need to strengthen either the background check system, or reporting of mental illness to the FBI. Now I don't mean going to the point that NY or CA have. When it comes to NFA devices, I say go for it, especially with the stricter background checks done that include fingerprinting and the extra $200 to the BATFE.
Now if that scares you, consider this, under USA law, if you pay the Class 3 tax stamp for it, you can LEGALLY buy a fighter jet, tank or MRAP.
The thing is though, where most of yall live if you call 911 the response time is 3-10mins.... Where I live the response time is 15-20mins so my guns are either for hunting or to protect myself and my property. You would think that no one would bother me out here but you would be surprised if you found out just how much crime really happens in the sticks....just last week I woke up to 4 teens trying to load my atv onto a trailer, the week before my neighbor (if you want to call it that since he is a half mile away) had his brand new MF stolen out of the barn.
Lets just say there's a reason I love living in Tennessee ;)
Arizona!
#1 for so long, it's not even fair. ;)
Quote from: iKate on April 18, 2015, 07:48:08 PM
The "obsession" is quite simple.
This country would not be possible without guns. The founding fathers did not ask the British for independence. Quite simply, they shot them.
We SERIOUSLY need a "like" button! ;-)
Quote from: Serena ♡ on April 18, 2015, 11:02:44 PM
Well that was another time/era.
Yes....
Before they had smart bombs, fuel-air explosives, cluster bombs (grapeshot doesn't count, you can see clusterbombs on Youtube), the Cornershot, shaped-charge explosives, drones delivering munitions, police armed with .50 caliber sniper rifles, SWAT delivering warrants to non-violent offenders at O-Dark-Thirty with no-knock warrants, or walking around with submachine guns, like the MP5s the cops had here in Boston for "personal defense weapons."
Not to mention 24/7 surveillance, with people WILLINGLY carrying tracking devices (Cell phones?) and everyone being told, like the Germans pre-WW2, "If you see something, SAY SOMETHING..."
There was no such thing as a main battle tank. Not even a HumVee. Horse is as close as it got. No such thing as shooting someone a mile away. No such thing as incinerating a village in the blink of an eye (FAE). No body armor to withstand rifles (which is also supposedly to be made illegal for civillians to own.)
Problem is, ALL governments turn on their citizens. It's a matter of WHEN, not IF. The founders said as much at the time.
Example: Try to buy a car without a backup camera. Not many left, and getting scarcer - 2016 models ALL have them, I understand. Why?
Because you can't see out of the windows! Why?
Because the car MIGHT roll over in an accident! MUST be able to withstand the weight of the car, even with deformations of the accident, and rollovers MIGHT happen.
On the other hand, if you could SEE out the windows, MAYBE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THE ACCIDENT because you could SEE the other car... but "For your own safety," we now need a beeper for the seatbelt... A buzzer for the backup... Whoop-whoop for lane departure, and a tweeter for when you're "going to: hit someone in front of you, and the car will decide FOR you to slow down, stop, and whether or not the engine should be running.
But it's illegal to have your cell phone in your hand while driving, because the beeps and lights are distracting.
You want an interesting comparison to loop it all back: See how popular the EU government REALLY is. We have members there; should be easy.
As I understand, Brussels is on a par with, or lower than, the Congress here. Less than 30%.
Because they do things "for your own good," (E.G., Codex Alimentarius) that make living a PITA. they impose laws and restrictions on what you would do in your own time, which hurts no one - and imposes costs to you, even if you stay home.
For instance, those backup cameras in the US cars? Those are MANDATORY safety items.
So guess who pays for the repair when it goes wrong.
$20 for a mirror if you need to replace that. Install yourself.
I've read up to $2000 to replace the backup camera systems. Because you CANNOT do the repairs yourself; you MUST get the repairs done; and the vehicle must be disassembled for the repairs, and the repairs are necessary so you can drive it - to work, for example.
Computer-controlled ABS. Black Box electronics, like on a plane, which are also going to start telling you (and the police) when you're "speeding" - which is essential when you need to get out of the way of a MACK truck riding your bumper, for example. Or the LED lights - also essential for "safety", even though they're not headlights. How about headlights, period? $200/bulb. (More for the pretty LEDs that are there as "accents" but part of the "safety" regs now.) Checked the price compared to your expendable income yet? Approximate cost increase, 100%. IE, what used to be $15,000 is now $30-35,000. Essentially the same car. Just more distractions and alarms and big-brother stuff added. (OnStar, for example, is ALWAYS on, ALWAYS tracking you, even without a subscription. And it DOES send that data "home," and it IS shared with the mandatory Insurance Mafia.)
How many times we go over the same dog and pony show, when all it amounts to is, "Give more power to Big Brother"?
After all, it's not like governments murder their citizens. (Russia, China, Germany).
Nor perform medical experiments on them. (US: Tuskegee airmen; Germany, China)
Nor poison them (Alcohol was the method of choice in the US, as the Feds flooded the Chicago market with wood alcohol and blamed it on the moonshiners during Prohibition)
Nor do they create so many laws it's impossible to comply (prophesied in Atlas Shrugged; part of China's history; examined in "three felonies a day", available on Amazon; there are 10,000 pages of FEDERAL law alone, let alone state and local - and most are statutory, meaning your intent doesn't matter; yet the police commit crimes every day without a thought, as do MOST of our leaders of any party.)
Basic deal is: If I stick a gun in your ribs, and demand 1/3 of your income on April 15th, it's THEFT, right?
The government does that EVERY YEAR, and calls it "taxation" - and the sheep go gladly to the slaughter, while our soldiers go to kill and die on foreign shores to "spread democracy" (some of you will recall, "Make the world SAFE for democracy...")
All the while, the "elites" (E.G., G.E., Ford, McDonnel-Douglas, etc) get rich off our blood, sweat and tears - and make it harder and harder to be free.
Gatekeepers does come to mind.
And ultimately, when push comes to shove, Mao was correct: "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun." Because there's GOT to be an, "Or Else."
Example: Love him or hate him, Obama recently said he would be a shoo-in for a third term as president.
It CAN happen - he can suspend elections if there's a "crisis." I don't think he will, but play out the logic here: There's a crisis, whether a financial issue, or an EMP, or a food shortage or a plague. Elections are suspended.
When, and how, do things go back to "normal"?
Because New Orleans and the Jersey Shore are STILL sorting things out, years later.
So who will enforce the "transition" back to normal, and when? The Military? will there be a clamor of unarmed citizens, that the no-longer-elected will listen to?
Ultimately, it comes down to US. Regardless of the drones, and the FAEs, and the snipers - standing up and saying, You'll kill a lot of us, but we'll get to you eventually.
See, in the EU...? They CANNOT do that. No matter how bad it gets (Ex, firing a worthless employee) - they are already living on their knees.
Most people here don't realize - we've ALREADY been knee-capped.
Not just our right to change our bodies. Our right to own our vehicles (registration, mandatory insurance, license fees, plus the hidden taxes of speeding tickets, red light cameras - the yellow lights are shortened, BTW - and a whole BUNCH of statutory violations they can use as pretext to search the car, confiscate your assets, like the car or your cash or jewelry).
Think you own your home? Try not paying the property tax "rent" to your owners. See what happens.
Most people just aren't aware, I hope.
Because the alternative is, they're sheep - and deserve no sympathy when they get SWATed, fined, executed, or their children are arrested on trumped-up or manufactured charges, or executed.
Copblock is a biased site, but compare it to Police1 and think it over. Police1 has cops on it, celebrating the execution of restrained suspects by the cops. Same case as on CopBlock.
My question is, when the law is corrupt and inadequate, why do we still kneel to that "authority"?
Because it's shown it is the same as having NO law at all, anyway.
Same with the national government.
WE, more than most except maybe the Jews of WW2, should be able to read the writing on the wall.
Better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
Quote from: SonadoraXVX on April 20, 2015, 11:44:09 AM
[...]
Im off my boymode now[emoji41] aka non argumentative mode.
The rest was interesting, but this sort of gets my hackles up...
Why would BOYS be the only ones allowed (a) have opinions, (b) be vocal about them, or (c) argue?
::poke::, ::poke::
;-)
No reason to be a Shy Violet all the time, man or woman. :-)
Quote from: Serena ♡ on April 18, 2015, 11:16:32 PM
Was the recent Scottish independence campaign executed using guns against england or with a referendum? I think time have changed. If the amendments are still applicable to non-violent things, then it's great, but gun is not the same thing.
Things have AND haven't changed.
If the refendum had passed, would Scotland have been ALLOWED to walk away? Don't know. But who has the guns? The Crown? then it would be at the Crown's discretion.
Then, there's an old saying attributed to Lenin: "It matters not how the people vote; it matters who counts the votes."
If you could vote for Lenin or Stalin, would it even matter?
That's part of the kabuki theater over here in the US. Corporate interests own ALL the candidates, so it hardly matters how people vote, or who they vote for; the game is rigged twice. (1) Both candidates receive massive contributions from Corporations, so their loyalty is to the Corporations. (2) The politicians ALLOWED to make it on the ballot are so fundamentally the same, it doesn't matter who wins. The Agenda continues unabated.
And that's assuming the election numbers for voter turnout are real....
Quote from: Serena ♡ on April 18, 2015, 11:16:32 PM
That's the problem to begin with, americans are so easy to use violence, I don't want to go off-topic, but american cops can be very violent, let's just think about the black men that got killed because of that, and police officer would of course allowed to get guns, because that's their job, but citizens should not be allowed to do that, there is too many crazy people. This is my opinion I am sorry I am not going to change it.
Yeah - 100% right on that. Police1 vs. CopBlock, same story. CopBlock is biased against, and it's "always" bad. but Police1 is worse; a subdued, handcuffed suspect is shot in the back of the head while kneeling, it's a "good shoot" by all the Officer 82nd airborne types. It's disgusting.
Yet somehow, other civilized nations don't have the Waffen-SS as their role models for policing. Iceland, for example. Japan, too - so it's not a White European thing. France, too, despite the violence there. (Epidemic of rape, robbery, and property damage via arson.)
We let thieves and liars run our government; why not have the psychotics enforce the rules?
This IS, after all, the country that has ruled that: (1) Police have no duty towards any citizen. They need not endanger themselves. (2) The Police don't need to know the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for us mundanes, but for the Po-Po? Not a problem. (3) The Police are allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back, killing him - and not face charges. A civilian must have articulatable reasons to believe he was in imminent fear for his life, and even then will likely be arrested for murder. Shooting a fleeing suspect, even if said suspect committed murder, is illegal murder itself.
Those are the guts of several supreme court cases. Ie, federal law here. Nice, huh?
Lastly, the cops can carry anywhere, anytime, thanks to a certain bill referenced elsewhere in this thread. Including the SOB who killed someone in the movie theater for texting during the previews. And he had to go get his gun to do it, IIRC...
I live in the united States. At one time, I had a concealed carry permit but allowed it to lapse. Where I live is a fairly wild area but as everybody has a gun, people don't mess with each other.
I like to shoot on occasion but have way more fun with airguns than with real guns.
It would concern me greatly if gun ownership were restricted as disarming a population is the way to totalitarianism.
Yes, the wall of blue is a real concern. One of the reasons I did not continue with law enforcement as a career. It was a pity though, people loved me. I actually had people smile when I pulled them over because of my friendly demeanor.
I can't even fathom guns being as unregulated as your Democrats would leave them with their gun control measures. People DO NOT own guns in general in this part of Canada, and probably throughout much of the country. I think there's only 2-3 people who own guns in my extended family, ~50 people.
even with my pistol?
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi34.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd118%2Fsigynh%2Ffoto_no_exif_zpsaa6bch0u.jpg&hash=9f7c443ddde17645efdee497560b95c115d6865a)
I call her Francine.
Kariann
In response to your:...just last week I woke up to 4 teens trying to load my tav onto a trailer,"........
What did you do:
1. Ring 911
2. Fire a weapon in the air (which weapon)
3. Shout at them to get off your property
4. Shoot at them
5. Arrest them and hand them over to the local sheriff.
Judith
PS I would have done 2 & 5
Just a note on that, Judith -
#2 will get you arrested in many places (felony charges, "brandishing"; also, negligent/careless discharge of a weapon is at least a misdemeanor most places.)
#5, you are not recognized as a "legitimate authority" - so you'll also be charged with kidnapping or unlawful imprisonment.
Only der Fuhrer can imprison or execute someone... Or, any appointed agent of "the state."
Just pointing out the realities.
But, as might be noted from my other posts, I'm a bit less polite and tolerant and, well, HUMAN than most. There's no reason for violence until it's time to kill; then, there's no excuse for hesitation. That's the attitude you get when your testicle is ruptured in grade school, and the "authorities" will do nothing to curb such abuse; you realize, in the end, it's up to you, and those same authorities will punish you for acting defensively - then they're no better than the criminals (bullies) they are protecting.
The weapon, BTW, is immaterial. Personally, I'm a knife or explosives type, depending on situation.... Do I need to be close, or can I be distant..? Distance = safety...
Paradise this ain't....
Interesting, don't you have the right in the US to do a "citizens arrest"?
Judith
When guns are outlawed, i will be a outlaw.
Quote from: judithlynn on August 31, 2015, 03:49:23 AM
Kariann
In response to your:...just last week I woke up to 4 teens trying to load my tav onto a trailer,"........
What did you do:
1. Ring 911
2. Fire a weapon in the air (which weapon)
3. Shout at them to get off your property
4. Shoot at them
5. Arrest them and hand them over to the local sheriff.
Judith
PS I would have done 2 & 5
Actually a combination of several of the above. I grabbed my AR 15 (my sbr with a 14.5 inch barrel) chambered a round and yelled "Yall git the hell off my property and if you little SOB's ever come back I'll shoot all of yall" then since I know their families I went to their houses and got the joy and pleasure of watching them get their butts heated up so bad sitting won't happen for a week or two.
We don't call the cops out here unless it's big.....like a Massey Ferguson going missing, but even then we warn the people that live adjacent to us so they can hide their pots, stills, finished shine and weed plants from the sheriff.....unless you already paid him 5,000 that month to uhhhh look the other way.