Guns

[Anes]

you made up opinions for him.

I did not. I noticed something in his post and pointed it out. No one took issue with it while America was asleep overnight.

 

[Danoff]

What he did say in his post is basically "damn, I'm not allowed to carry a gun" instead of "things are so bad I have to carry a gun to feel safe".

Where I was headed, south central Los Angeles, an area notorious for gang-related violence, does indeed exist because of other problems that I'd be happy if our city addressed. That doesn't change any of what I wrote above. There will always be criminals, they will always concentrate in certain regions, and I will always have a heightened awareness for personal safety when traveling in those areas. My right to defend myself exists for this purpose.

I've been voting for these changes to be made since I got here. In the meantime, I can't wait for my government to pull its head out of its rear.

Silly of me to talk ill of america in a gun thread tho

Silly of you to assume that was your mistake. We're all in agreement, America needs improvement. I don't know how you draw the conclusion that I argue for my right to self-defense out of a sense of American perfection. The right to self-defense exists out of an acknowledgement that human beings are not perfect, and cannot be made to be so. No one is bothering you about "talking ill of america". Please feel free to actually read what is being written here rather than assuming it.

 

[Dotini]

On the contrary, i think is is very easy to confirm. let me ask you a question first before we continue...

I have studied the main cause for the war of independence and the massive influx into the US mainly from European nations ever since the founding of the US and its constitution, so i know what i am talking about...the question is...is your Govt legal (legal according to your constitution) and constitutional?

Okay, I'll take that bait!

My opinion is that the US government is legal in the broad sense that it follows the main contours of the Constitution in its separation of powers between the Congressional, Executive and Judiciary branches. However, we have significantly deviated from the true path in many well-known instances, including Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, creation of the Federal Reserve during the McKinley/ (T) Roosevelt era, departure from the gold standard under (F) Roosevelt and Nixon. If in fact Kennedy was assassinated with connivance or knowledge of his own Secret Service or any other agency of government, then that too would constitute a grave departure from the Constitution, and a coup d'etat, as you say. However, this last still needs to be proven. Pray do.

On a side note, I think it possible Secretary of War Stanton and General Lafayette Baker of the National Secret Service may have been involved in the Lincoln assassination scenario.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Danoff]

...is your Govt legal (legal according to your constitution) and constitutional?

Easy. No.

 

[Sureboss]

You need one of these:

👍

Easy. No.

For those of us who are uneducated on American political history and the background of current politics, could you explain why? I'm intrgued.

 

[OG_Wretch]

It was created out of a state of relative chaos by a few very cavalier but wise men.

It wasn't constitutional how they did it but they didn't create it under a constitution.

Therefore how can it be consitutional if there wasn't one in place already?

 

[FoolKiller]

I did not. I noticed something in his post and pointed it out.

Then you can explain to me, because I don't follow it, how you got this:

it doesn't bother you that your country is so far down the toilet that you have to carry a gun to feel safe.

From this:

Tonight I find myself having to make a trip to the wrong part of Los Angeles at night, and possibly having to hang around in my car. I sorely want to take one of my handguns with me for self defense, but it is illegal for me to do so. I've talked myself out of breaking the law and taking my gun anyway, but I'm taking a chance by doing that.

It irks me to no end that my law-abiding self has to leave my best tool for self defense at home because of the law when criminals will not think twice about arming themselves.

Because right now all I see is you claiming Danoff has an opinion that he never stated, aka made it up. Prove otherwise. Show me where he expresses the opinion you claim he has.

No one took issue with it while America was asleep overnight.

I have no clue what this has to do with anything.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

And I get your angle BrutherSuperior of 'for protection' but they're cops, it's what they are paid to do and it's why the general population doesn't carry guns whereas in America the general population still carry guns even though your police force is far more visable and active.

Bad things can happen to good people. Simple as that really.

No one expects to be mugged, have their home broken into, or be in the wrong place at the wrong time...but it happens. Things like this usually make the evening news and/or local newspaper b/c situations like that are so rare. Owning a gun is an insurance policy as criminals are usually of the repeat variety and don't really care about the rights of others and they think they can get away with it. Guns are a deterrent, that's why crime rates are lower in carry states.

No one really needs a gun...until they need it. This includes cops. This is why most cops still carry a weapon even if they're off-duty and in normal clothes. **** happens and you're not warned ahead of time.

Think of it like health insurance. You don't need it until you need it. You don't know when you're going to become ill or get injured, but when you do, you're protected.

Likewise, you never know when you're about to be mugged or when your home is going to be broken into it, but if that happens, you're protected.

 

[Danoff]

For those of us who are uneducated on American political history and the background of current politics, could you explain why? I'm intrgued.

[Offtopic]
There are many examples, but the most straightforward is congress's delegation of legislation authority to regulatory agencies. The constitution dictates that congress cannot delegate its regulatory authority, congress alone has the power to legislate. Yet congress has created a sea of regulatory agencies (such as the TSA, FDA, EPA, OSHA, etc. ad nauseam) whose sole purpose is to make regulations (law). The reason congress is not allowed to delegate its regulatory authority is because congress is elected by the people, and those appointed to the regulatory agencies are not. If you're not happy with TSA regulations, who do you vote against and how do you convey with your vote that you'd like the TSA regulations changed? This is the reason these regulatory agencies (which create reams of law for US citizens) are unconstitutional (and rightfully so) and represent a massive portion of US government and law that is unconstitutional and therefore illegitimate.

If you want another example of illegitimate powers, check out the interstate commerce clause.
[/Offtopic]

 

[drivingmeinsane]

Here are two of the most interesting and provocative statements yet made in this thread. There may be some intuitive appeal to one or both ideas, but neither can be confirmed as truth by historians, politicians or even gun nuts.

Okay, I'll take that bait!

My opinion is that the US government is legal in the broad sense that it follows the main contours of the Constitution in its separation of powers between the Congressional, Executive and Judiciary branches. However, we have significantly deviated from the true path in many well-known instances, including Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, creation of the Federal Reserve during the McKinley/ (T) Roosevelt era, departure from the gold standard under (F) Roosevelt and Nixon. If in fact Kennedy was assassinated with connivance or knowledge of his own Secret Service or any other agency of government, then that too would constitute a grave departure from the Constitution, and a coup d'etat, as you say. However, this last still needs to be proven. Pray do.

On a side note, I think it possible Secretary of War Stanton and General Lafayette Baker of the National Secret Service may have been involved in the Lincoln assassination scenario.

Respectfully,
Dotini

With the greatest respects (and this is NOT an anti-US post/rant because we in the UK have the same problems you do), How can a US Govt be legal when the constitution has clearly defined what is legal with regards to money? Also, the supreme court has ruled on more than 1 occasion that the 16th amendment granted the Govt no new powers of taxation, and yet you have an agency on your land that does exactly what is forbidden by the constitution, and every president since the days of Washington has been aware of the dangers of a central bank.

To expand, you have inside your boarder a foreign privately owned for-profit corporation operating on your shores when it is strictly forbidden, and a president upon being sworn in to office swears by almighty god he will protect and defend the constitution. it is also the presidents sworn duty to protect every citizen of the US...so why do presidents allow a foreign entity to come into your land and seize your belongings if you don't pay an illegal tax, does this act of betrayal not make a president guilty after the fact?
How about the TSA and it's unconstitutional acts of searches without warrants? i could go on and on, but the point remains...

By the same token, in the UK constitution it says words to the affect of "parliament may do many things but what it may not do is hand control/authority (can't remember which) of the nation to a foreign power", and yet we have laws and regulations coming out of Brussels which are adopted by our nation...this is an act of treason and sedition started by Ted Heath in the 70's, and every Govt since then is guilty after the fact...that makes everything they have done for the past 40+ years completely illegal.

Respectfully,
G


PS, With regards to the JFK assassination, have you ever heard of E Howard Hunt?

 

[Dotini]

With the greatest respects (and this is NOT an anti-US post/rant because we in the UK have the same problems you do), How can a US Govt be legal when the constitution has clearly defined what is legal with regards to money? Also, the supreme court has ruled on more than 1 occasion that the 16th amendment granted the Govt no new powers of taxation, and yet you have an agency on your land that does exactly what is forbidden by the constitution, and every president since the days of Washington has been aware of the dangers of a central bank.

To expand, you have inside your boarder a foreign privately owned for-profit corporation operating on your shores when it is strictly forbidden, and a president upon being sworn in to office swears by almighty god he will protect and defend the constitution. it is also the presidents sworn duty to protect every citizen of the US...so why do presidents allow a foreign entity to come into your land and seize your belongings if you don't pay an illegal tax, does this act of betrayal not make a president guilty after the fact?
How about the TSA and it's unconstitutional acts of searches without warrants? i could go on and on, but the point remains...

By the same token, in the UK constitution it says words to the affect of "parliament may do many things but what it may not do is hand control/authority (can't remember which) of the nation to a foreign power", and yet we have laws and regulations coming out of Brussels which are adopted by our nation...this is an act of treason and sedition started by Ted Heath in the 70's, and every Govt since then is guilty after the fact...that makes everything they have done for the past 40+ years completely illegal.

Respectfully,
G


PS, With regards to the JFK assassination, have you ever heard of E Howard Hunt?

Dear "G",

Thanks for your very thoughtful remarks and concerns. It is clear that there are numerous issues, contradictions, paradoxes and problems with respect to the Constitution of the US and how it is obeyed or ignored as it suits the various agencies and individuals in government. In a rapidly expanding nation with a penchant for pragmatic solutions, this is perhaps to be expected, even though it does lead to a certain amount of cognitive dissonance, i.e., mental disorder. My biggest personal gripe is that our spineless Congresses over the last 60 years have totally abdicated it's Constitutional responsibility to declare war, and allowed this to fall into the hands of feckless Presidents. All of this could be dismissed as unimportant if the US were still prosperous and winning its wars. We're not, so a few people who know history, finance and law will become alarmed. Fortunately, or unfortunately, most Americans will remain in blissful ignorance of all this. This is because they have become slaves to super-high quality entertainment as exemplified in GT5, NASCAR, NFL, Hollywood, iphone, ipod, internet pornography, cheap booze and drugs. Most Americans would rather shoot off their guns, shoot off their mouths or shoot off their wads in preference to reading a book. If you are looking to the knuckle-dragging morons, bigots and dinosaurs of GTP to somehow save the world, you can forget about it.

E Howard Hunt was a notorious CIA agent convicted in the Watergate affair. He became a successful novelist and made a deathbed confession of his and other CIA agents involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Most Americans no longer care about this, and would prefer to look at Lady GaGa's tits rather than to open a closed case. No court or criminal investigation agency will touch Hunt's confession with a ten foot pole.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[OG_Wretch]

That is some serious pent up rage there Dontini.

I hope for your own well being you get it resolved.

We all take a turn on the wheel to do what we can and then step out of the way for the next group to give a go.
Most everyone is merely average and will only ever be average if they are lucky.
Every eingle one makes mistakes and a few even go on to do wrong.
So who is responsible for the wrong, the one who missed the wrong being done or the wrong doer?

You are obviously one of the Elites and deserve special despensation for your abilities to focus blame in on everyone else for all wrongs done.

Speak for your part and give everyone else a by since you have not walked in their shoes far enough to pass such judgement.

I might suggest splitting firewood to work out that anger but please do whatever you can for some resolution.

Being a cynical/bitter old man is no way to pass through the golden years.

 

[Dotini]

That is some serious pent up rage there Dontini.

I hope for your own well being you get it resolved.

We all take a turn on the wheel to do what we can and then step out of the way for the next group to give a go.
Most everyone is merely average and will only ever be average if they are lucky.
Every eingle one makes mistakes and a few even go on the do wrong.
So who is responsible for the wrong, the one who missed the wrong being done or the wrong doer?

You are obviously one of the Elites and deserve special despensation for your abilities to focus blame in on everyone else for all wrongs done.

Speak for your part and give everyone else a by since you have not walked in their shoes far enough to pass such judgement.

I might suggest splitting firewood to work out that anger but please do whatever you can for some resolution.

Being a cynical/bitter old man is no way to pass through the golden years.

Thanks, OG Wretch. I take your concern as well-meaning and heartfelt. I'm heading to Laguna Seca to race my kart this weekend. As a racer, I'm inherently an aggressive dick with anger issues. By next week I'll be I'll better mood.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[OG_Wretch]

It was indeed honest and heartfelt concern.

When posted words can hit an old piece of sunbaked rawhide like me then there's something there.

Racing will put a bandaid on it but is a good distraction.

The axe hitting the imagined person/thing that's at issue put to words makes any such issue smaller.

 

[Dotini]

It was indeed honest and heartfelt concern.

When posted words can hit an old piece of sunbaked rawhide like me then there's something there.

Racing will put a bandaid on it but is a good distraction.

The axe hitting the imagined person/thing that's at issue put to words makes any such issue smaller.

Next week I will repair to my fishing cabin and do some wood-splitting. Whenever you're in the northwest, drop me a line and stop by for a visit.

all the best,
Dotini

 

[OG_Wretch]

Next week I will repair to my fishing cabin and do some wood-splitting. Whenever you're in the northwest, drop me a line and stop by for a visit.

all the best,
Dotini

I would love to get up that way as I have some bike riding friends up there
and even an old salt up in there near you who does a bit of crab fishing that offered a trip.

Unfortunately, I'm physically unable to get about like I once was.
Something about being bulletproof and ten feet tall as a youth I recall as the issue.

I'd dearly love to get into some shiftercart racing but again cannot due to the body.
I do miss riding my motorcycle for that thrill of acceleration and have to settle with racing sims for my speed fix.

It is beautiful country up there as I recall with plenty of room to get away from it all.
Way better stuff to focus on other than the crap we get up to in the "civilized" parts of the country.

 

[drivingmeinsane]

Dear "G",

Thanks for your very thoughtful remarks and concerns. It is clear that there are numerous issues, contradictions, paradoxes and problems with respect to the Constitution of the US and how it is obeyed or ignored as it suits the various agencies and individuals in government. In a rapidly expanding nation with a penchant for pragmatic solutions, this is perhaps to be expected, even though it does lead to a certain amount of cognitive dissonance, i.e., mental disorder. My biggest personal gripe is that our spineless Congresses over the last 60 years have totally abdicated it's Constitutional responsibility to declare war, and allowed this to fall into the hands of feckless Presidents. All of this could be dismissed as unimportant if the US were still prosperous and winning its wars. We're not, so a few people who know history, finance and law will become alarmed. Fortunately, or unfortunately, most Americans will remain in blissful ignorance of all this. This is because they have become slaves to super-high quality entertainment as exemplified in GT5, NASCAR, NFL, Hollywood, iphone, ipod, internet pornography, cheap booze and drugs. Most Americans would rather shoot off their guns, shoot off their mouths or shoot off their wads in preference to reading a book. If you are looking to the knuckle-dragging morons, bigots and dinosaurs of GTP to somehow save the world, you can forget about it.

E Howard Hunt was a notorious CIA agent convicted in the Watergate affair. He became a successful novelist and made a deathbed confession of his and other CIA agents involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Most Americans no longer care about this, and would prefer to look at Lady GaGa's tits rather than to open a closed case. No court or criminal investigation agency will touch Hunt's confession with a ten foot pole.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

Dear Dotini,

I see i am preaching to the converted


G

 

[Mercenary_Wez]

I love the topic of gun control, especially when there are people discussing a total ban. People have been killing one another for a very long time. Oh yes, they did it even before there were guns. So if there was an entire ban, and every single gun on the planet were melted down, people would still find a way to kill. There will always be bad people, taking away the guns does not remove the bad people from society. I choose to protect myself. I am not paranoid, I also do not brag of this. Here is a good read of what I am talking about:
http://mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

I do like the idea of moderate control. Sure, we dont need fully automatic weapons. Of course some people should never have access to one.

 

[jswilli1]

I love the topic of gun control, especially when there are people discussing a total ban. People have been killing one another for a very long time. Oh yes, they did it even before there were guns. So if there was an entire ban, and every single gun on the planet were melted down, people would still find a way to kill. There will always be bad people, taking away the guns does not remove the bad people from society. I choose to protect myself. I am not paranoid, I also do not brag of this. Here is a good read of what I am talking about:
http://mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

I do like the idea of moderate control. Sure, we dont need fully automatic weapons. Of course some people should never have access to one.

Thanks for sharing that article, it is a great read for people who carry CCW but also for the ones who are against it. I guess sometimes I am a Sheepdog in Sheep's clothing and I should just say "Baa". Honestly as the CCW laws and where you can carry become more relaxed I would carry far more frequently. Every business I frequent I look at the entrance for the "sign" that states that CCW is not allowed. Texas is an easy state as there is only one sign that can be posted and that is the 30-06 sign. Here in NM most of that signage is coming down since they passed legislature that allows CCW in establishments that serve alcohol as long as 60% of profits don't come from alcohol sales.

 

[Mercenary_Wez]

Thanks for sharing that article, it is a great read for people who carry CCW but also for the ones who are against it. I guess sometimes I am a Sheepdog in Sheep's clothing and I should just say "Baa". Honestly as the CCW laws and where you can carry become more relaxed I would carry far more frequently. Every business I frequent I look at the entrance for the "sign" that states that CCW is not allowed. Texas is an easy state as there is only one sign that can be posted and that is the 30-06 sign. Here in NM most of that signage is coming down since they passed legislature that allows CCW in establishments that serve alcohol as long as 60% of profits don't come from alcohol sales.

Eh it could be said that anytime you leave the house without your carry, you are a sheep. I dont think that is the case though. As far as places you cant go, when I got my CCW in Fl one of the places it said I could not go is a place of nuisance. WTF is a place of nuisance?

 

[Blank_Redge]

I support moderate gun control.

I believe law abiding citizens should have access to means to defend life, family, and property, without having to wait for the local police to arrive, ESPECIALLY in immediate, dire circumstances.

That said, I believe there should be basic competency / safety classes that have to be taken before one is issued an ownership license or permit, and I believe that it should be renewed at least as often as a driver's license (if not more frequently, in those areas where drivers licenses are good for ten years or more.)

 

[NFSCARBON1]

I'm undecided on this. No amount of gun control other than a carpet ban will prevent that one gun owner in a million who flips and uses it to kill someone. However those who use their guns legally they will feel unfairly penalised that it's being taken off them in case they lose the plot and go on the rampage , in which case cars would also need to be banned.

 

[Blank_Redge]

No amount of gun control other than a carpet ban will prevent that one gun owner in a million who flips and uses it to kill someone.

Michael Moore brought up some good points in his movie Bowling for Columbine, noting that the United States has a disproportionate number of gun related crimes, in relation to other first-world countries.

However, what I'd be interested in seeing is: a list of first-world countries that allow their citizenry to own firearms, and then see, as a percentage of the total number of legal gun owners, the number of gun-related crimes.

There's an oft-repeated saying of the pro-gun lobby here: if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. While it might seem like an empty platitude, there's some amount of truth in it. Among possibilities, guns can find their way into the hands of criminals through two routes:

-guns stolen from legal gun owners
-"strawmen" that legally buy guns, then have those guns "stolen"

(For the latter, I'd expect they'd only be able to go to the well so many times, before the well ran dry, as it were. I can only image that someone who keeps getting guns "stolen" from them wouldn't be able to repeatedly buy firearms.)

If we remove the supply of guns to the citizenry, these two avenues are, for the most part, cut off. (Except for those exceptionally foolhardy and lucky thieves who steal guns from the homes of police!) But, if networks continue to exist to smuggle and move drugs, undesirables will continue to have networks to obtain guns.

This is not to say that I desire to own a gun, in the event that I have to fend off a Columbian drug cartel. But, I have to wonder what the percentages of gun crime would look like, if guns weren't avaiable to the common citizenry.


I suppose this part is moot, anyways; guns are woven into the mythos of America; the idea of the "frontiersmen" and "trailblazers" that tamed a "savage land." The iconography of the gun is woven in to the "rugged individualism" mythos here. I don't see our citizenry giving up their guns without a long, drawn out fight.

 

[Danoff]

Among possibilities, guns can find their way into the hands of criminals through two routes:

-guns stolen from legal gun owners
-"strawmen" that legally buy guns, then have those guns "stolen"

I put the important part in bold. Not only can we not control guns entering our country, we can't control people entering our country. Criminals often use illegal guns anyway - because the legal ones aren't as capable.

That begin said, if we could eliminate all guns in the US and keep them eliminated, would I feel safer? Absolutely not. Right now if a 240 lb (all muscle) 6' 5", 21 year old guy breaks into my house with a gun, I'm on an even playing field because I have my own gun. If that same guy breaks into my house with a knife, and all I have is a knife, I'm suddenly at a huge disadvantage. In short, I'd rather the criminals have guns if it means I can have mine. It's a more fair fight for me, and definitely for my grandmother. If that means a larger percentage of our crime involves guns, I'm more than happy to trade a statistic that looks bad for improved security.

 

[Blank_Redge]

...if we could eliminate all guns in the US and keep them eliminated, would I feel safer? Absolutely not. Right now if a 240 lb (all muscle) 6' 5", 21 year old guy breaks into my house with a gun, I'm on an even playing field because I have my own gun. If that same guy breaks into my house with a knife, and all I have is a knife, I'm suddenly at a huge disadvantage.

Bingo.

Despite the problems they might introduce, guns *are* the great equalizer, in a scenario where you're in immediate danger from a hostile person that otherwise has physical advantage over you.

I'll go so far as to say that they can sometimes be a deterrent, able to quash the situation and sending the bad guy running, *without* having to shoot him. Last I checked, most people don't want to run the risk of getting shot, particuarly if they're looking dow the business end of something with a large caliber or large gauge opening.

 

[Blank_Redge]

Criminals often use illegal guns anyway - because the legal ones aren't as capable.

Oh! Just wanted to touch on this.

My family has access to a legal .44 and a legal .45. Given FBI one-shot-stop shooting statistics and ballistic gelatin tests, I'm very confident that they perform as well as illegal guns.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

This is not to say that I desire to own a gun, in the event that I have to fend off a Columbian drug cartel. But, I have to wonder what the percentages of gun crime would look like, if guns weren't avaiable to the common citizenry.

Look at Mexico.

Very difficult to buy a gun legally. Those automatic and high powered weapons you hear about on TV; the drug runners get them from via military & police. The only people who cannot arm themselves are the innocent.

The Mexican army/law enforcement get their weapons from the US. If the US no longer produced weapons and all gun stores were closed...criminals would still acquire weapons. China & Russia would sell them to Mexico's army/police in a heartbeat. If someone's willing to buy something, it will be made available for sale...just like drugs.

And like illegals, those guns would cross the border by the hundreds of thousands and the only people with guns would be criminals.

 

[Blank_Redge]

Look at Mexico.

Very difficult to buy a gun legally. Those automatic and high powered weapons you hear about on TV; the drug runners get them from via military & police. The only people who cannot arm themselves are the innocent.

Yeah; Mexico is a whole other can of worms. Corruption in all levels of government.

 

[Joel]

Oh! Just wanted to touch on this.

My family has access to a legal .44 and a legal .45. Given FBI one-shot-stop shooting statistics and ballistic gelatin tests, I'm very confident that they perform as well as illegal guns.

I think what he was getting at is that a criminal would rather arm himself with an illegal 7.62 automatic rifle than grampa's break barrel 12 gauge. There are some very potent legal firearms, but in terms of pure firepower, most illegal automatic firearms are unmatched.

 

[Blank_Redge]

I think what he was getting at is that a criminal would rather arm himself with an illegal 7.62 automatic rifle than grampa's break barrel 12 gauge. There are some very potent legal firearms, but in terms of pure firepower, most illegal automatic firearms are unmatched.

I don't have statistics handy, but I'm pretty sure most petty burglars aren't packing AK's. I'd wager that most violent gun crime isn't carried out with the big heat like that.

(Again, pure conjecture; I could very well be completely talking out of my arse.)