ATS Street View 05: Gun Control and Jared Loughner

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
reply to post by projectvxn

 

That's the kind of traditional thinking that set OJ free, and allowed this guy to purchase legally.
I also own a ton. Where I live, registration of a second hand sale doesn't require registration. So I don't.
But if you ever lived in a place like NYC, you'd see why anything short of amendment infringement won't work.
I'm sure you didn't mean it, but it sounded like you support the illegal sale of a fire-arms to minors?
They cant drive, drink, or watch rated R movies, but you think they should be able to support a weapon?
That may've been reasonable when the constitution was written, but if you believe that works in a modern urban society, you may want to reevaluate your stance. Children, convicted felons, mentally ill, by constitutional rights, are all entitled to carry a deadly weapon. But the screening process is supposed to block that sale.

If you want to talk constitutional law, they should all be allowed to carry.
Is that what you really believe?

I can't speak for anyone else, but it's what I believe. If I start regulating and truncating the rights of others, how long before they can do the same to me?

Nutters with guns won't last long. They'll get taken out of the gene pool.

Convicted felons? Sure. If they can't be trusted to carry, why the hell let them back out with the rest of us to begin with? If you can't trust 'em, you can't trust 'em - for ANYTHING. Leave 'em locked up away from us then, or X 'em out, but don't give 'em additional "restrictions" and turn them loose on the general populace. THAT amounts to a life sentence as a non-person. Hell with that. If they've paid their debt to Society, they're done. Either make FREE men out of 'em, or leave 'em in the cell to rot. Don't give them "status" as some in-between half-person.

Kids? Why not? I know some kids who are a damn sight more responsible than some adults. It's all in the training. Not my problem if other folks don't want to be bothered training their own kids. I've OWNED my own firearms every minute of every day since I was 8 years old, and have never shot anyone who didn't desperately need it. My son, on the other hand, is a teenager now, and by these new screwy laws can't "own" a weapon of his own. No matter. You can bet your ass he's got access to one regardless of "ownership". He's been trained, and is ACUTELY aware of the destructive potential, and the lasting ramifications of it's use. He doesn't take it lightly, and I'm willing to bet he'll never be a victim of anyone who does.

It's all in the training. IF you have kids, either train 'em right, or EXPECT them to get culled out. Either way, it's not my problem, I've trained mine.

Why should the responsible be penalized for the acts of the irresponsible?

edit on 2011/1/20 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

The same reason there's: drug laws, drinking and driving laws; minimum age driving, voting, drinking, and living alone laws. The same reason you wouldn't want lesser parent's child having a gun in school with your kid. People on a whole are inherently irresponsible. If your responsible with your weapons (like I am) you don't need to worry about harsh repercussions. Do any of you people pro-everyone caring guns live in a major city?

reply to post by GambitVII


Surprisingly Wikipedia does a pretty good job of explaining Pakistani gun culture:

WIKI Article

At the bottom of the article an attempt to link this gun culture to extremism is ridiculous and no such link has actually been found. I know this because I've spent a lot of time studying Middle Eastern gun culture which goes way, WAY back.

Extremism of the level we are seeing today is a relatively new thing, and the economics of the situation has much to do with it. poor people in Pakistan don't rob banks, but they do take their arms over the border and fight the Americans for money or join extremist groups to eat..These desperate people are easy to manipulate.

The ownership of guns has never factored into this before and makes no sense to try to inject the notion now..

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012

Originally posted by nenothtu

Why should the responsible be penalized for the acts of the irresponsible?

The same reason there's: drug laws, drinking and driving laws; minimum age driving, voting, drinking, and living alone laws. The same reason you wouldn't want lesser parent's child having a gun in school with your kid. People on a whole are inherently irresponsible. If your responsible with your weapons (like I am) you don't need to worry about harsh repercussions. Do any of you people pro-everyone caring guns live in a major city?

Define "major city". I've lived in Cleveland, OH, Hampton Roads area of VA (Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, around there), Richmond, VA, Greensboro, NC, and a few lesser places in the US - assuming that foreign cities are irrelevant to the discussion. Any of those "major" enough to suit?

I'm afraid there is no Constitutional guarantee of any right to do drugs, drink and drive, etc, etc. I've never even HEARD of a law against living alone - which I have of course violated on numerous occasions.

Why do you assume that I worry about irresponsible parents allowing their kids to bring guns to school? Are you assuming I haven't covered that possibility with my own? He knows what to do.

Furthermore, why should city-dwellers, responsible or not, get to write blanket policy for the entire country? Shouldn't cities look to their own problems? There are places where you have to plant a certain amount of crops in order to maintain your property. Should that apply to city dwellers too, because it applies SOMEWHERE?

reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com
My ancestors lived in what is now North Carolina.The white man made it illegal for natives and negroes to keep and bear arms thus making it impossible to put game on the table and protect themselves from attackers.The end result was being driven to Georgia then Florida.I am thankful that my ancestors had the courage to fight for their lives against impossible odds.That is just one of the many reasons my family will never disarm.They will have to kill us all including women and children.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012

Originally posted by nenothtu

Why should the responsible be penalized for the acts of the irresponsible?

The same reason there's: drug laws, drinking and driving laws; minimum age driving, voting, drinking, and living alone laws. The same reason you wouldn't want lesser parent's child having a gun in school with your kid. People on a whole are inherently irresponsible. If your responsible with your weapons (like I am) you don't need to worry about harsh repercussions. Do any of you people pro-everyone caring guns live in a major city?

Define "major city". I've lived in Cleveland, OH, Hampton Roads area of VA (Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, around there), Richmond, VA, Greensboro, NC, and a few lesser places in the US - assuming that foreign cities are irrelevant to the discussion. Any of those "major" enough to suit?

I'm afraid there is no Constitutional guarantee of any right to do drugs, drink and drive, etc, etc. I've never even HEARD of a law against living alone - which I have of course violated on numerous occasions.

Why do you assume that I worry about irresponsible parents allowing their kids to bring guns to school? Are you assuming I haven't covered that possibility with my own? He knows what to do.

Furthermore, why should city-dwellers, responsible or not, get to write blanket policy for the entire country? Shouldn't cities look to their own problems? There are places where you have to plant a certain amount of crops in order to maintain your property. Should that apply to city dwellers too, because it applies SOMEWHERE?

Look, we're both gun advocates, and I admire both your stance and conviction. At one time I agreed 100%; but time and age have changed my position. I believe in the second amendment as well as the 8th; but what defines cruel and unusual? And amendments to the constitution already exist for felony and underage possession. Death is already a penalty, so constitutionally, death administered legally is constitutionally correct under the 8th. And those things you say aren't protected by the constitution, aren't prohibited either, so why aren't they legal? because of progressive law. Amendments to the constitution happen every day:en.wikipedia.org... The fact that you insinuate my proposal is constitutionally incorrect has been validated as incorrect by changes of the past.

The living alone comment was directed at minors, not adults. But if you lived alone as a child my heart goes out to you. It may explain how you came to defend the stance which you're taking regarding putting guns in the hands of a child. (by the way, I agree, only if that child is under adult supervision, never without)

Why should we all follow the same rules? Because we all live in America. I'm sure your aware that the legal marijuana from CA ends up in every state of the Union. I'm sure your aware that guns purchased from Wal-Mart in middle America, end up in urban developments. How can we function as United States, when we're not united by the same laws? If your old enough to have witnessed change, you'd see the undeniable development of urban areas. They encroach our farmlands every year as the population explodes. Why should cities govern the laws that are enforced in areas outside. For the reasons stated above. Additionally, with enough time, America will be one giant urban development. Proof: Are the projects getting smaller or bigger? Do the suburbs resemble what they once did? Where do you think the guns in the cities that ban them come from? Case in point: Detroit, LA, NYC, Miami, Houston, and on and on. These cities, and city-like ares expand every year, in every direction. Look at gangs and their numbers compared to 100 yrs ago. (that's a blink of the eye from a cosmic view)

Greensboro NC, that's funny. I moved there 20 yrs ago to get away from what I consider "city living". But let's use it as an example. Have you seen it 20 yrs ago compared to today? Both the landscape and laws have changed with progression. I actually purchased several guns in that "city". 2-7 day wait on handguns unless you support a concealed carry permit. I went through this process... 90 day wait. All gun purchases/permits should be held to the same background checks. Most crimes committed with a legal firearm happen in the first 3 months. Statistics don't usually lie.

Answer these questions honestly and prove my point: What would you do if...

1- You woke up at 3am to a minority in your living-room, your TV in his hands, and he was headed for the door?

2- That same individual had one of your guns instead of a TV?

3- If your child was killed in school by another child who obtained a gun? (happens all the time)

4- You found the person who sold him that gun that allowed him to kill your child?

5- You found out he sold several guns, which killed several children in gang related crimes?

6- Your home was broken into and your guns were stolen?

7- Your family arrived on the scene and was killed with your own weapons?

8- You arrived on the scene armed, and had the drop on the people who just killed your family?

reply to post by Howtosurvive2012

You woke up at 3am to a minority in your living-room, your TV in his hands, and he was headed for the door?

Why does it matter if he is a minority? That is just baiting. Anyway, I let him leave because it is illegal to use lethal force to protect property in NC.

That same individual had one of your guns instead of a TV?

He wouldn't have one of my guns because all of mine are stored. If he had a gun I would shoot. He would be between me and my child and headed torwards one of us with a gun. Bad choice on the predators part. Force your way in to my house at night with a gun and I assume you mean harm. There is no peaceful reason for such a scenario.

If your child was killed in school by another child who obtained a gun? (happens all the time)

It doesn't "happen all the time" but lets not split hairs. If the event is over and the threat to others has passed it is a criminal investigation matter. That means my right to use force does not exist. I let the courts handle things.

You found the person who sold him that gun that allowed him to kill your child?

You found out he sold several guns, which killed several children in gang related crimes?

Your home was broken into and your guns were stolen?

You contact the police. Your right to use violent force has passed. There is no pending threat of death, grave bodily injury or sexual assault. If you use force it could be labelled murder.

Your family arrived on the scene and was killed with your own weapons?

Statisticly this is near impossible. If it happened though I would call in the police and probably become an alcoholic.

You arrived on the scene armed, and had the drop on the people who just killed your family?

Multiple people that just murdered my famil are still on premises and pose a threat to me. Come on really I am going to protect myelf.

I would feel worse if two armed guys broke in and raped my family then killed them and burnt the house down because I didn't have a weapon.

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012

Look, we're both gun advocates, and I admire both your stance and conviction. At one time I agreed 100%; but time and age have changed my position. I believe in the second amendment as well as the 8th; but what defines cruel and unusual? And amendments to the constitution already exist for felony and underage possession. Death is already a penalty, so constitutionally, death administered legally is constitutionally correct under the 8th. And those things you say aren't protected by the constitution, aren't prohibited either, so why aren't they legal? because of progressive law. Amendments to the constitution happen every day:en.wikipedia.org... The fact that you insinuate my proposal is constitutionally incorrect has been validated as incorrect by changes of the past.

Yes, we are both gun advocates, and yes, our stance vary. Time and age will lead us all along differing paths, as has occurred here. It's not so much the time and age per se, I suspect, but the varying experiences that those two things will throw on one.

Regarding the "amendment to the Constitution" already in existence for convicted felons and underage persons, I need to be educated. Precisely which amendment covers those exceptions? Surely you are aware that a law passed in contravention of the Constitution is not an amendment, but rather a contrary bit of legislation. Therefore, I feel confident that you can point me to an amendment on those subjects, and await my education. Until that time, I will continue to believe that the Second, already an amendment itself, applies exactly as it states internally.

Those things neither protected nor prohibited are illegal for precisely the same reason that firearms will eventually be made illegal here - people who are unwilling to stand for their rights, and who do not have a working knowledge of the prior applicable laws. I suppose they could be covered under the vague catchall term "pursuit of happiness", but note that attainment of happiness is not covered there, only the pursuit of it. Possession of arms, on the other hand, is explicitly protected.

The living alone comment was directed at minors, not adults. But if you lived alone as a child my heart goes out to you. It may explain how you came to defend the stance which you're taking regarding putting guns in the hands of a child. (by the way, I agree, only if that child is under adult supervision, never without)

My apologies for my misunderstanding. No, I didn't live alone as a minor, but I DID mostly feed and clothe myself. A firearm was instrumental in that, putting meat on the table and hides to be sold to buy things like clothes and incidentals. Accepting government money was not an option. We did for ourselves, the best we could, and refused any sort of "debts of honor" to the government. The payback price for those is ALWAYS too high.

Yes, ANYONE handling guns need supervision, minor or not. They have to learn respect for the gun, but after they've learned, there's no need to hover over them constantly. If that need is present, the training was lacking.

Why should we all follow the same rules? Because we all live in America. I'm sure your aware that the legal marijuana from CA ends up in every state of the Union. I'm sure your aware that guns purchased from Wal-Mart in middle America, end up in urban developments. How can we function as United States, when we're not united by the same laws?

So, you're ok with applying the laws of say Chicago or DC across the entire nation? They're alleged to be Americans, too, so what's good for them is good for all? Interesting take. Where I live, there is a city with a law that a single property is allowed two animals, no more. How do you suppose that will play with the cattle ranchers when it's applied nationwide? Now, if THAT isn't to be made applicable because of regional differences, why the other blanket laws that may be good in one place but not another? Since the Constitution doesn't guarantee animal possession specifically, there ought not to be any problem at all with my proposal.

No, I think it's a better solution for local governments to define and deal with local problems as they see fit, but not try to extend their reach nationally, "fixing" problems that may not be a problem elsewhere.

If your old enough to have witnessed change, you'd see the undeniable development of urban areas.

I'm around 50 or so. Towards the upper end of "or so". I've seen change in a number of urban areas, not necessarily the sort that I would characterize as "development". If you're around G'boro, your probably aware of the problems that urban expansion and forced annexation have wrought.

They encroach our farmlands every year as the population explodes. Why should cities govern the laws that are enforced in areas outside. For the reasons stated above. Additionally, with enough time, America will be one giant urban development. Proof: Are the projects getting smaller or bigger? Do the suburbs resemble what they once did?

If that day ever comes, America will no longer be able to feed herself. We will have much larger problems than mere legislation then. Personally, I don't believe that day will ever come. Lemmings have a brutal way of solving overpopulation to which Americans, or humans in general, are not immune, and we may already be seeing the beginning stages of such a cull. Only time will tell.

Where do you think the guns in the cities that ban them come from? Case in point: Detroit, LA, NYC, Miami, Houston, and on and on. These cities, and city-like ares expand every year, in every direction. Look at gangs and their numbers compared to 100 yrs ago. (that's a blink of the eye from a cosmic view)

I care not where the guns come from when they arrive at cities which ban them. That would be that particular city's lookout, and the people who live in it. They need to order their own house as they like, and leave mine alone.

Greensboro NC, that's funny. I moved there 20 yrs ago to get away from what I consider "city living". But let's use it as an example. Have you seen it 20 yrs ago compared to today?

Yes. I arrived in Greensboro in 1990 or 1991.

Both the landscape and laws have changed with progression. I actually purchased several guns in that "city". 2-7 day wait on handguns unless you support a concealed carry permit. I went through this process... 90 day wait. All gun purchases/permits should be held to the same background checks. Most crimes committed with a legal firearm happen in the first 3 months. Statistics don't usually lie.

Agreed. That "progression" is why I'm no longer in Greensboro. What you are proposing will mean I have no escape whatsoever from the petty laws and ordinances they've instituted there. "No escape" translates to "stand and fight". I hear they've only recently gotten rid of those damned traffic cameras (I never got busted by one, but I had and have a major gripe with their mere existence, which we can get into another time), and that they now even tax the rain. Living in hives makes humans crazy, I think.

Answer these questions honestly and prove my point: What would you do if...

1- You woke up at 3am to a minority in your living-room, your TV in his hands, and he was headed for the door?

In order to answer that truthfully and completely, I'll first have to know what minority status has to do with it. I've had breakins and attempted breakins 3 times. Two of those were white males, and the third I never saw before I convinced him to seek employment elsewhere, so I can't verify his race. That last one was when I lived in the woods in a predominantly white rural area, so I presumed he was white as well, but never could verify that. I live in a mixed black and hispanic neighborhood now, and it seems safer to me. Folks around here know the score, and that life is real, and don't bother me.

Pending the explanation of the relevance of minority status, I presume that my reaction would be the same as it was with the white guys. Simply convince them that I was not one to be trifled with, whatever that took, and no more.

2- That same individual had one of your guns instead of a TV?

Again, pending the explanation of minority relevance, I would laugh at him, right out loud, and proceed to disassemble his dumb ass while he was desperately trying to figure out why that gun just wouldn't fire for him. I've taken precautions against me or anyone else from being shot by my own gun - not involving trigger locks. Imagine his surprise. I actually got to see that look once. It's priceless!

3- If your child was killed in school by another child who obtained a gun? (happens all the time)

I've already covered that possibility. If such were to occur, it would be a failure on my part for having defectively trained my child. I'm confident that he knows what to do, and won't hesitate. If not, then I'm a failure as a parent. It's a big world. You can't possibly protect kids from everything, so the next best option is to teach them to protect themselves, and that doesn't necessarily involve any macho BS fighting. This ain't Rambo's World.

4- You found the person who sold him that gun that allowed him to kill your child?

That would be between me and him, but it's safe to assume he wouldn't act that irresponsibly again. Not in revenge for my own child - THAT'S on MY head - but to prevent it's recurrence.

What I would NOT do is melt down guns, or try to pass a law that people in Portland aren't allowed to have them.

5- You found out he sold several guns, which killed several children in gang related crimes?

No difference in the end result, whether it was one sale or 10,000. HE is responsible for his own sales, not Smith and Wesson, not Barney's gunshop, not my neighbor Sal. I'll not go on a rampage and punish EVERYONE for the acts of an individual.

6- Your home was broken into and your guns were stolen?

Notify the ATF and local law enforcement, and give them the serial numbers, any suspicions I may harbor as to culprit, and identify to them the particular disabilities the guns have, to aid identification. I say that with all confidence, because it's happened. That's when I got to see that priceless stare - when the miscreant realized that the gun could not and would not be made to fire, and that any attempt at all could have dire consequences to the attemptee - but the intended target had nothing to worry about.

7- Your family arrived on the scene and was killed with your own weapons?

Won't happen. As I said, precautions have already been taken against that. If you want to know how,I'll tell you in a U2U, but not on the open boards. Everyone likes surprises, right?

8- You arrived on the scene armed, and had the drop on the people who just killed your family?

They would cease to exist as viable organisms. Of that., I have no doubt at all. The world no longer requires their services.

reply to post by nenothtu


You've made several excellent points...

However, precautions at preventing a shooting in school (child related)?
Unless their wearing head to toe armor, or you've found a way to make them bullet proof,
no one can see a bullet coming without fair warning. I'm sure your aware of that.
Most school shootings never see it coming. 32 rounds in 18 seconds...
that isn't allot of time for a trained professional to react in time,
let alone a child who's in the situation for the first time.

Excellent rebuttal about the animal issues and national law recognition.
But I think you get my point, I'm not talking about farmers.
(They already have different laws, taxes & guidelines)

As far as your response to the individuals that murdered your family.
(The 9 year old who was killed in AZ had a family too)
That response proves you agree on some level.
No trial mentioned in your response. I agree!

Just so there's no misunderstanding...
I want you to know I sleep with an ar15-5.56 w/2x32 round clips.
I have several hidden handguns spread throughout areas I frequent.
I also take precautions to see that no-one else will obtain/fire them.
Everything that I currently own is presently legal in this state/county.
But I'm just as vulnerable to those same questions I posed to you.
If the future of humanity is to be that of a peaceful existence,
guns don't belong in the hands of every citizen in the hood.
That behavior will eventually become viewed as ancient.
I'm currently a hypocrite in every sense of the word;
however, I seek an idealistic future for our children.


Progression means change, whether we (as a nation of free men) welcome it or not.
There was a time when alcohol and weed was illegal, slaves were legal, and you could beat your wife, drink and drive, kill a man in the street, and walk away without prosecution. It's not the wild west anymore. The more guns in circulation, the more end up in the wrong hands.

The only things I disagree with you unequivocally is that no child is mature enough to handle a gun in a school for any reason. No child should carry a weapon as if it's common practice like it was in the wild west. Anyone who acts like a child, bucking the system, committing felonies, has no business aiding his/her actions with a weapon. That thinking will lead to nothing but bloodshed. We have plenty of that already!

reply to post by Howtosurvive2012

I want you to know I sleep with an ar15-5.56 w/2x32 round clips.

Just so there's no misunderstanding...

I have several hidden handguns spread throughout areas I frequent.

That's illegal. I'll not be lectured on gun owner responsibility and what should be done legislatively from a guy who doesn't know what he's doing, what he's talking about, and can't even use the correct terminology when BSing.

I'm currently a hypocrite in every sense of the word;
however, I seek an idealistic future for our children.

Indeed you are, and your obvious lack of knowledge and admitted actions also makes you irresponsible and dangerous. So much for that idealistic future for children.

reply to post by MikeNice81


You sound like a responsible person/owner.
Yes it was baiting, so is the situation.
Admirably, you understand the laws.
Hypothetically, you seem to follow them.
If everyone could honestly answer like you, I'd have a different stance.
The harsh reality is you are in the small percent of those with a gun who'd act the same.
In the reality of the situations posed, I wonder if you'd keep your cool as much as you think.
In any case, you passed my psych evaluation. I assume you took it as a part of the concealed carry.
That's what my point is... Most aren't as composed as you. I spent allot of time at Calibers in GBO.
That range has dramatically changed in the last ten years. Ask the owner (FFL registered) his opinion.
He's spent his life advocating the sale and aiding in the distribution.
Now he fears for his grandchildren's generation.
As I admitted, I'm a hypocrite seeking an idealistic future.
Imagine a world without weapons in the gen pop.
It's easy if you try. BEAUTIFUL PLACE TO LIVE!

reply to post by projectvxn


Exactly what do you think is illegal? I'm in NC, here it's all legal.
I purchased every bit of that at a local shop after a background check.
BS do I need to post pics to prove it's not bs. Terminology, come on man.
I'm not lecturing anyone about anything, I'm offering my opinion.
Freedom of speech... is that not in the constitution, or do we pick and choose?
As a moderator I'd think you could discuss this without loosing your cool.
No offense implied, but your pic explains your stance on the subject completely.
How can you have an open mind discussing the issue when your obviously,
and I mean no offense, nuts over guns. That pic insinuates guns are a big part of your life.

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
reply to post by projectvxn




1- I'm a member first and my moderator status does not preclude me from calling BS when I believe I see it. And I believe I'm seeing it, and if you think I haven't seen it before...well...

2- Am I supposed to be inclined to accept your position when it is seated in hypocrisy and false information?

3- Leaving guns randomly in places you frequent is NOT legal.

Let's hand guns out in fifth grade,
and arm every person on the planet.
Is that what you all really want?
I'm sorry but I disagree.
I submit. Act as you will.
With all cencerity,
I hope it works out well for you.
See you all on another, less controversial thread.

Moderator-
PM me if you want some pics.
The last thing I am is BS.
PEACE

reply to post by Howtosurvive2012


Don't take your ball and go.

You made claims you own up to them.

If you wanna send me pics of your weapons, go ahead I'll wait here:
Send 'em here

I'm warning you right now, you are not dealing with an amateur.

Edit to add:

I am not moderating this thread nor will I moderate anything you say in this thread. So please feel free to have a debate with me without running away and using my mod status as an excuse. I will eat my words and publicly apologize if I am wrong.

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
reply to post by nenothtu

 

You've made several excellent points...

However, precautions at preventing a shooting in school (child related)?
Unless their wearing head to toe armor, or you've found a way to make them bullet proof,

"Bullet proofing" doesn't necessarily involve "hardening" a target by armoring it. Actually, armor improperly employed and over-loaded is more of a hindrance than a help, as it tends to restrict free movement. Being situationally aware, and not presenting a target in the first place, is far more important than blocking bullets because you blunder into one. Furthermore, armor tends to promote a feeling (false) of invulnerability. That's not the right feeling to foster. It only lasts until the bullets fly - then you become acutely aware of your miscalculation - too late. It's better to live like a rabbit than die like a lion. I have armor (for work), but tend against wearing it except in particular known high-risk situations.

no one can see a bullet coming without fair warning. I'm sure your aware of that.

Absolutely. Hence my stress on situational awareness. It gives one that "fair warning" you mentioned.

Most school shootings never see it coming. 32 rounds in 18 seconds...
that isn't allot of time for a trained professional to react in time,
let alone a child who's in the situation for the first time.

I'd like to see your stats on that, if you don't mind. I believe that "32 rounds in 18 seconds" will be shown to be an exception rather than a rule. That's nearly 2 trigger pulls a second, nearly impossible to maintain over 18 seconds of time and 32 rounds of ammo with any expectation of hitting anything below ceiling level, even for trained professionals - much less the average gangsta punk.

My experience of "gangstas" has been that they have a supreme lack of accuracy, even with "professional" weaponry. As an example, we had a carload of jackasses ride down the street here about a year and a half ago firing what sounded to me like a full auto Uzi. Rate of fire was too slow for a MAC-10. Not only was no one hit, we couldn't even find a bullet hole in any of the HOUSES.

As an aside, the response time for the police was about 7 minutes. Pretty respectable as response times go, but not fast enough to catch 'em. They skyed out scott-free, but didn't return. On the other hand, 7 minutes would have been an eternity had they been in my living room or that of a neighbor with their Uzi. I believe the police would have gotten them in that case, though.

Posthumously.

I don't "spray and pray" and try to look cool doing it. I mean business. They can yell and wave all they want. I'm not going to.

Excellent rebuttal about the animal issues and national law recognition.
But I think you get my point, I'm not talking about farmers.
(They already have different laws, taxes & guidelines)

No, you were talking about laws, and a nationwide blanket application of them. Extending that, should we then apply these laws and tax guidelines that farmers have to urbanites? That door swings both ways - unless your contention is that urbanites should make the laws for all, and the ruralites should have no say in it - basically saying "just shut up, grow food, and do as we tell you".

As far as your response to the individuals that murdered your family.
(The 9 year old who was killed in AZ had a family too)
That response proves you agree on some level.
No trial mentioned in your response. I agree!

In the scenario mentioned, as far as I'm concerned the trial would have taken place when I had dead family on the floor, and armed, un-uniformed, people with smoking guns standing over them. Those people present a credible threat to me - their credibility attested to by my dead family laying there. Trial enough for me. Might be different if those folks aren't armed at the moment.

Just so there's no misunderstanding...
I want you to know I sleep with an ar15-5.56 w/2x32 round clips.

Where do you find 32 round "clips" for an AR-15? All of my AR-15 magazines are either 20, 30, or 40 rounds. Never heard of a 32 rounder - except for SMGs like Uzis and MAC-10s.

I have several hidden handguns spread throughout areas I frequent.

Hidden is one thing, but if they're "live" in hiding, they're a danger to YOU in the event of a break-in, and subject to discovery and misuse by the unauthorized.

I also take precautions to see that no-one else will obtain/fire them.

I take that to mean they are not live, and have been disabled. Good for you!

Everything that I currently own is presently legal in this state/county.

Ditto, assuming applicable and valid law.

But I'm just as vulnerable to those same questions I posed to you.

Everyone is, and it's a good set of questions to ask oneself.

If the future of humanity is to be that of a peaceful existence,
guns don't belong in the hands of every citizen in the hood.

Guns are inanimate objects, and are of themselves neither "peaceful" nor "warlike". It's the hand that wields them that matters. I don't advocate in any way punishing ALL hands for the misdeeds of one. I advocate instead going after the one, the miscreant.

That behavior will eventually become viewed as ancient.

It already IS ancient. It has been with us since the dawn of time, and will not go away in the forseeable future. Humans as a whole are a rowdy bunch, and always have been, regardless of the tool of the day to be rowdy with.

however, I seek an idealistic future for our children.

I seek no sort of idealism. It would be nice, but humans are just not constructed that way, and I have to deal with what IS, rather than what I would like to be. I would prefer a world where weapons are not necessary. Then this discussion would be moot, as would the presence or absence of firearms. It would be a non-issue, either way.

Progression means change, whether we (as a nation of free men) welcome it or not.

No, "change" means change, and is not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing, just for it's own sake. "Progress" is a change in a particular direction. The direction that "progress" is taking us at the moment will see our children, or their children, picking through the midden heaps of a civilization that was for crumbs, simply because that civilization thought it could legislate away the abilities of the wilder elements to do harm by legislating their tools, rather than dealing with THEM. When that day comes, they WILL take over because THEY know it's not the tools, it's the will that does the damage. Once they see the stops pulled out, and civilization patting itself on it's back thinking it's safe now, it will be all over for the Civilization that Was.

There was a time when alcohol and weed was illegal, slaves were legal, and you could beat your wife, drink and drive, kill a man in the street, and walk away without prosecution. It's not the wild west anymore. The more guns in circulation, the more end up in the wrong hands.

Conversely, the fewer in circulation, the fewer checks there are on the lawless element. They pray for that day.

The only things I disagree with you unequivocally is that no child is mature enough to handle a gun in a school for any reason. No child should carry a weapon as if it's common practice like it was in the wild west. Anyone who acts like a child, bucking the system, committing felonies, has no business aiding his/her actions with a weapon. That thinking will lead to nothing but bloodshed. We have plenty of that already!

Allowing weapons in school flies against common sense. School is there for education. Unfortunately, you cannot legislate common sense. Any attempts WILL be met with inventive new ways to circumvent them. Keeping weapons out of schools is the parents' responsibility, not the legislatures. Now law ever passed carried the force for prevention - only remedy AFTER a breach.

Prevention resides solely with the parent, and THEIR training of their child. No law will ever be able to match that.

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
Imagine a world without weapons in the gen pop.
It's easy if you try. BEAUTIFUL PLACE TO LIVE!

I'd rather imagine a world without the NEED for weapons. Then their presence becomes a non-issue. Attack the root, no the fruit, to bring a tree down.

A world without weapons, but with the NEED for them still in place, is not a dream, it's a nightmare.

reply to post by nenothtu


Well thought out.
Well said.
I agree.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Howtosurvive2012

 

Don't take your ball and go.

You made claims you own up to them.

If you wanna send me pics of your weapons, go ahead I'll wait here:
Send 'em here

I'm warning you right now, you are not dealing with an amateur.

Edit to add:

I am not moderating this thread nor will I moderate anything you say in this thread. So please feel free to have a debate with me without running away and using my mod status as an excuse. I will eat my words and publicly apologize if I am wrong.

edit on 21-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

I sent you a PM. Get ready to apologize publicly. Your not dealing with an amateur either. I assure you.

reply to post by projectvxn


Make sure you use low sulphur based oil soaked rags, that is the best way.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b5029e0f6f22.gif[/atsimg]