Spyderco Forums

SolidState wrote:
I believe in controlled access, and am proud to have done training to get my carry. I am proud of my pistol & rifle training, and my martial arts training which give me the mental preparedness to accept the responsibility of arms ownership. Patriots love their country enough to make sure dangerous weapons don't end up in the hands of terrible and incompetent people (covered in 2nd amendment - "well-regulated militia"). It's not people like us who go on rampages - shooting random children, but unless people like us differentiate ourselves from the crazies through evaluation and training, we're going to keep getting treated like we're crazy by the rest of society: especially if we advocate for the unabridged ability of crazies to get guns and carry them everywhere.

Could not agree with you more and I am a proud gun owner and NRA member.

I don't agree with everything the NRA's spokesmen say, don't think I ever have. However, I can't think of a single group, organization, club, or person whose views I agree with 100% and I'm sure there isn't anyone who agrees 100% with mine. So, as long as I agree with MOST of what they stand for, I'll continue to be a member.

On the face of it, controlling access to firearms sounds reasonable. Heck, on the basis of his rather infantile reaction to a lack of responses here, I'd be inclined to question the OP's fitnesss to own sharp objects, let alone firearms. But, while that's how I feel, it's also my way of pointing out the slippery slope we start down when we turn a right into a privilege. Who gets to select the criteria are for ownership? Who gets to decide whether someone meets those criteria? Who decides who the crazies are, or, more importantly who is going to be crazy in a year, or five, or ten?

Remember that, in the language of the 1780's, the phrase "a well regulated militia" simply meant an adult male citizenry well trained in the use of arms. The Second Amendment doesn't even restrict the right "to keep and bear arms" to them, but instead extends it to "the people" as a right which "shall not be infringed". To me, that's both clear and unequivocal. The mere fact that a right can be, and all to often is, abused does not mean it should not be a right. If that were the case, then the entire Bill of Rights should be declared null and void.

It's illegal to drive while drunk, but I'd bet tens of thousands of people do it every day. It's illegal to drive with a revoked or suspended license, but how often do we read of a fatal "accident" caused by someone driving drunk on a suspended or revoked license? The drinking age may vary a bit from one to another, but there's a minimum age in every state. How many times do we read of fatal "accidents" caused by a drunk driver under the legal drinking age.

The Deacon wrote:On the face of it, controlling access to firearms sounds reasonable. Heck, on the basis of his rather infantile reaction to a lack of responses here, I'd be inclined to question the OP's fitnesss to own sharp objects, let alone firearms. But, while that's how I feel, it's also my way of pointing out the slippery slope we start down when we turn a right into a privilege. Who gets to select the criteria are for ownership? Who gets to decide whether someone meets those criteria? Who decides who the crazies are, or, more importantly who is going to be crazy in a year, or five, or ten?

Absolutely true Deacon. You point out the same reasons why eugenics is great in ideology and terrible in practice.

The thing is, when I was 14 and attempting to get a hunting permit so that I could carry a rifle around and not have to worry about the DNR, it was pretty clear how licensing and regulation occurred, and there wasn't a whole lot of discrimination going on either. We know how to do this stuff responsibly. When I was 24 and trying to get a concealed carry permit, I had to go through training and licensure processes involving getting character witnesses. That was fine and dandy for me. It would be harder if I were obviously off. It's not like people are coming out all over the place and saying these shooters weren't obviously off: much the opposite.
It is also a false idea to pretend that there is only one slippery slope involved in this equation. Responsibilities are closer to a pointed roof with two slippery slopes than a plateau with only one slippery slide. We've obviously slid down the other side of the slope in regards to a great deal of public health issues. Just because it's a slippery slope to regulate something doesn't mean it is not a slippery slope to deregulate it. I'm pretty sure that the news and basic statistics point out which slope we've slid down as a country. Unless responsible owners start participating in a discussion about responsible ownership, we're not going to be allowed at the table when the final decisions are made; We will be marginalized as crazies the longer we stick up for crazies and act crazier (by currently-accepted social definitions). Again, guns aren't knives and they don't have a whole lot of purposes outside of killing-related exercises.

The Deacon wrote:Remember that, in the language of the 1780's, the phrase "a well regulated militia" simply meant an adult male citizenry well trained in the use of arms. The Second Amendment doesn't even restrict the right "to keep and bear arms" to them, but instead extends it to "the people" as a right which "shall not be infringed". To me, that's both clear and unequivocal. The mere fact that a right can be, and all to often is, abused does not mean it should not be a right. If that were the case, then the entire Bill of Rights should be declared null and void.

Don't forget that in the parlance of the time blacks, indigenous and chinese were rarely regarded as "people" and did not count in the assessment of "rights." Secondly, it's not like the bill of rights hasn't been completely shredded by the patriot act. We don't have a fourth, fifth or sixth amendment in any semblance of what was intended for white men of property in the late 1700s. I'm sure you're aware of that. It's not like the government can't nab you indefinitely anyway, and it's really silly to think that you can protect yourself from SWAT with a measly AR-15 and 30rd magazines. They can take you out by remote control plane from outside your shooting distance. At this point in technological history, it's a joke to pretend you could stand up to the US government if they want you in custody or dead unless you have years of training and international connections capable of shuttling you undetected across borders on non-allied states.

The Deacon wrote:It's illegal to drive while drunk, but I'd bet tens of thousands of people do it every day. It's illegal to drive with a revoked or suspended license, but how often do we read of a fatal "accident" caused by someone driving drunk on a suspended or revoked license? The drinking age may vary a bit from one to another, but there's a minimum age in every state. How many times do we read of fatal "accidents" caused by a drunk driver under the legal drinking age.

While this is a pretty far reach, I'll accept where I think you're going with this. Your numbers are low, really low. Where I grew up, the general statistic was that after 11pm, roughly 70% of drivers are under the influence of alcohol. Also, the only reason the age is 21 is because the federal government used the power of the purse to designate highway funding based upon whether or not states complied with a 21 year minimum drinking age. Anyway, I think the point you're getting at here is that criminals commit crimes whether they fit regulations or not, or that making some people jump through hoops doesn't stop others from ignoring the hoops altogether. You're also inadvertently pointing out that vehicular manslaughter has caused broad regulation to be imposed with minimal infringement on Americans and positive outcomes on rates of death due to vehicular manslaughter.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247497/

You're correct, criminals commit crimes. Honestly, that's besides the point. It's like those "guns don't kill people, people kill people" banners - they leave off "people kill people with: cars, guns, etc." Force multipliers need to be investigated. I'm not sitting here saying we should be pulling anything that can be used as a weapon out of people's hands, what I am saying is that we should be paying attention to which implements offer certifiably crazy people the largest and deadliest force multipliers and paying attention to how to responsibly prevent these kinds of things from happening. We do it with the most common weapon used in manslaughter - Cars.

China was afflicted by a similar situation as Newtown just the previous day, but take a look: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asi ... index.html
While the victims -children and motive - insanity were effectively the same, the type of arms used require more training to be lethally effective en masse and therefore the event was far less lethal.
I get the point that we're not going to be getting rid of criminals or mentally ill people, but pretending that nobody is mentally ill and that everybody should have unabridged access to incredibly lethal implements isn't the way to deal with that. Pretending that nobody is responsible for the social well being of our country is not the way to deal with it.

SolidState wrote:Absolutely true Deacon. You point out the same reasons why eugenics is great in ideology and terrible in practice.

Sad, but true. But that does make me wonder more why you'd advocate putting the power to decide who can be allowed to own the means to protect themselves, their homes, and their families, and who cannot, in the hands of bureaucrats.

SolidState wrote:The thing is, when I was 14 and attempting to get a hunting permit so that I could carry a rifle around and not have to worry about the DNR, it was pretty clear how licensing and regulation occurred, and there wasn't a whole lot of discrimination going on either. We know how to do this stuff responsibly. When I was 24 and trying to get a concealed carry permit, I had to go through training and licensure processes involving getting character witnesses. That was fine and dandy for me. It would be harder if I were obviously off. It's not like people are coming out all over the place and saying these shooters weren't obviously off: much the opposite.

My experiences have been different. Over the years I lived in five different counties of New York State. The pistol permit system in all of them was corrupt, some to a greater degree than others. But, in all of them, your chances of getting a permit were much better if you knew the right people. NYC's was more corrupt yet. I was told who to bribe and how much to bribe them, for an NYC endorsement, so I could legally carry my guns, which were registered in Nassau county, to pistol matches upstate and in NJ and CT. I was working in a gun shop at the time GCA68 took effect. The BATF may have mellowed over the years, but I doubt it and, to this day, I have absolutely no use or respect for the organization or its agents because of the way they behaved at that time. They were an evil mixture of incompetence and over-zealousness.

SolidState wrote:It is also a false idea to pretend that there is only one slippery slope involved in this equation. Responsibilities are closer to a pointed roof with two slippery slopes than a plateau with only one slippery slide. We've obviously slid down the other side of the slope in regards to a great deal of public health issues. Just because it's a slippery slope to regulate something doesn't mean it is not a slippery slope to deregulate it. I'm pretty sure that the news and basic statistics point out which slope we've slid down as a country. Unless responsible owners start participating in a discussion about responsible ownership, we're not going to be allowed at the table when the final decisions are made; We will be marginalized as crazies the longer we stick up for crazies and act crazier (by currently-accepted social definitions). Again, guns aren't knives and they don't have a whole lot of purposes outside of killing-related exercises.

True, there are multiple slopes, but using the failures of the public health system, the educational system, the negative changes in family structure, and the way tolerance has been twisted into acceptance of immorality, as an excuse to further abrogate rights is still wrong. I'm sure you are aware that it's currently illegal for convicted felons, the mentally ill, and the mentally incompetent to purchase or own a firearm. How much further should that be taken, especially in light of the fact that those known to be mentally ill are no more likely, statistically, to commit a violent crime with a firearm than anyone else? Would you prohibit anyone with a mentally ill relative from owning guns? Also, as a former competitive pistol shooter, I take exception to the notion that guns are only meant for killing and, as a hunter, I take even greater exception to the notion of any similarity between hunting animals and killing people. Not to mention that even a brief read of just about any non-British knife forum will reveal a disturbing number of folks who openly profess to carry knives solely or primarily as weapons. ****, there are folks on this very forum that I would not want as neighbors.

SolidState wrote:Don't forget that in the parlance of the time blacks, indigenous and chinese were rarely regarded as "people" and did not count in the assessment of "rights." Secondly, it's not like the bill of rights hasn't been completely shredded by the patriot act. We don't have a fourth, fifth or sixth amendment in any semblance of what was intended for white men of property in the late 1700s. I'm sure you're aware of that. It's not like the government can't nab you indefinitely anyway, and it's really silly to think that you can protect yourself from SWAT with a measly AR-15 and 30rd magazines. They can take you out by remote control plane from outside your shooting distance. At this point in technological history, it's a joke to pretend you could stand up to the US government if they want you in custody or dead unless you have years of training and international connections capable of shuttling you undetected across borders on non-allied states.

Partly true. Slaves and Native Americans weren't counted as people, but free blacks and whatever few Chinese may have been here at the time were. And yes, American history has been a mixed bag, we've made progress and extended some rights to those who did not have them at the time the Constitution was framed, and we've diluted, abrogated, and twisted some others. I'd just question why that justifies the further abrogation of one of those rights. As for the other, you're right, but why would I want to give them one more potential excuse to target me?

SolidState wrote:While this is a pretty far reach, I'll accept where I think you're going with this. Your numbers are low, really low. Where I grew up, the general statistic was that after 11pm, roughly 70% of drivers are under the influence of alcohol. Also, the only reason the age is 21 is because the federal government used the power of the purse to designate highway funding based upon whether or not states complied with a 21 year minimum drinking age. Anyway, I think the point you're getting at here is that criminals commit crimes whether they fit regulations or not, or that making some people jump through hoops doesn't stop others from ignoring the hoops altogether. You're also inadvertently pointing out that vehicular manslaughter has caused broad regulation to be imposed with minimal infringement on Americans and positive outcomes on rates of death due to vehicular manslaughter.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247497/

I have absolutely no problem with the idea of educating people on the principles of safe gun handling. I have absolutely no problem with the idea of harsher punishment for those who commit crimes with guns, for those who lie to acquire guns, for those who knowingly sell guns to prohibited persons, and for those who have, or allow their children to have, easily preventable "accidents" with guns. Most states already have age restrictions for the purchase of any gun, and often higher age restrictions for the purchase of a handgun.

SolidState wrote:You're correct, criminals commit crimes. Honestly, that's besides the point. It's like those "guns don't kill people, people kill people" banners - they leave off "people kill people with: cars, guns, etc." Force multipliers need to be investigated. I'm not sitting here saying we should be pulling anything that can be used as a weapon out of people's hands, what I am saying is that we should be paying attention to which implements offer certifiably crazy people the largest and deadliest force multipliers and paying attention to how to responsibly prevent these kinds of things from happening. We do it with the most common weapon used in manslaughter - Cars.

What's not beside the point is that criminals, by definition, do not obey the law and, beyond that, find ways to circumvent it. Can't buy a gun legally, buy it illegally. If something is illegal, and people want it, someone will supply it. Works for drugs, why not for guns. Get someone to buy it for you. Works for minors who want booze and cigarettes, and addicts who want prescription pharmaceuticals, why not for guns. Steal it. Unless you ban all ownership, that will still work for criminals, especially if newspapers are allowed to print shopping lists of owners.

SolidState wrote:China was afflicted by a similar situation as Newtown just the previous day, but take a look: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asi ... index.html
While the victims -children and motive - insanity were effectively the same, the type of arms used require more training to be lethally effective en masse and therefore the event was far less lethal.
I get the point that we're not going to be getting rid of criminals or mentally ill people, but pretending that nobody is mentally ill and that everybody should have unabridged access to incredibly lethal implements isn't the way to deal with that. Pretending that nobody is responsible for the social well being of our country is not the way to deal with it.

As I mentioned before, it's illegal for a mentally ill person to buy or own a gun, and has been so for over 40 years. Hasn't worked up till now, why would yet another law help?

As for China, haven't there been quite a few knife attacks at schools and other public places there in the past few years? Wasn't there another, far worse one, just a few months back? At any rate, the stricter laws governing knife ownership they passed after the attacks in 2010 don't seem to have worked very well, why do you think more gun laws here would have any meaningful effect?

If the constitution wasnt meant to be looked at and changed from time to time as civilization has evolved and changed then there would never of been any amendments added to it or changed. Why is it unreasonable to suggest that an amendment added to the constitution over 200 years ago at a time when the entire population of the country was just over 4 million and the most advanced gun of the was a muzzle loader should not be looked at and be updated when now the population is over 300 million and with a single pull of a trigger you can potentially kill multiple people. This is not suggesting a ban on guns by any means (I have been shooting and hunting for most of my life and own guns) but maybe take a look at the type of guns and clips. I can not think of one rational reason why a civilian in this country needs a military style weapon with high capacity magazines. If you can rationally justify it without using all the retortoric we currently hear than I would be ready for that converstaion.

Deacon points out the reason why so many so many people with average logical mindsets vehemently oppose any new restrictions on gun ownership. Our society has too many power hungry control minded people that will tell you one thing, "It's a reasonable restriction, you can still have your guns." but turn around and uses the restriction to keep most everyone from having a firearm. We are not falling for their nonsense and if it hurts the feeling of those that sincerely are trying to solve a perceived problem so be it.

Sometimes it is hard as heck to mind your own business, but it is the right thing to do. More gun laws are not going to prevent crazies from insane acts any more than the prohibition act prevented drunks. The best thing we can do it to enforce the laws we have.

The only change I can see helping these situations is a need to revisit the rights to privacy for those with certain mental health issues and those prescribed psychotropic drugs. We should stop allowing MDs and GPs to prescribe mind altering psychotropic drugs without involving a psychiatrists. Like laws, pills have side effects and unintended consequences.

Tank wrote:If the constitution wasnt meant to be looked at and changed from time to time as civilization has evolved and changed then there would never of been any amendments added to it or changed. Why is it unreasonable to suggest that an amendment added to the constitution over 200 years ago at a time when the entire population of the country was just over 4 million and the most advanced gun of the was a muzzle loader should not be looked at and be updated when now the population is over 300 million and with a single pull of a trigger you can potentially kill multiple people. This is not suggesting a ban on guns by any means (I have been shooting and hunting for most of my life and own guns) but maybe take a look at the type of guns and clips. I can not think of one rational reason why a civilian in this country needs a military style weapon with high capacity magazines. If you can rationally justify it without using all the retortoric we currently hear than I would be ready for that converstaion.

The second amendment has not one thing to do with hunting rifles or pistols. It is about assuring the citizens would remain armed such that the government, King George for example, would never be able to hold power over them as they could take it back by the force of arms.

Now for the reasons, collecting military arms and they are fun to shoot. Now, if you will, please rationally explain to me the need for several thousand-dollar diamond engagement wedding rings.

Pinetreebbs wrote:The second amendment has not one thing to do with hunting rifles or pistols. It is about assuring the citizens would remain armed such that the government, King George for example, would never be able to hold power over them as they could take it back by the force of arms.

Now for the reasons, collecting military arms and they are fun to shoot. Now, if you will, please rationally explain to me the need for several thousand-dollar diamond engagement wedding rings.

Regarding the ring, brother I'm with you 100% that I see no rational for that kind of money for jewelry. Me and my wife debate this all the time.

The 2nd doesn't at all mention any kind of weapon so to suggest it has nothing to do with postols and hunting rifles doesn't make any sense unless they are somehow not included in the definition of "arms".

Personally I think shooting a shoulder propelled rocket laucher would be lots of fun but that doesnt mean I should be able to have one. I would love to have my own drone and blow up old junk cars from the air for that matter but again should anyone be able to own one?

Tank wrote:Regarding the ring, brother I'm with you 100% that I see no rational for that kind of money for jewelry. Me and my wife debate this all the time.

The 2nd doesn't at all mention any kind of weapon so to suggest it has nothing to do with postols and hunting rifles doesn't make any sense unless they are somehow not included in the definition of "arms".

Personally I think shooting a shoulder propelled rocket laucher would be lots of fun but that doesnt mean I should be able to have one. I would love to have my own drone and blow up old junk cars from the air for that matter but again should anyone be able to own one?

Actually it does make perfect sense. In the context of the Second Amendment authors, they were not talking about hunting firearms, they were talking about military arms own by citizens. Frankly, they never thought anyone would consider any restriction on hunting arms.

Regardless of their questionable legality, do you feel you might do something bad if you were able to own a shoulder fired rocket? Would owning a drone, which you could build one quite easily, and equipped it with lethal force cause you to do something bad? Probably not, any more than owning a single shot versus a semi auto rifle would cause you do to do anything bad.

I don't want to get into helping terrorists, but there are many things easily accessible and far more lethal than a semi auto rifle with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. We cannot outlaw everything that is dangerous or harmful and expect it to solve this problem.

Pinetreebbs wrote:We cannot outlaw everything that is dangerous or harmful and expect it to solve this problem.

Nope, but it sure looks like we're trying:

We are going to miss fasteners, pennies and nails one day. :eek:

Jay_Ev wrote:Nope, but it sure looks like we're trying:

Pinetreebbs wrote:Actually it does make perfect sense. In the context of the Second Amendment authors, they were not talking about hunting firearms, they were talking about military arms own by citizens. Frankly, they never thought anyone would consider any restriction on hunting arms.

Regardless of their questionable legality, do you feel you might do something bad if you were able to own a shoulder fired rocket? Would owning a drone, which you could build one quite easily, and equipped it with lethal force cause you to do something bad? Probably not, any more than owning a single shot versus a semi auto rifle would cause you do to do anything bad.

Where did you get that I feel i might do something bad, im just saying it would be lots of fun to shoot but is that a good enough reason to make it legal as you suggested with regard to assault rifles.

You have me very curious now about seperating hunting and military rifles. In 1791 what was the difference between military rifles and hunting rifles? And from everything I have read on the subject I can not find any reference to talking about one or the other and the language of the ammendment is only arms so please show me where you found reference to the specific types of arms the ammendment was refering to. I'd acutally like to read about that.

The Deacon wrote:Sad, but true. But that does make me wonder more why you'd advocate putting the power to decide who can be allowed to own the means to protect themselves, their homes, and their families, and who cannot, in the hands of bureaucrats.

I'm not advocating that. I'm simply advocating taking a seat at the table in a nuanced fashion like the discussion we're having. By ignoring all sense of nuance, the NRA is actively removing itself from the final debate on gun control. If there's anything I've learned in my short life, it's that scared people gang up to make stupid decisions, often because of outlier data points. If the NRA doesn't address that the majority of Americans fear their children being shot and that they also fear living in a security state where their children must be greeted and frisked by an armed guard just to learn to read, they will be neglected and removed from the debate as the school shooting becomes more prevalent, even if statistically unlikely. Media controls response, and the NRA has dismal media presence currently due to their lack of understanding nuance and their narrow vision of what Americans should or should not be afraid of.

The Deacon wrote:My experiences have been different...

Thank you for sharing your experience to give me a better understanding of the diversity of states in this matter. Wisconsin and Oregon are rather gun-friendly, so I guess I was overapplying my experiences to a broader set than I should have. I understand that the federal government has gotten involved in NY over gun rights repeatedly due to issues like yours. That's a 9th amendment issue that seems to influence this one as well.

The Deacon wrote:True, there are multiple slopes, but using the failures of the public health system, the educational system, the negative changes in family structure, and the way tolerance has been twisted into acceptance of immorality, as an excuse to further abrogate rights is still wrong. I'm sure you are aware that it's currently illegal for convicted felons, the mentally ill, and the mentally incompetent to purchase or own a firearm.
How much further should that be taken, especially in light of the fact that those known to be mentally ill are no more likely, statistically, to commit a violent crime with a firearm than anyone else? Would you prohibit anyone with a mentally ill relative from owning guns?

How do people even check that if background checks are not required for purchase? As previously stated by both of us, who and what define these terms are widely variable, and can be corrupt and easily sidestepped. I believe these are root issues of our current problems. I also note that our current methods of creating felons disproportionately disenfranchise an remove the rights to arms of minorities. This is something that seriously bothers me, and it doesn't seem to bother the NRA to disarm the incredibly wide breadth of people defined as "felons" when many of the most common felony charges nonviolent symptoms of a greater societal ill.

The Deacon wrote:Also, as a former competitive pistol shooter, I take exception to the notion that guns are only meant for killing and, as a hunter, I take even greater exception to the notion of any similarity between hunting animals and killing people.

While we have very similar past times and enjoy similar sports, we have significantly different outlooks on what the basis of the activities are. I practice with my pistol to be able to defend myself and my property in the event of a state without police. Shooting practice is no different to me than sharpening knives/swords and practicing my sinawali sets - maintaining my preparation to use defensive and offensive tools for their purposes. I have a diverse set of martial training, and in all aspects I have never pretended that it wasn't martial in nature.
Many of the shooting matches I've attended had human-shaped targets popping out in various settings and targeting is set to center of mass or kill shots. I fail to see how this is not an exercise in martial preparedness. Also, as an avid pet enthusiast and wildlife rehabilitation volunteer, I fail to see how killing animals is so terribly significantly removed from killing people. I've known many animals that are more caring and conscientious than some of the humans I've known. I don't take killing animals lightly, well, I take killing chickens and fish lightly, but other than that, I take killing quite seriously. I don't think so many Americans would eat meat if they had to kill the animals because killing is killing, and it is rarely glorious or enjoyable. I guess you could say that it's probably even less so with people, but killing is killing. Having used an Atlatl to hunt, and a bow to hunt, and a fishing rod: I can easily say that my Springfield 30-06 was the most well-engineered killing machine that I have ever used. I still remember the first time I came upon a skinned bear hanging in the woods. I thought the crazies who owned the land next to ours had taken to hunting long pig, and retreated as quickly and quietly to our camp as I could. Having done human dissections and taken down deer, pigs, etc. I can tell you, we're not all that different in makeup. Our CPU is just stronger.

The Deacon wrote:Not to mention that even a brief read of just about any non-British knife forum will reveal a disturbing number of folks who openly profess to carry knives solely or primarily as weapons. ****, there are folks on this very forum that I would not want as neighbors.

True, and sad. I often wonder to myself how many of these people have any training, or how quickly their views would change after being whooped on by a suru for 10 minutes. I know my whole perspective on knife violence changed immediately upon being knifed in a failed robbery, and it changed once again upon being whipped upon in a chalk-knife fight with my Guru.

The Deacon wrote:As for the other, you're right, but why would I want to give them one more potential excuse to target me?

Good point. I often debate this internally. We live in a substantially different and more-connected age than the writers of our constitution did.

The Deacon wrote:I have absolutely no problem with the idea of educating people on the principles of safe gun handling. I have absolutely no problem with the idea of harsher punishment for those who commit crimes with guns, for those who lie to acquire guns, for those who knowingly sell guns to prohibited persons, and for those who have, or allow their children to have, easily preventable "accidents" with guns. Most states already have age restrictions for the purchase of any gun, and often higher age restrictions for the purchase of a handgun.

If this were still within the stated public persona of the NRA, I'd be far more inclined to be an active member. The last two trainings I did via the NRA left me feeling more like "The Punisher" than Spiderman after uncle Ben's "With great power comes great responsiblity" talk. This has been a significant change from the time I took NRA hunter safety.

The Deacon wrote:What's not beside the point is that criminals, by definition, do not obey the law and, beyond that, find ways to circumvent it. Can't buy a gun legally, buy it illegally. If something is illegal, and people want it, someone will supply it. Works for drugs, why not for guns. Get someone to buy it for you. Works for minors who want booze and cigarettes, and addicts who want prescription pharmaceuticals, why not for guns. Steal it. Unless you ban all ownership, that will still work for criminals, especially if newspapers are allowed to print shopping lists of owners.

I'll concede the point that criminals commit crimes. What I do think is that this talking point is never looked at in greater depth. Let's look at WHY it's so easy to steal guns, and perhaps try to combat that like Japan has. My brother-in-law keeps multiple assault rifles hanging on a wall in an unlocked house. I don't think he's a responsible owner, and I don't see why it's a "right" for him to do that while my parents have to keep a fence around their pool because it's an attractive nuisance. I'm all about responsible ownership relying on responsible handling and storage. Most of the gun issues we have in this country revolve around responsible storage and handling.

The Deacon wrote:As I mentioned before, it's illegal for a mentally ill person to buy or own a gun, and has been so for over 40 years. Hasn't worked up till now, why would yet another law help?

You don't stop this one at the buyer, you stop it at the vendor like with booze and alcohol. I recognize your previous point notes methods of circumvention, but those methods require more people to become criminals to aid in your criminal enterprise.

The Deacon wrote:As for China, haven't there been quite a few knife attacks at schools and other public places there in the past few years? Wasn't there another, far worse one, just a few months back? At any rate, the stricter laws governing knife ownership they passed after the attacks in 2010 don't seem to have worked very well, why do you think more gun laws here would have any meaningful effect?

There have been a ton of knife attacks in China. In the 80s there was a "Paring knife gang." They all have varying levels of lethality, but generally they are far less lethal than gun attacks because the primary tool is less efficient at killing. The knives being used are generally purposed for cooking, not shooting and killing things. Unlike Britain, China has no plans to get rid of cooking knives because they're addressing the problem as a mental health issue.

In response to the reasoning for the 2nd amendment as well:

The bill of rights is a piece of organizational genius. It's sequential.
1. You can say what you want and believe what you want.
2. In order to do that, you may have to fight the power, you have the right to have tools to do so.

The truth is, in our current world, we don't have the ability to fight the government anymore. It's silly to think we do. It's not muskets vs. cannons and muskets anymore. We don't have the tools to fight back, nor can we get them.

Tank wrote:Where did you get that I feel i might do something bad, im just saying it would be lots of fun to shoot but is that a good enough reason to make it legal as you suggested with regard to assault rifles.

You have me very curious now about seperating hunting and military rifles. In 1791 what was the difference between military rifles and hunting rifles? And from everything I have read on the subject I can not find any reference to talking about one or the other and the language of the ammendment is only arms so please show me where you found reference to the specific types of arms the ammendment was refering to. I'd acutally like to read about that.

It's a rhetorical question. If you don't fear doing harm with something you desire, why would you think it is a good idea to disallow yourself and others from owning that very object?

The Second Amendment doesn't specify so by definition it does not restrict.

SolidState wrote:In response to the reasoning for the 2nd amendment as well:

The bill of rights is a piece of organizational genius. It's sequential.
1. You can say what you want and believe what you want.
2. In order to do that, you may have to fight the power, you have the right to have tools to do so.

The truth is, in our current world, we don't have the ability to fight the government anymore. It's silly to think we do. It's not muskets vs. cannons and muskets anymore. We don't have the tools to fight back, nor can we get them.

Look at the war in the Middle East. I'm mot supporting a bunch of terrorists. And yes, many of them do have munitions. Still they lack a ton of items pictured on the left. Many fight with simple rifles or I.E.D.s . . . Where's the big victory? Where is President B. O. standing on a podium announcing the crushing defeat of the Taliban after every major, technologically advanced weapon in the U.S. military arsenal was brought to bear against them?

One, isolated, example? Hardly! Let's take a look at the I.R.A. (once again, not supporting a terrorist group). Realistically, British officials estimate only 200 active members. Including the visible political wing of the organization. How many years . . . no, not years. Scratch that. How many DECADES has the I.R.A. done its thing. Once again, without any sort of crushing victory from the Brits? Despite access to the same advanced military vehicles / weapons that the U.S. has.

Let's take a look at the former Soviet Union and their war in the Middle East back in the not too distant past. They ended up saying "Screw this," and pulled out of the middle east. Beaten by whom? You guessed it, the same type of Taliban fighters we're facing now. Back then the military might of the Soviet Union was nearly equal to ours.

It's not the kid with the biggest stick who can crush opposition with just a flick of his wrist. Doesn't work that way in real life. Two words, "Guerrilla Warfare." America relied on it to beat the British during the Revolutionary war. The I.R.A. is still relying on it. The Taliban used it quite well against the Soviets . . . And now doing the same against our own troops.

If you wish to believe that a small group of determined individuals can't beat a much larger and far more heavily armed force, then you go ahead. History proves you're wrong. But I guess History is overrated.

Monocrom wrote:Two words, "Guerrilla Warfare." America relied on it to beat the British during the Revolutionary war. The I.R.A. is still relying on it. The Taliban used it quite well against the Soviets . . . And now doing the same against our own troops.

If you wish to believe that a small group of determined individuals can't beat a much larger and far more heavily armed force, then you go ahead. History proves you're wrong. But I guess History is overrated.

You grossly oversimplify the influence of time and turnover in your overview of David v. Goliath. History proves a few things - it takes generations for guerrilla warfare to be effective, hence the decades in Colonial USA, modern Afghanistan or I.R.A. Ireland. Secondly, you need multiple generations to be raised hating an occupying power in order to fuel that fire. I'm pretty sure we're relatively satiated as a country.

That's not my argument. Rifles simply no longer offer single patriots the ability to combat military superpowers, no matter the size of the magazine. If anything, at its core, your argument is that breeding is the best defense against tyranny. Perhaps my children / nephews / children's children may prevail by being a slow and steady cash leak for a military force, but I won't fight the government for long with a couple rifles. I will be quickly dispatched.

Look at what's happening in Syria: basically other countries' devastating weapons are prohibiting the Syrian government from crushing the rebellion with its entire force. Ultimately, the U.N. is tying one hand behind the Syrian govt's back in a battle against citizen insurgents, and the fight is still going slowly.

Finally, you seem to be arguing that IEDs are some sort of 2nd-amendment-protected arms, which they are not. The Taliban, IRA etc. are using IEDs to cripple us, their rifle attacks don't go so well.

SolidState wrote: Finally, you seem to be arguing that IEDs are some sort of 2nd-amendment-protected arms, which they are not. The Taliban, IRA etc. are using IEDs to cripple us, their rifle attacks don't go so well.

There wasn't anything in your reply to refute the points I brought up. Once again, the side with the massive numbers of troops, vehicles, weapons, and generally heavy hardware . . . They don't win in a matter of weeks or even months by launching one or two crushing blows on a much weaker and smaller enemy force. Sorry, once again, History shows us otherwise.

As for oversimplification, have to disagree with you again. All it takes is one horrifically brutal act by "Goliath," to inspire great sympathy for poor little "David." (Ironically, you proved my point with that example. But as a Biblical one instead of a recognized historical fact, I didn't use that tale to make my point.) As for generations needed to go by to build up hatred for the U.S. government within the U.S., I've got some bad news for you. That's exactly the state we are in now with various different organized and armed groups. Yes, that condition exists now. Not when our grand-children or great grand-children are going to be fit, able-bodied adults. No. Now. So even if you were 100% right about that aspect. It already exists. It has already been built up over several generations. All it's going to take is for Goliath to flex his muscle just once, in one brutal act. That act won't bring a crushing victory. Not even remotely. But it will trigger things.

As for the quoted section above, don't put words in my mouth. I was very clear in my last post. I never reference the 2nd Amendment. I never said folks have a Constitutional right to I.E.D.s or explosives in general. I said (once again) that a small, determined, group armed only with basic firearms and I.E.D.s can, through the use of Guerrilla Warfare, prevent a much more massive and technologically advanced force with superior military weapons from achieving total victory. Once again, history bears that out.

Joining NRA for $25. Gives one a $ 25 bass pro gift card. See link https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/sign ... id=4487688

The whole concept is surreal to me. The government is wanting to take away rights of all people because of Rifles and shotguns that kill less people every year than peoples hands and feet in fights. ( well under 600 nationwide for all rifles & shotguns including so called assault weapons.) Look up the official stats. I'm not making this stuff up. Yes,hugely less than drunken driving, in fact regular auto accidents. Much Less than doctors kill in mistakes/malpractice and they are using as an example an incident where the monster involved killed someone to take their weapons. He could not have bought any"assault rifles" in Connecticut, a state with some of the strongest anti gun laws in the country, including an "assault rifle ban". No, the mother did not own anything illegal in Connecticut with it's AWB.

In addition, there's no "gun show" loophole anywhere I'm aware of. Where I am all dealers only sell to people who pass the background test from the FBI. It's state and federal law already. Private transactions as well have to get permits from the sheriff like anyone else, or go to jail if you get caught.There are local law enforcement and ATF that patrol under cover attempting to get people to make illegal sales and arrest those that do. Yet this is sold to the media as being a huge blockage to enforcing crime and would help make innocent Americans safer. The media and left consistently use mistakes and misinformation to make the problems much worse than they are, or invent problems that don't exist.

What this would do would cut down on the places owners can buy ammo so they can be tracked easier and or pay more. Gun shows are probably the largest ammo sellers to people who really have no one around selling things like 8mm ammo, 762X39,7.62X54R, 30-06, 30-30 etc. It tends to be inexpensive compared to the local gun stores if there are any that carry the caliber you need. These are typically going to be old collectors pieces like bolt action rifles from the 1890's to the 1950's. Not really your assault rifles either. They naturally also want to cut out internet sales of ammunition for the same reason. Speaking of assault rifles I don't need to get into the whole fallacy of the media and politicians calling them assault rifles as a way to make these rifles they hate scarier to those uninformed or uncaring.

All this from people who promised that they didn't want to "take away your" guns. Sure they don't. My question to those who sat here and stated Obama wasn't going to come after our guns, please tell me. Did you really believe that when you stated that here? From the Commander and chief that attempted to use false percentages of American guns found in Mexico, then ok'ed and helped ship truckloads there to make sure the numbers were shored up.We recall how that turned out, right? Anybody still want to defend him as one who had no anti gun agenda before the mass shootings ( except for the ones he relabeled workplace violence to show his record was clean on terrorist attacks under his leadership? Does anybody really think this is all due to shootings lately?

The guy that has likely ok'ed the killing of more innocen women & children family members in Pakistan and Afghanistan and who knows where else ( Sudan, Libya) by drones by far than were murdered in Connecticut is calling for more laws at the same time he initials all drone strikes including the ones killing entire families.Where's the disconnect? I personally would never sell him a gun knowing what I do about him. There's a thing called personal responsibility that we seem to have forgot en mass in this country. My sense tells me not to even sell him a pocket knife to be honest.

Does anybody really want to tell me that gun control activists really only want to take away the "assault rifles", and nothing else? Does anybody really believe that? How about the whole argument the " gun isn't needed for hunting". Is that supposed to be some kind of a disqualification? The 2nd amendment is not about hunting rifles, or suitability as such, like it or not.

I could go on but there is no point. I honestly don't want to insult in any way any forum members who have honestly gained my respect over the years. I do actually want to know if you actually think these will be enough to satisfy the anti gun crowd or will there always be just one more law and then we will actually be safe?

Joe