Quote from: Cindy on January 11, 2014, 12:38:38 PM
I've just had a thought.

Kariann, what is you shoot at to use so much ammo and guns?
This is just a question from someone who has never fired a gun. Pure interest.

It's really a mix of things. Part of my stockpile of ammo is for a SHTF or TEOTWAWKI situation. It's a mix of crap ammo and mid grade ammo, along with some FMJ for continued training with my firearms.

Then comes my other stash. This stash is very high quali ammo that was made with accuracy in mind instead of protection with some mid grade stuff thrown in for training. This stash is for shooting competitions. My favorite of which is 3 gun. 3 gun is basically shooting at targets while at a dead sprint. There are usually 4 stages to each event. One stage is a handgun stage, the second is a shotgun stage, and the third is a rifle stage. The 4th stage, my personal favorite is the gauntlet....running each stage, one to the next until all three firearms have been used and your spotter/time keeper verifies that your handgun is cleared.

QuotePart of my stockpile of ammo is for a SHTF or TEOTWAWKI situation.

SHTF = "Ship Hits The Fan"?

TEOTWAWKI = "That Elephant Over There Walked Across Water Kill It"

Ok, I think I got the first one, no clue on the second. Help?

Quote from: Nikko on January 11, 2014, 11:08:14 PM
SHTF = "Ship Hits The Fan"?

TEOTWAWKI = "That Elephant Over There Walked Across Water Kill It"

Ok, I think I got the first one, no clue on the second. Help?

think R.E.M.

Quote from: Nikko on January 11, 2014, 11:08:14 PM
SHTF = "Ship Hits The Fan"?

TEOTWAWKI = "That Elephant Over There Walked Across Water Kill It"

Ok, I think I got the first one, no clue on the second. Help?

The End Of The World As We Know It.

Best way to describe the difference, is SHTF, the grocery store is out of food and closed, will reopen in 3 weeks to 2 months. Teotwawki, the grocery store is closed and will never open again....events such as nuclear power plant meltdown, solar flare generated EMP, etc. etc. etc.

Basically pepper stuff.

Hi Kariann,

I'm skipping over the other responses to avoid any possible ongoing arguments, as these threads tend to attract.

I don't think the answer is quite 'why don't dems/libs like guns,' but rather, it's more of a demographics correlation, and the comparisons are between urban and rural communities. Each community has different needs and resources, which shape values and priorities. In rural areas, there's more emphasis on independence and self sufficiency, and it's partly because with less population, there's less civic infrastructure to help the people. It's where we get the argument that an armed civilian could be the safer response than a police dept who may not have the power to arrive to a scene in time.

Conversely, a denser population necessitates a greater civic infrastructure- so in the above example, is less necessary to have an armed civilian, since police response would be more immediate. And with greater populations, comes a greater chance of other civilians being victimized, and greater aversion to civilians carrying weapons.

So where do political allegiances come into this? It's another study of demographics. The needs of those in urban areas usually gravitate towards liberal values, and the needs of a rural community trend conservative. And each is valid in their argument, which makes gun control so difficult to properly study and argue for one side, in general terms. But the short answer to your question- it's not that all liberals hate guns. It's just more likely they come from a community where their availability creates a catastrophic problem.

I hope this response makes some sense. Apologies for not being able to link to anything... I'm on my phone, on vacation, browsing Susan's because I can't sleep :p

Quote from: Dee on January 11, 2014, 11:50:12 PM
Hi Kariann,

I'm skipping over the other responses to avoid any possible ongoing arguments, as these threads tend to attract.

I don't think the answer is quite 'why don't dems/libs like guns,' but rather, it's more of a demographics correlation, and the comparisons are between urban and rural communities. Each community has different needs and resources, which shape values and priorities. In rural areas, there's more emphasis on independence and self sufficiency, and it's partly because with less population, there's less civic infrastructure to help the people. It's where we get the argument that an armed civilian could be the safer response than a police dept who may not have the power to arrive to a scene in time.

Conversely, a denser population necessitates a greater civic infrastructure- so in the above example, is less necessary to have an armed civilian, since police response would be more immediate. And with greater populations, comes a greater chance of other civilians being victimized, and greater aversion to civilians carrying weapons.

So where do political allegiances come into this? It's another study of demographics. The needs of those in urban areas usually gravitate towards liberal values, and the needs of a rural community trend conservative. And each is valid in their argument, which makes gun control so difficult to properly study and argue for one side, in general terms. But the short answer to your question- it's not that all liberals hate guns. It's just more likely they come from a community where their availability creates a catastrophic problem.

I hope this response makes some sense. Apologies for not being able to link to anything... I'm on my phone, on vacation, browsing Susan's because I can't sleep :p

Honestly i think that's one of the best answers i have gotten so far...sadly tho even in denser populations police response time is still over 5min....better then the hour it takes the local police department here, but still way too long and would make me wanna protect myself even more then i do now.

I would be fine with everybody being allowed to own all the muskets they want, which was the gun tech available at the time the amendment was written.  The writers of that amendment did not envision assault rifles.

And if the point of the amendment was to give citizens a fighting chance against its government, that ship has long since sailed.  Even assault rifles won't protect you from what the military has in their arsenal, almost all of which is illegal for private citizens to own.  And can you imagine if it was legal for your neighbor to own a tank and/or a battery of grenade launchers?  Yikes!

I do not understand the notion of "if everybody had a gun we'd all be safer!"  That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of.  When you pull out a gun, you raise the stakes.  When you have a gun in the home you put everybody inside at risk.  How many times do those guns get in the hands of children with tragic results?  More than none.

Gun sales have increased every year for the last 5 years. The biggest increase in gun sales happened after Sandy Hook. Political posturing by the left has only led to increased demand and a booming industry.

I don't think all liberals hate guns. I know many that own and enjoy them. I think the main difference is that my liberal friends will say "I have X gun and that's all you need." But my conservative friends will say "Don't tell me what I need, check out all this cool stuff."

In cal, there was like 19 gun bill restrictions and most of them were vetoed by Brown. But we have a veto proof legislature and they wouldn't push their luck. Some stupid things got passed, but anything significant was vetoed. In CO. They've run out a couple of people for passing stupid gun laws.

I came to guns very late compared to a lot of owners. I didn't grow up with them at all. I never wanted one. I feared them. Until I got dragged to a range. That was a life changing day. Once you shoot a gun it will forever change your perception of them. They demand respect.

The rights issues came to me later. It wasn't something I understood at first. But after I owned and trained with my first gun, it did become something very important to me. After a whole I became more immersed in the gun culture and what made different guns unique, I wanted to learn more. I've built a nice little arsenal and I'm quite proud of how far I've come.

People who don't shoot will never understand how difficult it is to place a shot at 25 yards with a pistol. If you ever have an opportunity, I highly recommend you go shoot a gun. You might hate them, but knowing how to properly handle them is important just in case you ever come across on e .

1. Treat every gun as if it's loaded at all times
2. Always point a gun in a safe direction
3. Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
4. Know what is behind you target

To be clear here,  I consider myself to be very much a liberal. This is primarily due to my intense loathing for neo-classical economics and my intense belief that strong laws - with real teeth are necessary to regulate excesses of business and the wealthy in vitiating the options of their fellow citizens: IE taxing the wealthy to ensure strong public institutions to promote a more just and equitable society. In terms of political philosophy, I believe this makes me a neo-republican (this has nothing to do with the republican party in the US) along the lines of Philip Pettit.

That being said though, I have no problem with firearms as long as I know they are owned and used by responsible and stable citizens who are trained in its use. I own firearms myself. However, Texas (the state I am from) has strict requirements for my concealed carry licenses and requires that you are certified trained in weapon safety as well as use... which is stricter than some other states, but I believe justifiably so.

Now to clear the air... I have no desire to disarm law abiding citizens of the republic. Even those whose political viewpoints borders on frightening to myself. I do however want to ensure they are responsible, law abiding, and fully cognizant of the potential danger inherent to their use, and fully trained in safety precautions. I also want to ensure their weapons are in a secure place, away from children and the children in the home are properly instructed at the potential danger of its misuse. When those requirements are satisfied, I am satisfied.

Besides... in a bit of dark humor considering the earlier discussion of TEOTWAWKI. I'm content in the knowledge my Austinite liberal friends are well armed... it means the wackos in the state legislature serious about secession would never make it out of the capitol alive if they ever succeeded at such a measure.

Search me, I'm a strong liberal and I own a Mossberg 500.  I know quite a bit about firearms of many different types and support the right of anyone without a notable criminal background to purchase one for sport, or just because they like the things. =P

One of the biggest problems with the political climate right now is this whole idea that EVERY liberal or EVERY conservative adheres to every single piece of that party's rhetoric.  EVERY conservative is a homophobic, uneducated, gun fanatic.  EVERY liberal is a tree hugging, holier than thou, communist.  This kind of thinking is perpetuated by both sides of the equation, making any kind of compromise on any issue increasingly more difficult.

Quote from: Jen on January 12, 2014, 01:19:52 AM
I do not understand the notion of "if everybody had a gun we'd all be safer!"  That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of.  When you pull out a gun, you raise the stakes.  When you have a gun in the home you put everybody inside at risk.  How many times do those guns get in the hands of children with tragic results?  More than none.

We could site Switzerland here, where every citizen is required by law to join the military at the age of 18, and retains their firearms after leaving service.  In effect meaning that every citizen in the country owns, at the very least, an assault rifle and sidearm.  They also have THE lowest gun violence rate worldwide.

Quote from: Jen on January 12, 2014, 01:19:52 AM
I would be fine with everybody being allowed to own all the muskets they want, which was the gun tech available at the time the amendment was written.  The writers of that amendment did not envision assault rifles.

And if the point of the amendment was to give citizens a fighting chance against its government, that ship has long since sailed.  Even assault rifles won't protect you from what the military has in their arsenal, almost all of which is illegal for private citizens to own.  And can you imagine if it was legal for your neighbor to own a tank and/or a battery of grenade launchers?  Yikes!

I do not understand the notion of "if everybody had a gun we'd all be safer!"  That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of.  When you pull out a gun, you raise the stakes.  When you have a gun in the home you put everybody inside at risk.  How many times do those guns get in the hands of children with tragic results?  More than none.

Thing is i don't own an "assault rifle", i own a carbine. While my AR15 does look like an M16A4 that is where the similarities end. An assault rifle is illegal to own under the NFA, and the selector switch has 3 positions on it, safe, fire and auto. A carbine on the other hand is not controlled by the NFA and the switch only has two positions, safe and fire. A carbine is not capable of full auto fire, and contrary to popular beliefs you can not simply shave the firing pin on a carbine to make it fire full auto. Doing so will not only get you 5 years in federal prison for illegally modifying a firearm, but will also render your AR15 useless.

Also just as an fyi, the AR in AR15, dose not mean assault rifle, it means "Armalite Rifle" as the rifle was the 15th rifle that Eugene Stoner created for the company. The parents were later sold to Colt who then modified the platform with an automatic sear then marketed it to the army as the M16A1.

So in the end do i own an assault rifle, nope. Does the second amendment, or any other amendment change just because technology does, nope.

Quote from: kariann330 on January 12, 2014, 11:19:40 AM
Does the second amendment, or any other amendment change just because technology does, nope.

The constitution was written to be adaptable, the amendments themselves were an adjustment of the original document.   The authors knew times would change, that is why they made it that way.   We should not hold it as gospel or be afraid to change it whenever it makes sense.   Otherwise, in time, it is in danger of becoming obsolete.  Treating the constitution as immutable dogma weakens it.  We need to change it with the changes that happen in the world, and we have been, btw, just slower than i would like sometimes.

Quote from: Jen on January 12, 2014, 11:35:07 AM
The constitution was written to be adaptable, the amendments themselves were an adjustment of the original document.   The authors knew times would change, that is why they made it that way.   We should not hold it as gospel or be afraid to change it whenever it makes sense.   Otherwise, in time, it is in danger of becoming obsolete.  Treating the constitution as immutable dogma weakens it.  We need to change it with the changes that happen in the world, and we have been, btw, just slower than i would like sometimes.

Ok if that's the case then your 1st amendment freedom of speech should NOT be carried over to the internet because it didn't exist when that amendment was created...but it does as long as the sites server is in the US, such as Susan's. Saying one amendment is outdated by current technology, while another isn't is just about the most asinine thing i have ever herd, no offense.

Ugh I hate politics and arguing

Quote from: kariann330 on January 12, 2014, 12:22:47 PM
Ok if that's the case then your 1st amendment freedom of speech should NOT be carried over to the internet because it didn't exist when that amendment was created...but it does as long as the sites server is in the US, such as Susan's. Saying one amendment is outdated by current technology, while another isn't is just about the most asinine thing i have ever herd, no offense.

Way to go Kariann! NICE!

Quote from: Dee on January 11, 2014, 11:50:12 PM
Hi Kariann,

I'm skipping over the other responses to avoid any possible ongoing arguments, as these threads tend to attract.

I don't think the answer is quite 'why don't dems/libs like guns,' but rather, it's more of a demographics correlation, and the comparisons are between urban and rural communities. Each community has different needs and resources, which shape values and priorities. In rural areas, there's more emphasis on independence and self sufficiency, and it's partly because with less population, there's less civic infrastructure to help the people. It's where we get the argument that an armed civilian could be the safer response than a police dept who may not have the power to arrive to a scene in time.

Conversely, a denser population necessitates a greater civic infrastructure- so in the above example, is less necessary to have an armed civilian, since police response would be more immediate. And with greater populations, comes a greater chance of other civilians being victimized, and greater aversion to civilians carrying weapons.

So where do political allegiances come into this? It's another study of demographics. The needs of those in urban areas usually gravitate towards liberal values, and the needs of a rural community trend conservative. And each is valid in their argument, which makes gun control so difficult to properly study and argue for one side, in general terms. But the short answer to your question- it's not that all liberals hate guns. It's just more likely they come from a community where their availability creates a catastrophic problem.

I hope this response makes some sense. Apologies for not being able to link to anything... I'm on my phone, on vacation, browsing Susan's because I can't sleep :p

I think you're on to something with this, but I believe it misses the mark a bit (no pun intended). I think the urban vs rural demographics have a lot to do with simply being conservative vs liberal in one's view. I would soundly disagree that civic structure and support are lacking in rural areas and visa versa, my experience is the opposite. In rural areas, everyone is expected to help, in urban areas there are many sitting around waiting for others to do things for them, they surrender liberty for 'security', but they're neither secure nor free.

I believe the lowest common denominator result flourishes in urban areas, that values decline because they're hard, responsibility takes effort. You're ostracized in rural areas for doing this, the measure of a person in these areas is their character, in rural areas it's their perceived compassion and tolerance of other views. In a way, urban areas tend to corrupt.

This isn't meant to insult, I've felt these forces myself now that I live in urban America.

I will also say the liberal approach doesn't fill the needs of urban people, they cause decay and decline, take Detroit and other major cities who are following Detroit's path. In Detroit, private enterprise is being brought in the rejuvenate the city, not civic structures, they're all gone.

Just my thoughts, please stay civil, I love you all dearly... 

Quote from: Jen on January 12, 2014, 11:35:07 AM
The constitution was written to be adaptable, the amendments themselves were an adjustment of the original document.   The authors knew times would change, that is why they made it that way.   We should not hold it as gospel or be afraid to change it whenever it makes sense.   Otherwise, in time, it is in danger of becoming obsolete.  Treating the constitution as immutable dogma weakens it.  We need to change it with the changes that happen in the world, and we have been, btw, just slower than i would like sometimes.

Certainly, the ability to ratify it is written into the thing. But there is not even a remote political possibility of rewriting the 2nd amendment. There have been thousands of attempts at modifying the constitution. There is not even the will to institute a new AWB. Gun owners are winning the argument.

Personally, I cannot reconcile 11,078 firearm related deaths in one year alone (National Center for Health Statistics, 2010) with the notion that greater gun control in the US is unnecessary. So it's not about hating guns, it's just that I cannot believe increased control and regulation would not help this situation.

I know there are many, many gun owners and enthusiasts who are completely responsible with their firearms. I know that US gun deaths are very likely a reflection of much deeper issues such as cultural violence, generational hopelessness, income/opportunity inequality, and so on. Still, I just cannot fathom how regulation would do anything but help with the dismal number reported above.   

Quote from: Nikko on January 12, 2014, 12:49:05 PM
Way to go Kariann! NICE!

First off, disclosure: I'm both a liberal and a Canadian.

In all seriousness, here is my prefered firearms regime:

-no private ownership
-the option to rent firearms from the government for limited terms (several days) for the specific purpose of in-season hunting.
-rental requires specific hunting training and license
-no lethal ammunition--only tranquilizer darts would be legal
-strict criminalization of all other use and possession

I honestly fail to see a flaw in the scheme: hunting stays legal and available, while gun violence is reduced