Like many of you who read this spiel, I consider the Second Amendment (the right to "Keep and Bear Arms") to be one of the most important freedoms which are recognized by out Constitution.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
(You have no idea how awkward it was to find the actual text of the 2nd Amendment!) Like many of you, I find it ... "awkward" ... to rely on a Constitutional Amendment to define our right to defend ourselves against armed predators. And more important, it seems that the right is so obvious, it doesn't seem necessary to include it in our Constitution. But sadly, there are so many people who think that the whole "GUNS ARE BAD" thingie should predominate American thought, we who depend upon our own willingness not to be predated upon (rather than expect "police" to protect us) ... we find ourselves in the minority. As it happens, the First Amendment (freedom of speach, etc.) is PROTECTED by the Second Amendment ... the right to keep and bear arms. If we can speak our mind, and if some violent persons disagree with us ... we cam only counter violence with superior violence. Witness the American Revolution, when England was our master and we revolted against a country which was stronger and as well-armed. Americans prevailed because they were armed, and willing to use those arms to support their cause of independence. Today, America is the most powerful nation n the world, and we continue to support our independence through force of arms. We don't have to fight our enemies, because the know that (A) our force of arms dominate the power of any other nation, and (B) our armed citizenry is well known for being feisty and aggressive against would-be aggressors. (And they can't afford a war against the richest nation.)
They say that we peace loving Americans shouldn't have guns because of public safety ... but who will take guns away from those who threaten us with violence?
This is one of the best written, and most understandable articles on Gun Control I've read recently for a LONG time! It starts out like this:
Pushers of gun control state the disarming the population is necessary for the safety of that same population. The punitive measures they are willing to employ to make that hypothetical safety happen look a lot like “he beats her because he loves her”. Or, as the old Soviet joke went: “We will fight for peace so vigorously that there’s (sic) won’t be anything left standing.” Gun control can only be enforced with other guns, so it’s all about concentrating military power in the hands of a small group that would keep others down forever. While some gun control supporters may be honestly deluded, many are lying from start to finish.
Read the whole thing.
If you think you need a gun to protect your self/family/home ... can you explain why?
If you don't accept the right to keep and bear arms as "legitimate", perhaps you can explain why not?
Illinois Democratic Rep. Danny Davis says it is acceptable for only wealthy individuals having access firearms if a 50 percent federal tax on all guns and ammunition becomes law.
There's nothing new about Liberals using taxation to undermine your constitutional rights:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3— Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said today that he would insist that President Clinton's health-care plan include a huge increase in Federal taxes on handgun ammunition that would make some especially destructive bullets unaffordable. The New York Democrat has often contended that the best way to attack gun violence would be to restrict the sale of ammunition, not guns. Today, for instance, he noted that the nation has a 200-year supply of guns but only a 4-year supply of ammunition.
So .. it's okay that you can have a GUN .. you just can't have AMMUNITION.
We can’t say what might be proposed in the future. And in the past, there have been proposals to raise the tax on ammunition. In 1993, for example, the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat from New York, proposed to raise the tax to 50 percent on most handgun ammunition, and to more than 10,000 percent on 9-millimeter hollow-tipped Black Talon cartridges, which were advertised as having a bullet that expanded "to expose razor-sharp reinforced jacket petals." However, his plan would not have raised taxes on .22-caliber ammunition, which is used for target shooting. He proposed these increases to help finance the health care plan then being proposed by President Clinton, but the proposal was ultimately rejected.
"They" weren't after the .22 caliber ammunition, so target shooting is okay?
And after all, the taxes on non-22 ammo went for a good cause.
Which doesn't mean that, after we have digested this first step toward Gun Control, the (small increment), then the Second Step will not be more unconstitutional.
And that's why we will not give an inch to those who would undermine our rights.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.
TRANSLATION:
First the came for the Full-Autos, and I did not speak out because I did have a machine gun. Then they came for the semi-auto rifles, and I did not speak out because I did not have a semi-auto rifle. Then the came for the high-capacity magazines, and I did not speak out because I did not have a high-capacity magazine. Then they came for the large-caliber pistols, and I did not speak out because I did not have a large-caliber pistol. Then they came for the "snub-nosed, concealable pistols" and I did not speak out because I did have a 'snubby". Then they came for the magazine-fed large caliber rifles, and I did not speak out because I did not have a magazine fed rifle. Then the came for the sniper rifles, and I had a bolt-action .223 varmint rifle with a 10 power scope, and there was no one left to speak out for me..
The entire experience of mankind shows that as gun ownership decreases, so does possession of guns by criminals. Millions of Americans who get bamboozled by gun manufacturers propaganda and buy guns "for self-defense", not only endanger themselves, statistically speaking, but also keep criminals well armed, since so many guns get stolen. Speaking of which, former owners of stolen guns should have unlimited civil liability for whatever guns stolen from them are used for - unless the police report from the time of theft shows the gun was stored reasonably securely (e.g. in a standard gun safe). If you keep a gun in a night stand, you REALLY should know that that's the first place a burglar will be checking for valuables.
Yeah, yeah, your mother wears a moustache!
I like folks who have an opinion but I prefer that they know what they're talking about. I take issue with a few points raised by the commenter:
Exaggeration: "the entire experience of mankind"is over-written. Gun ownership has never decreased; it has only increased. Population and manufacture have increased. The point he's trying to make is fallacious and arrogant. The possession of guns by criminals is a fact of life. You're not responsible ... it's not your problem.
Misdirection: "bamboozled by gun manufacturers propaganda" assumes that gun owners are ignorant and easily led. People buy guns because they like to shoot. As more shooting sports appear (eg: Cowboy Action, IPSC, Three-gun etc.) more people find a reason and an outlet for their purchase of firearms. And having "matches" at "Clubs" allows them reason to practice shooting, leading to a better degree of expertise. Competition also allows individuals an opportunity to meet new friends, share experiences and advice, and become more comfortable with gun ownership. (That is not something that Anti-gun Liberals want to hear.) Criminals buy or steal guns, and use them for less "socially acceptable" purposes. Responsible gun owners will find the safe-storage solution which provides the best balance between self-defense and keeping THEIR kids from shooting each other. As far as everyone else is concerned? Not your problem!
Lies from Liberal Sources:"...people who buy guns 'for self-defense/, not only endanger themselves, statistically speaking, but also keep criminals well armed, since so many guns get stolen ..."is a Two-For-One. Not only does it surreptitiously channel the debunked Kellerman fallacy, it also also provides the subtle suggestion that firearms owners should ALWAYS keep their guns locked up. If you own guns for personal defence in your home, storage in a "safe" makes it much more difficult to access it when you most immediately need it. Yes, you need to balance the security of your firearm against the security of your family. The decisions you make will probably be the most appropriate for you. What everyone else does with their guns is not your problem. (The assumption is that there are people in your home who are not to be trusted with a gun that isn't locked in a huge metal box. It's a valid point in some homes, but not in ALL homes!)
Night Stand Storage: Well, it's uncomfortable to sleep with your gun under your pillow. And "occupied residence home invasions" are becoming more common as intruders are (incidentally) encouraged by published articles which suggest that it's A Bad Idea to keep a gun in a nightstand. You'll find the best balance between accessibility in an emergency, and accessibility by people who can't be trusted with a gun. Other people might not agree with your decision, but you don't need to please them. Their opinion is not your problem; your family is.
Ultimately, the entire article was written by someone who thinks that a gun in the home is more likely a danger to the residents than to any intruder. Which isn't necessarily bullshit, but close enough.
Post Script: former owners of stolen guns should have unlimited civil liability for whatever guns stolen from them are used for - unless the police report from the time of theft shows the gun was stored reasonably securely (e.g. in a standard gun safe).
Isn't that typical? Make the victim be the bad guy, because he (or she) had chosen to defend his/her self, family, home or property.
Liberal thinking is often that it's the next best thing to a mortal sin to take responsibility for your own actions and for your own safety. You should count on your Government (fire department, police, janitor) to keep you from burning up your own home, defend you against armed aggressors, and clean up the mess you left behind.
Conservative thinking is that when the stuff hits the fan, you're often all alone. Calling the fire department is great for fires and rescues, but isn't it better to not smoke in bed? Calling for the police is a good idea, but by the time they get here the blood might have already flowed, and isn't it better that it's not your blood?
And if you get stuck in a tree trying to rescue a cat ... the cat would have found its way back to earth eventually.
People are increasingly buying more lethal guns, and arming themselves for purposes of protection rather than for hunting or recreation, new research shows.
There's no doubt that people are buying "more lethal" guns, if one defines the term of "over .22 caliber".
And doubtless, many are purchasing firearms for no other purpose than protection of property, self and family. Also doubtless, the "Bad Guys" are also acquiring (read: stealing) Big Guns.
By the way, these firearms include AR15 variants .. which are usually, after all, .223 caliber.
But the AR15 (et al) have a SPECIAL entry; they are scary looking!
{shudder!}
The lead for the artical focuses on "more lethal guns" and "for purposes of protection rather than for hunting or recreation".
I submit that the author has insufficient experience or knowledge of current "Action Shooting Sports" to be competent to defend his statement.
In The First Place:
... there is nothing wrong with buying guns for protection. The American society itself has become more lethal without the "guns" entering into the equation.
"Drugs" and "Gangs" are the driving factors of the increased violence.
Look at the published statistics ... you virtually can't surf the net without finding a website which address these two words. Usually, they're used in the same sentence. The reason is, 90% of gun crimes ("gun violence") are committed by gangs and 90% of the assailants AND victims are gang members, or innocents who are caught in the crossfire.
This isn't a "GUN" problem; it's a "SOCIETY" problem.
The answer to THAT problem is going to be very, very expensive. Somebody needs to define the answer (see below), and more somebodys have to pay for it.
And the middle-class has to make that 5-year old Chevy last for another year.
The cops are always a minute farther away than they need to be, to be useful
And the Upper Class isn't directly affected by Crime In The Streets; they hire their guns.
In The Second Place:
This isn't about a congressman being shot in the ass on a baseball field.
This is about crime in the streets, home invasion; about old white people being attacked in public for no better reason than the rage of a young black man who can't make an honest living, and he blames it on the white man.
And he's probably right; he just chose the wrong old white man. That guy in the wheelchair never had a vote in Congress.
Congress doesn't have a solution:
Well, they do have one solution; they have introduced a bill to allow congressmen to carry a personal firearm any time, any place (except in certain governmental venues, and on airplanes".
They didn't do this to find a solution for YOUR benefit. They did it because they're running scared and the pusillanimous pussies are going to protect themselves and their loved ones.
(Note:THEIR SPOUSES are not covered under the terms of this bill, which indicative of .... something.)
"Okay, Job Well Done. It's Miller Time, and I'm buying down at Hamilton House" (or whatever the current senatorial watering hole is named.)
Essentially, Congress has shown that they don't consider GUNS to be the problem.
As far as they're concerned, the problem is they ... personally ... don't have ENOUGH guns!
(So they're making them available to those members of their own gang. Sound familiar?)
BUT
In The Third Place: HUNTING
The article (remember where we started out?) mentioned this: buying more lethal guns, and arming themselves for purposes of protection rather than for hunting or recreation
Most people are not aware that a HUGE number of firearms are being purchased for exactly those reasons. For example, the AR15 is legal for hunting critters up to DEER size in most states now so everyone of those AR15's might be purchased for hunting.
And the AR15 is not generally considered a "more lethal firearm" when compared to those customarily used for hunting such as the 12 gauge shotgun, the .30-06 rifle, and the less-frequently used ,but increasingly popular chosen handgun for hunting. the .44 Magnum pistol.
(SEE PERSONAL OPINION, BELOW)
In The Fourth Place: COMPETITION
Most people are entirely unaware that there are three styles of competition shooting which may or may not involve the acquisition of "more lethal guns" in pursuit of achieving either a competitive advantage, or qualifying to use the chosen caliber at all.
There are three (at least)
Although I assure you that many of these ladies and gentlemen could shoot your socks off and you wouldn't even realize you were bare-footed until you felt the gravel between your toes.
WHICH BRINGS US TO THE CRUX OF THE STORY:
IPSC and USPSA
The real thing when it comes to "MORE LETHAL GUNS".
IPSC stands for the International Practical Shooter's Confederation, and USPSA is the American Region .. United States Practical Shooter's Association.
USPSA is the original Association for the sport; IPSC is International body. Because many IPSC member regions have national firearms restrictions which are not recognized by Americans, not all IPSC competition rules are relevant to USPSA competitions. I have never participated in an international (IPSC) competition. Their target designs are different (USPSA targets have been accused of being "Silhouettes of Human Beings" which is illegal in some countries.)
The rules are than you must be using a pistol with a caliber of 9mm or larger. For the metric-confused (us Americans), that's .38 caliber. Which is, we assume, a "More Lethal Gun"
A VARIATION ON THE USPSA THEME!
IDPA: (International Defensive Pistol Association)
IDPA generally requires targets be engaged from behind cover.
IDPA doesn't consider firearms with a caliber smaller than 9mm to be "DEFENSIVE".
IDPA has requirements including (shooting behind cover) and (not dropping magazines with ammo still in them) and (pistol must be carried "concealed" at the start of the stage).
You know, Defensive stuff.
Other than that, and with a few important exceptions, the rules are much like IPSC/USPSA. ANOTHER VARIATION ON THE USPSA THEME!
SPEED STEEL: (CF: Steel Challenge)
You shoot only steel plates. You are penalized for every target you do not hit. Targets will not fall when hit; they are painted between shooters so the number of targets "marked" by impact of each shooter's bullet can be scored. You are judged based on the time you take to complete each of several turns, and your score is the time you time to complete she shooting problem. Misses are penalized.
Speed Steel is different from IPSC/USPSA and IDPA in that no cardboard targets are presented, and your score is only the total amount of time you take to complete three iterations of each stage.
The competitor with the fastest accumulated time wins each stage.
Speed Steel has a special division for competitors using .22 caliber pistols; they are not required to holster before starting each 'run' on a stage. None of the other sports mentioned have this allowance for "Less Than Lethal" calibers. There are variations in all these latter sports based on equipment, defined only to make competition more equitable between competitors with difference firearm definitions. Tip of the hat to variations such as cowboy action and quick-draw competitions. There are more! SUMMARY:
It should be obvious to the reader that "More Lethal Calibers" have become a large part of competitive shooting in recent years. Only one of the four"Action" firearm sports cited allow "Less Lethal" (eg: .22 caliber) weapons to be used.
And as these action shooting sport become increasingly popular with each passing year, more shooters will become interested, and more citizens will be purchasing "More Lethal" firearms to address their new favorite shooting sport.
What's their attraction?
These sports allow their owners to learn safe shooting skills, become acquainted with the manual-at-arms of each individual firearm, and at the same time meet new friends who are sportsmen with similar interests. You can say much the same for a pickup game at your neighborhood baseball game .. except hopefully without the INCOMING gunfire.
SO if it seems to the ignorami press that "People are increasingly buying more lethal guns, and arming themselves for purposes of protection rather than for hunting or recreation, new research shows ", it's possible that a great number of the purchase of "More Lethal Guns" has been driven by the dramatic expansion of choices between the various exciting and rewarding Shooting Sports.
In other words: people are buying guns so they can play "Gun Games".
Don't laugh, fellows ... if you get hooked on the challenge and the chance to meet new friends with similar interests in the shooting sports, you too may find yourself comparing the size of your magazines.
Interesting .... and surprisingly unbiased .... study on firearms ownership.
Recommended reading.
Quite long, so you may wish to bookmark it and read it in multiple sessions.
That has been my plan so far.
Guns in America: Attitudes and Experiences of Americans | Pew Research Center: The remainder of this report examines in greater detail the public’s experiences with guns as well as views on gun policies. Chapter 1 looks at the demographics of gun ownership and the reasons people own guns. It also explores early experiences with guns, such as growing up in a gun-owning household and participating in hunting or sport shooting. Chapter 2 focuses on the role guns have in the daily life of gun owners, including whether they carry a gun outside their home, how often they engage in gun-related activities or consume gun-oriented media, and their social ties to other gun owners. It also looks at negative experiences some people have had with guns. Chapter 3 examines the public’s views on the responsibilities of gun ownership, with an emphasis on the differences between what gun owners and non-owners consider essential safety measures for gun owners to follow. Chapter 4 explores what Americans see as contributing factors to gun violence. Chapter 5 focuses on the public’s views on policy proposals to restrict or expand access to guns.
The Legislature of the Great State of Oregon once again manages to introduce a gun-control bill which is fraught ("Fraught!") with contradiction and Weasel Words.
Which comes as no surprise to Conservatives in this community.
Here is a summary which purportedly attempts to explain the bill to we unlettered hoi poloi:
If you trust your child, and your child accesses your firearm for 'bad reasons', your ass is grass and the Great State of Oregon will prosecute you to the full extent of the law.
But there is one sentence which, if it doesn't cause you to raise eyebrows, it should:
(2) Subsection (1) of this section [NB: penalties] does not apply if:
(a) The minor obtains the firearm as the result of an unlawful entry into the premises
by any person;
Blink!
Apparently, if your firearm is accessed by your child for a 'good reason' (eg: home defense against an intruder), then ... okay, no problem, never mind and we didn't really mean it.
Couldn't they have waffled MORE?
Obviously, this is an attempt by clueless politicians to cover their ass in the event of an emergency.
I am SO sick, and tired, of all the BS about Gun Control.
Criminals already have guns. Their cousins have guns. Their aunts have guns.
Guns are "'merchandise', not 'product'.
These people get guns from all over; Guns are under-the-table sales, they're stolen, they're bought from burglars ... why do "You People" think people rob occupied homes, anyway? Because they're after your Bank Card .. which you carry with you?
Why do "You People" think you can regulate guns by passing laws?
The only people that are going to pay attention to your precious new laws are the people who are "law abiding", and you'll probably make criminals out of THEM when they recognize that your new "common sense safety measures" are unconstitutional, and they won't obey them anyway.
So why bother" If you're a Politician, I know you're in it to look good for the ideology idiot-olgy which supports you, but why do you listen to them? Make sounds, and then vote according to the Constitution; nobody will notice. They're busy watching the Southern Border, and cheering on their new best friends; their latesr 'home boys'.
(Oh, never mind, the liberals won't allow Wetbacks in their neighborhoods, unless said Wetbacks are carrying a leaf-blower.)
Crap. Crooks could get your gun by mugging you on the way to work. But you don't CARRY guns .. which is why the bad guys feel quite comfortable about mugging you (thank you very much) because no matter how much you squawk on the Internet about how you "Carry 24/7", they know you're a liar.
You're wearing a suit? Who do you think you are, Denny Crane?
You can't control the guns.
You can't even drink three beers at the end of the day without peeing your pants before you get to the Little Boys' Room. What makes you think you can control guns?
I don't know who you are, and I don't care. I would just like you to (please .. I'm trying to be nice here) get the heck out of my life and quit trying to decide how I should LIVE my life.
".. you can't even run your own life; I'll be damned if you'll life mine!"
My father was a Gun Nut, and so were most of his brothers.
I've been a Gun Nut for over half a century.
Thinking about it, I've devised an ad hoc definition of the term:
I don't know, for sure, exactly how many guns I own
I don't care to count them. I just shoot them, and keep them clean That's my job.
I own guns I haven't fired for years
I own guns I haven't ever fired (grandfathered)
I shoot guns hunting, in competition, and sometimes I just go shoot them because I want to
I reload my own ammunition
There have been years when I have fired over 10,000 rounds in competition
I introduced my Significant Other to shooting 'for fun', after she realized that she would never see me on a Saturday if she didn't go to matches with me
There have been years when I've spent over $3000 a year in shooting expenses; aa an Amateur
I have a full gun safe, and extraneous guns tucked away in most rooms in my home
I've given guns to my children, because I am not using them ... and maybe they will
... and I think they should
If they don't use the guns, I don't care; I've done MY job!
I buy primers by the sleeve, not by the 100-count flat
I currently have 100 pounds of gunpowder in my loading-bench area
I spent over $1500 on reloading tools
I have four reloading presses
I have a reloading press semi-permanently set up in my front room (I say "semi-permanently because it has been there for less than five years)
When I vacuum my living-room rug, I pick pick up spilled powder and expended primers
I got my first CHL license 50 years ago
My garage is a mess, except I keep the area around my MAIN loading press (Dillon 650) clear
I don't object to use of the word "gun" when referring to firearms. I know what I mean, and I HAVE seen the movie "Full Metal Jacket" .. in fact, I own a copy of the DVD
Most of my friends are "Gun Nuts"
I teach a class in "Introduction to USPSA" every month; have done so for the past 5 years
So when someone says that the term "Gun Nut" is "Ill-Informed", I say "Look at the source".
The term is only "ill-informed" if someone else says it.
I don't have to apologize to anyone for who and what I am.
The people who don't understand ... their opinion is not important to me.
President Obama wants to put gun dealers out of business.
When he was a state senator in Illinois, he supported a ban on the sale of handguns and all semi-automatic guns as well as a ban on selling guns within five miles of a school or a park. While the president obviously can’t just ban them, he can use regulations to make their lives more difficult.
For some dealers it may be a slow death of a thousand regulatory cuts ...
The increasing "cost of doing business" for firearms retailers has caused a lot of problems in 'the business' for the past several years.
In my small town, I've seen the number of firearms dealers go from three, to one, to none in the past 15 years. It's not just Obama'; it's the increasingly more critical climate of firearms ownership.
Which has been championed by (you saw this coming, didn't you?) The Democratic Party.
Never was there a party with less joy (except for the hosts) in this College Town.
This is a Democratic State. Every elected official, from the Mayor through the County Commissioners to the Senators and the Governor are Democrats. And they're all just fine with the current trend.
There use to be a republican here and there, but ... no, I don't want to talk about it.
It's too painful, and I don't want to frighten the children.
The electorate is quite happy with the current state of political influence. Well, we have three or four main population centers, and these 'big cities' have a lot of people on Welfare and other versions of the Political Dole, so one might say that the party has bought the electorate.
Not the People; just the Electorate.
Surprisingly, 90% of the people outside of the few 'big cities' .... and we're talking about people who control 90% of the land ... are more conservative.
If my poor state is any indication, then ... yes, Obama HAS the support to regulate guns out of existance.
The Hoi Polloi will not object. They will still receive their monthly stipend (provided by the small percent who actually pay taxes, bolstered by Corporations who provide the bulk of tax income to The State).
I may have exagerated; it may not be 90% who are on the dole; a significant percentage of the working populace are employed by governmental agencies (as I was for 30 years), but the labor unions have ways of dealing with malcontents.
Still ... I can find a gun dealer within an hour's drive from my home, but he only has a very limited stock. (He's something of a 'special order" shop.)
I can't find a gunsmith nearby unless I go to the jack-leg guy who isn't really professionally trained, but he can install a sight or a new barrel and probably even detail-strip a 1911 and put it back together 'right'.
Why can't I find gun guys?
I'm not blaming Obama. The truth is, the demand for firearms support industries has diminished to the point where folks would rather just do without a broken gun than try to find someone to fix it for them.
That's not universally true, but it's true enough to be significant. There isn't enough business in gun maintenance here to support anyone in a 'full time job'. New shooters are few and far between. They are out there, and I meet a lot of them teaching my "Introduction to USPSA" class. But when their guns go south (as they will), I have no evidence that they are willing to get them fixed. Nobody has asked me for a reference to a "gunsmith" for 15 years.
Whatever Obama is doing, he's good at that part, at least. I wish he was as presidential as he is obstructionist.
This post includes two video presenting opposite viewpoints.
The first, by VOX, takes about 7 minutes.
The second, by Crowder, takes about 20 minutes.
So the total time required to view both videos verges on a half-hour.
YOU may not want to watch this. I watched it all (a couple of times) and I found that the divergent viewpoints made for ED TV.
But Crowder includes a lot of film test from VOX, so if you're only marginally interested in the topic, you might want to .. oh, no, I'm not going to suggest that you do not view the VOX version.
Nahhhh .. go watch the whole thing. You don't have to watch it all in one sitting, but you might decide that you have learned to see both sides of the same subject.
My curious children freely play in a home environment I have worked hard to ensure is safe. To that extent, I am adamant about keeping guns outside our doors.
This mother has strong opinions on the measures which are necessary to protect her children. I don't blame her. I don't even disagree with her. My family wasn't raised that way (there were ALWAYS guns in our homes) but that has nothing to do with the way she wants to raise her family.
But looking at the comments attached to the article, it appears that a lot of people take their disagreement personally. Some folks went as far as to say "why don't you put a gunfree zone sign on your door and see what that gets you?" or words to that effect.
Apparently, the old Heinlein mantra that "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society" isn't valid when anonymous trolls spill their guts online.
The whole population of civilian firearms owners are tarnished by this kind of vicious response. The author of the article will not only keep firearms out of her home, but people who own firearms will now seem dubious to her.
It does no good for us to say "hey, that guy is not representative of our community".
I tought another firearms class yesterday, and I was impressed by the humanity and good nature of the 'new friends' I was privileged to meet.
I wish I could have introduced them to the author. She deserved the opportunity to meet the true face of our Band of Gun Nuts.
You can tell your kids about the dangers of sex, but if they think they want it (and they do), they're going to ignore you.
Australia is now trying to deal with this problem. Yes, the same Australia that Hillary and Barak are holding up as the very model of a modern "reasonable, common-sense" nation.
“I’m sure the defendant did not intend for this to happen, but it happened,” Brown added, before lowering the bail to $75,000. “And it’s what happens when people have guns who shouldn’t have guns. That’s why we’ve had 2,300 people shot in Chicago so far this year.”
This is the story of little boys, big guns, fathers who are clueless and mothers who are helpless.
In Chicago, it's a big deal when a 6-year-old shoots a 3-year-old.
If they were 10 years older, it would be no less a tragedy ... but it would have been on Page 12 of Section 2, instead of on the front page.
Because in Chicago, they expect juveniles to shoot each other, although it's usually the deliberate act between gang members; not one tiny boy shoots his little brother because he doesn't understand about guns.
This happens in a city with one of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
And it’s what happens when people have guns who shouldn’t have guns.
The thing is, NOBODY in Chicago should have guns ... according to the Chicago Lawmakers.
The father who placed the (loaded, presumably cocked-and-locked) gun in the kitchen drawer had what he thought was a good reason to have a gun:
He was a former gang member who had snitched on his old crew and now feared for his life. So Santiago purchased a pistol on the street and kept it in the kitchen just in case.
THAT is why they have had 2,300 people shot in Chicago so far this year.
For those who appreciate Joe's efforts to high-light the Idiocy of the Left (which needs no introduction), I do encourage you to go to the original post AND READ THE COMMENTS!
You have to work your way through a couple pages of The Usual Idiots, but when you notice that there ARE comments of more than 5 lines, you may want to pay attention.
There are a couple of threads which are not typical of the Usual Suspects (Gun Control Comments).
Commentators of opposing opinions demonstrate there show to have a civil, reasoned dialogue. Who knew THIS could happen? What's more, they find a few points on which they might agree ... albeit with certain reservations. Nobody was asking for a quid pro quo negotiation (eg: "I'll give up a flash-hider and a bayonet lug for pistol grips").
None of the petty, irritating, divisive rot.
Its all about the real meaning of the Second Amendment, how it came to be in its present form, and what a Constitutional Convention might consider to clarify the meaning as assumed from either side of the issue.
Some people express themselves better when they have time to think it through. And in that comfort zone, they're not on the defensive,
I love it when educated citizens of sensibility and good will actually find and accept the opportunity to communicate.
Which goes to prove that the wise man can still learn from the Village Idiot.
(Are you listening, Cody? No? I didn't expect you were.)
A trio of rival motorcycle gangs is believed responsible for a large gunfight that killed nine bikers and injured 18 outside a Waco, Texas restaurant, authorities said Sunday.
Charming. I'm sure.
The good news is: no 'innocents' were killed or injured. Good shooting on the part of the bikers? More likely, non-involved people were smart enough to un-ass the neighborhood. When the going gets tough, everybody who wants to live through the day get out of the bar.
Oh, yes. Some news sources called the establishment a "restaurant"; but others called it a "Sports Bar". It's all about what your meaning of "IS", is. Personally, I've never cared for spectator sports, but when it comes to a shoot-out, my first choice is "NOT THERE".
Well, you can't blame them. it's all about honor, y'know?
So while the rest of the world is worrying about Trevon Martin, Ferguson, Baltimore ... there is an entire subculture which thrives on violent confrontations.
It's A White Thing; you wouldn't understand it.
That's okay, neither do I
The Thing Is ....
... this is the sort of thing that many people consider the "Gun Culture".
It's not, of course. The American Gun Culture is responsible people who are non-violent, but are prepared to defend themselves against violence. That sounds a lot like waffling, I know.
I grew up in a 'gun family'. My father was an avid hunter all of his life. His hobby was to take old military rifles (1903-A3) and convert them into modern sporting rifles which were an expression of his art.
He bought me my first deer rifle when I was 13, and I was thrilled to finally get to go hunting with him. More frequently (because it didn't depend on a 'season') we would go 'varmint hunting'.
And as bloody as it must have seemed to the varmints, it was a much more humane solution than the alternative. (Of course the hares and the rodents of all kind probably resented our predation.)
I did some hunting of deer and antelope, and the meat which they provided to our dinner was welcome. Mom was never a good cook, but fresh venison is a welcome supplement to our diet. I ate Deer, Elk, even Bear meat.
I became involved in competition shooting. For 15 years I was a Gallery Rifle shooter, both indoors and outdoors. I spend a few summers working in harvest (both wheat and peas) so that I could buy a Valment "Lion" Free Rifle, with which I won a few junior matches.
In later years, I chose to shoot pistols in competition. I'm now certified as a "not very good, but determined" shooter in three divisions of USPSA shooting.
People enjoy shooting. It's like throwing darts in a pub, only louder, and without the drinking.
Some people are more involved in self-defense shooting. Nobody wants to hurt anybody else, but sometimes the circumstances are such that one needs to protect Hearth and Home, Self and Family.
But that's not what a lot of people envision when they think of the term: "Gun Culture".
My friend Gary the T-Man subscribes to John Farnham's DTI QUIPS, which is a newsletter version of his website daily posts.
Mr. Farnham's writings are confrontational and very opinionated. Not like mine, at all. But I appreciate his thoughtful insights, as he challenges us to revisit our private opinions.
This is one of Farnham's recent articles. If you found it thought provoking, you can go to his website to read more
Okay, my first reaction was, “Wow, that’s gonna be unsafe as hell.” At 1:24 minutes into the vid, I was a bit mesmerized, though. Nice shooting, Mr. Harrington. This is not a training method I would advocate, but it shows an excellent degree of skill.
(Emphasis added)
Video loaded by links from :ThinBlueFlorida
http://thinblueflorida.com/?p=7868
"Unsafe as Hell?"
Obviously THIS shooter doesn't think so ... and his sterling performance of "Shooting On The Move" certainly demonstrates that it can be done safely.
He hit what he shot at, every time. He took the steel targets in order so that we could SEE what his next target was,
I didn't see anything that looked REMOTELY "unsafe" in this demonstration .. did you?
ANOTHER part of Public Lands is closed to shooters, because of the activity of 'some' shooters'.
And the inactivity of other shooters.
Apparently, this area in the Coronado National Forest in Arizona has been closed to "all recreational shooting" due to the irresponsible conduct of a few members of what we may choose to to call "The Shooting Community".
Beginning July 1, 2014 the Coronado National Forest, Sierra Vista Ranger District, will close Ash and Hunter Canyons to all recreational shooting. The emergency closure is being implemented due to excessive resource damage to trees and other vegetation in both canyons and large amounts of trash, shells and lead being deposited in trees and on the ground. Closing the area to shooting will allow the area to recover, improving vegetative growth and wildlife habitat, and allow for cleanup of damaged hazard trees as well as lead, shells and shooting debris. The closure order will remain in effect until July 1, 2015 or until it is rescinded. During this time the Sierra Vista Ranger District will develop an overall Shooting Management Plan for all of the canyons along the east side of the Huachuca Mountains. The emergency closure prohibits discharging a firearm, air rifle or gas gun in the restricted area. Binary explosives such as Tannerite remain illegal in all areas of the Coronado National Forest at all times of the year.
This announcement speaks for itself.
I know there must be responsible members of "the shooting community" which also use this National Forest land for shooting. If so, I imagine that they try to clean up the area when they visit it. But if the Trash Shooters outnumber the Real People, it's impossible to keep up with the mess those "other people" leave behind.
Perhaps the Real People are outnumbered, and only the Trash Shooters use that area now; in that case, the Forest Service folks have taken the only remaining solution --- to close the area to ALL shooters.
Arizona, you need to clean up your act. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but the Forest Service can not, and will not, monitor the activities of everyone who uses that area. (And no, I am not familiar with the situation; "all I know is what I read in the newspapers".)
I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done to resolve this situation. I hate to see any area of public range/forest closed to shooting. If anyone is deprived of the opportunity to shoot, and the Forest Service can't keep up with the damage ... then it seems up to the few (?) who are responsible to take it into their own hands to maintain the area.
The use of Tannerite on public lands is, in my mind, entirely responsible.
This is our land, folks. We're responsible for what happens there, even (or especially) if we are not the people who are making the mess.
Otherwise ... no matter how responsible you are, you are not part of the solution.
