Unpopular or Not: For Open Minds This May Make You Think:

Unpopular or Not: For Open Minds This May Make You Think:

This is a discussion on Unpopular or Not: For Open Minds This May Make You Think: within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; My opinion about Freedom and Guns and Regulation of Guns always included both, I guess best mirrored by a huge majority of the American People ...

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 90
Like Tree90Likes

Thread: Unpopular or Not: For Open Minds This May Make You Think:

  1. #1
    Ex Member Array walleye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    erie PA
    Posts
    677

    Unpopular or Not: For Open Minds This May Make You Think:

    My opinion about Freedom and Guns and Regulation of Guns always included both, I guess best mirrored by a huge majority of the American People as revealed in polls and other determinants of public opinion during the recent Heller/Supreme Court Opinion - and was mirrored in turn by the actual Opinion: a judicious mix of Freedom with stated limits on the extent of what the Opinion included. Those opinions of both the public and essentially the Court: The Second A grants freedom to own guns but is a freedom that should be regulated. (In the Courts Opinion, it carefully said it was not including Freedoms for every and all methods of Carry, every and all gun types, all people wanting guns - and several other caveats were included).

    I think this article has some good points therefore and share it with folks who have the ability to listen and take in a wide swath of opinions and are not blinded by their own. Once you're blinded you become ignorant.

    When will America Wake Up to Gun Violence?
    By John J. Donohue, Special to CNN


    Editor's note: John J. Donohue is C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith professor of law at Stanford Law School and research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

    (CNN) -- Last night's shooting rampage at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, was a nightmare. Authorities have already arrested a suspect. Four weapons were recovered in the shooting scene, including a shotgun and two handguns. Twelve people have been killed, with many more injured. According to law enforcement officials, the weapons were purchased legally by the suspect in the last six months.....


    When will America wake up to gun violence? - CNN.com
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And a quick one from one of many high Police Officials calling for restrictions in some of these areas

    “I have an issue with people being able to buy ammunition and weapons on the Internet,” Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey of the Philadelphia police said on the ABC program “This Week” on Sunday. “I don’t know why people need to have assault weapons. There needs to be reasonable gun control put in place." (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/us...pagewanted=all)

    Fact, I pay more attention to what LEO's say about these things than I do the extreme Right or Left. Most seem aligned with the view I first described. Whether I'm reading statements from DAs, Police Officials, or just talking to individual officers I know, most are in that place. Fine with me, they live on the streets with the results.
    Last edited by walleye; July 25th, 2012 at 03:03 AM.


  2. #2
    Member Array tet4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    183
    Why would you listen to LEOs - a lot of police chiefs wouldn't know the constitution if it bit them in the butt. Why don't you read what the founding fathers had to say about gun control and the possession of arms and liberty? That seems like the best place to start for me.

    Just apply religion to that test you pasted and see how well it reads. Or, apply the freedom of speech and see how well it reads. BTW, the concept of access based on 'need' is so communist that it's repulsive. Did you pick that up?

    I don’t know why people need ...

    That is the telltale sign of someone not understanding what true freedom is all about.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array Freedom Doc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    875
    Laws that pertain to restricting the purchase of firearms only affect the law-abiding. How many times do we have to say this!
    Anti-gunners seem to believe that if we just pass enough laws, we can have utopia. Unfortunately, utopia is NOT one of our choices.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array NH_Esau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    943
    It makes me think. I still think it's the wrong answer.

    The Aurora killer violated all kinds of laws in the leadup to his ultimate illegal act. Folks with good reason to be suspicious played the part of the bystander. Had he been deprived of the opportunity to purchase firearms and ammunition, I have no doubt that this intelligent but twisted individual would have found another way to kill. I'm with Grossman in believing the activities, media, and culture he (and his parents) willingly exposed himself to had a lot more to do with his mindset and actions than the tools with which he chose to execute.

    We could go much further in our regulation or outright bans of guns, vehicles, fertilizer, diesel fuel, peroxides, and propane, but is the presumed atmosphere of safety worth the loss of liberty? Would the same people who would argue for draconian regulation/banning of movies, games, pornography, literature, drugs, alcohol, TV, speech, or other personal activities/pursuits?

    I'm torn between libertarian and republican (the dictionary definition, not the party) views of the role of government, and I believe in reasonable limits to the exercise of our liberties. For instance, I'm completely cool with an age restriction on the purchase of firearms - I think it should be the age of majority, or with parent's permission and presence. I would completely support a law that encouraged a minimum level of training - imposing stiffer sentences for instance, if a person without such training used a firearm and injured/killed a bystander (not an aggressor).

    But to present the Aussie ban as a standard for us to emulate? Nope. I can't accept that.

    I do agree that those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.

    (Edit=- returned to finish my thought)
    Badey and Dutch1951 like this.

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    21,539
    Fact, I pay more attention to what LEO's say about these things than I do the extreme Right or Left. Most seem aligned with the view I first described. Whether I'm reading statements from DAs, Police Officials, or just talking to individual officers I know, most are in that place. Fine with me, they live with on the streets with the results.
    Putting credence to the street LEO may have some merit, putting credence to the words of a politically appointed Chief of Police is another story.
    Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.

    USAF Retired
    NRA Life Member

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array Rotorblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SurfCity
    Posts
    541
    My ramblings....

    It would be interesting to see how many high capacity "assault" weapon mass shooting victims there have been in the last 15 years compared to the sales of high capacity "assault" weapons. My guess is that the number is very low.

    What the folks in other nations don't get (like Australia/UK), is that to truly be free, there will be a cost associated. Someone will always be there to abuse their freedom resulting in a large contingent clamoring for those freedoms to be removed in the name of public safety/security. This is why terrorists are so effective. Look what a few chuckleheads did to airline travel after 9-11.

    I don't know about other states but where I live, if you purchase a gun on the internet it gets shipped to your local FFL and from there it's no different then if you bought it in his store, 10 day waiting period, background check etc. Why all the hoopla about the internet?

    One other thing....I keep reading about how this clown was wearing a bullet proof vest, wasn't that tactical vest simply a nylon shooters vest?
    bigmacque, Bad Bob and JerryMac like this.
    To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last - but eat you he will.
    Ronald Reagan

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,086
    One of the worst massacres in the history of the U.S. (committed by a single person) was committed by a guy with a 6 shot revolver and a hunting knife...

    He managed to kill 30 and wound 15. so much for regulation helping...

    Campo Elías Delgado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    Quote Originally Posted by NH_Esau View Post
    It makes me think. I still think it's the wrong answer.

    The Aurora killer violated all kinds of laws in the leadup to his ultimate illegal act. Folks with good reason to be suspicious played the part of the bystander. Had he been deprived of the opportunity to purchase firearms and ammunition, I have no doubt that this intelligent but twisted individual would have found another way to kill. I'm with Grossman in believing the activities, media, and culture he (and his parents) willingly exposed himself to had a lot more to do with his mindset and actions than the tools with which he chose to execute.

    We could go much further in our regulation or outright bans of guns, vehicles, fertilizer, diesel fuel, peroxides, and propane, but is the presumed atmosphere of safety worth the loss of liberty? Would the same people who would argue for draconian regulation/banning of movies, games, pornography, literature, drugs, alcohol, TV, speech, or other personal activities/pursuits?

    I'm torn between libertarian and republican (the dictionary definition, not the party) views of the role of government, and I believe in reasonable limits to the exercise of our liberties. For instance, I'm completely cool with an age restriction on the purchase of firearms - I think it should be the age of majority, or with parent's permission and presence. I would completely support a law that encouraged a minimum level of training - imposing stiffer sentences for instance, if a person without such training used a firearm and injured/killed a bystander (not an aggressor).

    But to present the Aussie ban as a standard for us to emulate? Nope. I can't accept that.

    but I do agree that those who sacrifice liberty for safety
    Excuse me? First I do not think any law is needed to encourage any activity that suppose to be a right. As far as your example of an "untrained person" haviing a harsher sentence than a trained person is IMO ridiculus. First of all you are saying that whatever training someone officially has is good. From what I have seen of CCW classes they are very poor. The firing requirements are a joke. And you would say that someone that goes to the range a lot, trains realistically on their own, should be treated differently than a person that does a one time mandatory class that does not even come close to any RL situation. And with that 'training' they still performed the same as the guy who is not trained.
    Last edited by Rock and Glock; July 24th, 2012 at 10:17 AM. Reason: Added "are very poor"
    Guest1 likes this.

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    One of the worst massacres in the history of the U.S. (committed by a single person) was committed by a guy with a 6 shot revolver and a hunting knife... He managed to kill 30 and wound 15. so much for regulation helping... Campo Elías Delgado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    That occurred in Bogota, Columbia, by a Columbian national, didn't it??
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  10. #10
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,786
    This guy was willing to kill someone. How much more clearly can we illustrate that if someone is willing to break that law -- murder, the 6th commandment -- then how is any other law going to prevent them from doing something?
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

  11. #11
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,489
    I think that the Police killed most of teh "victims" in their rescue attempt, in a foregin country. This does not really apply here IMO.


    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    One of the worst massacres in the history of the U.S. (committed by a single person) was committed by a guy with a 6 shot revolver and a hunting knife...

    He managed to kill 30 and wound 15. so much for regulation helping...

    Campo Elías Delgado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array NH_Esau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Excuse me? First I do not think any law is needed to encourage any activity that suppose to be a right. As far as your example of an "untrained person" haviing a harsher sentence than a trained person is IMO ridiculus. First of all you are saying that whatever training someone officially has is good. From what I have seen of CCW classes they suck. The firing requirements are a joke. And you would say that someone that goes to the range a lot, trains realistically on their own, should be treated differently than a person that does a one time mandatory class that does not even come close to any RL situation. And with that 'training' they still performed the same as the guy who is not trained.

    I'm not saying you should be required to have the training to exercise the right. I do think some laws can be framed to encourage the responsible exercise of that right. For instance, I don't believe you should be required to wear a seatbelt in a car or a helmet on a bike/motorcycle as you pursue happiness. But if your failure to do so is shown to increase the severity of your injuries in an accident, I support legal limits on your eligiblity for damages and government assistance (along the lines of the "line of duty determination" that by your photo I'm sure you're aware of).

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    To the OP: I agree with you about the NRA. Dis agree in general about LEO's. Sorry LEO's but this is from personal experience living in many communities and this is not meant as LEO bashing. In fact, by dis agreeing with the OP in of it self does not mean that LEO's are bad folks or anything. I know most are very dedicated and professional in what they do.

    But, in my 40 adult years this is my perception of LEO's from knowing them as friends and dealing with them from traffic stops to other interactions with them. First I will mention MWAG calls becasue in my experience (twice) they were perfect. Never asked for ID, just rolled down their window, said hello, explained their was a call, and went on their way. Now as far as the other stuff. I have/had 17 LEO firends/relatives. All want more gun control to varying degrees. 8 feel that unless you train as much as a LEO you should not carry in public..blah blah. The others want more background checks, limits on this and that.
    My perception from dealing with LEO's is that they feel that they know more than the citizen (I understand that they need to portray authority) but it is laughable when you ask them a pointed question they don't know and they get close lipped and twice hostile. I was at our local range in NH and some LEO's were there practicing for their annual qualifications (which I admit is admirable since the department gives them squat for ammo to practice) and they saw me shooting and a couple were trying to give me pointers. That is fine and annoying, happens at every range with all walks of life. But then they have to drop the LEO card like it makes them experts. I politely said thank you but n thank you. One dude would not let it go and said someday that gun may save your life. You need to know how to use it. That set me off since I know that none of these officers most likely has ever had to draw their sidearm. And one did lament that NH needs to have formal training if one wants to carry.
    sensei2 likes this.

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    Quote Originally Posted by NH_Esau View Post
    I'm not saying you should be required to have the training to exercise the right. I do think some laws can be framed to encourage the responsible exercise of that right. For instance, I don't believe you should be required to wear a seatbelt in a car or a helmet on a bike/motorcycle as you pursue happiness. But if your failure to do so is shown to increase the severity of your injuries in an accident, I support legal limits on your eligiblity for damages and government assistance (along the lines of the "line of duty determination" that by your photo I'm sure you're aware of).
    I read what your wrote and perfectly understood it. You want formal training encouraged like that is going to change anything. I disagree. If you miss the BG and hit a bystander it can happen whether you have training or not. Now you unilaterally tipped the scales against the person who had no formal training. Formal training (as far as CCW classes) do not prepare you for a RL situation. Errant shots happen becuase of stress, incorrect target identification, and poor marksmanship. One formal class will not help IMO. But you have your opinion and that is fine.

    edit: I of course encourage folks to get formal training. That includes H2H and staying in shape physically and mentally. I just disagree for any government involvement that could have punitive results if you do not comply with them.
    NH_Esau and Bad Bob like this.

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,414
    Quote Originally Posted by walleye View Post
    My opinion about Freedom and Guns and Regulation of Guns always included both, I guess best mirrored by a huge majority of the American People as revealed in polls and other determinants of public opinion during the recent Heller/Supreme Court Opinion - and was mirrored in turn by the actual Opinion: a judicious mix of Freedom with stated limits on the extent of what the Opinion included. Those opinions of both the public and essentially the Court: The Second A grants freedom to own guns but is a freedom that should be regulated. (In the Courts Opinion, it carefully said it was not including Freedoms for every and all method of Carry, every and all gun type, all people wanting guns and several other caveats were included).
    Alright, I'll be open minded... What further regulations, above what we currently have, would you impose?

    Quote Originally Posted by walleye View Post
    I think this article has some good points therefore and share it with folks who have the ability to listen and take in a wide swath of opinions and are not blinded by their own. One you're blinded you become ignorant. (Since the NRA grows more and more into its blindness and ignorance and "punishes" good elected officials who are not agreeable to them with huge piles of money and threats to others who might support them in re-election, they've ceased being American in their lack of principles in my view - and I'm cancelling my membership.)
    While I agree with you about the NRA, it is far less aggressive than other pro-gun organizations. But I am not a member of any organization in order that I may write an individual letter to my gov't representatives without them being attributed to a crazy right wing member of the NRA (or GOA, or any other).

    OTOH; since PACs Lobbying firms, and plain ol' cash in the form of corporate sponsored advertising, have essentially sold our sovereignty to the highest bidder, the gun owner in this country needs a voice... and the only way he can get it (and get it heard) is by contributing his small sums of $$$ to a larger, more centralized group that supports a majority of his views... and he must take some good with the bad... Same is true of AARP, SPCA, GreenPeace, Sierra club, "The Brady Bunch," and so on....

    Quote Originally Posted by walleye View Post
    When will America Wake Up to Gun Violence?
    By John J. Donohue, Special to CNN


    Editor's note: John J. Donohue is C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith professor of law at Stanford Law School and research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

    (CNN) -- Last night's shooting rampage at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, was a nightmare. Authorities have already arrested a suspect. Four weapons were recovered in the shooting scene, including a shotgun and two handguns. Twelve people have been killed, with many more injured. According to law enforcement officials, the weapons were purchased legally by the suspect in the last six months.....


    When will America wake up to gun violence? - CNN.com
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yes, all of his "arsenal" was purchased legally... He may have even had a 100 round drum for the AR... More than you or I may need or want... but there it is... And even if we banned them, the existing stocks of hi cap mags and so on, would still be available, though very pricey...

    And I know some folks who buy pallets of ammo... because it's the least expensive way to purchase (per round) ammunition for themselves and some buddies... so which one of this group that purchases through one person is a terrorist?

    I personally buy a half a steer at a time for my freezer... should THAT be regulated, too? Say, under the new "Health care act?" Why not? We all know that THAT much red meat will kill you, is bad for you.... etc... ad infinitum...

    Quote Originally Posted by walleye View Post
    And a quick one from one of many high Police Officials calling for restrictions in some of these areas

    “I have an issue with people being able to buy ammunition and weapons on the Internet,” Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey of the Philadelphia police said on the ABC program “This Week” on Sunday. “I don’t know why people need to have assault weapons. There needs to be reasonable gun control put in place." (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/us...pagewanted=all)

    Fact, I pay more attention to what LEO's say about these things than I do the extreme Right or Left. Most seem aligned with the view I first described. Whether I'm reading statements from DAs, Police Officials, or just talking to individual officers I know, most are in that place. Fine with me, they live with on the streets with the results.
    I know, you can buy ammo on the internet... I do, and quite a bit... Not a pallet load by any stretch... but I can only buy 9X18 Makarov for my CZ82 and my P64 on line, as there is none locally... And I bought my CZ82s and my P64s on line (4 CZs and 3 P64s, all at the same time)... and had them delivered to my local gun store... and went through the NICS check there (though I didn't have to wait 3-5 days, because I had a permit to purchase handguns {a requirement in Iowa, or a permit to carry in lieu of the permit to purchase}) ... and of course this "arsenal purchase" was reported to the county sheriff per the federal law... From that stockpile of handguns, I selected the best 2 and sold the rest... To do so legally in Iowa the purchaser had to have a permit to purchase handguns or a permit to carry weapons. Even in a F to F sale, where there is no NICS available....

    That's plenty of regulation for me.... what more should I have to do?

    ______________________________________________

    So, this past weekend, I watched This Week with George Stephanopoulos. One of the folks in the round table suggested that more regulation must be made to keep this from happening.... And, George Will suggested that regulation doesn't work... just look at the mass murderer in Norway, Andrew Breivik (actually: Anders Behring Breivik) killed 77 people, mostly young...

    Somebody on the round table countered that (paraphrasing) 'Yes it happened in Norway where they do have tighter regulations on firearm ownership. But in that whole country, there haven't been as many mass murderers as we have had in Colorado alone. So, regulation does deter these types of crimes.'

    George Will had no real counter argument.... I do.

    I looked up Norway.... and Colorado.. .and I learned something.... Colorado and Norway are very, very similar...

    Colorado is ~104,000 square miles in area, Norway about 150,000, so they're similar in size.
    Norway's population is ~5,000,000 (2012), and Colorado's about 5,100,000, again, about the same.

    The similarity ends when we get to gun ownership, storage, uses, etc... Norway's gun laws are much more strict than Colorado's... there are restrictions on how much ammo you can have... there are restrictions on storage of weapons and ammo... documented reasons for owning a gun must be presented to get a firearm.. There are permits to carry ... for bona fide security guards... and yes even some civilians though the latter are VERY VERY rare...

    But there are some big similarities in the methods used by both Breivik and the Colorado idiot (I won't use his name) Both made incendiary devices (bombs) and used guns to kill wantonly...

    Breivik had only 2 guns: a Ruger mini 14 and a Glock 34 handgun, so we can say he had an assault rifle and a Glock.

    Idiot had an AR and a Shotty and a couple of handguns... (don't know how many he actually used)

    Breivik dressed like a cop... Idiot dressed like a SWAT or Riot cop (with or without body "armor." I don't think he had any ballistic clothing on.. but I could be wrong).

    Both of them made bombs that could kill (and did in Breivik's case).

    So, the Whole country of Norway, which is virtually the same size and population as one of our states.... Has killed more people by nuts with a gun than nuts with guns have killed in Colorado... even with Colorado's mostly recent storied history of gun whackos...

    But... I have found the problem... and the thing we should all work to ban.... Mountains! that's right... Mountains! you see both Norway and Colorado share yet another interesting feature... Vast mountain ranges.... It must be the mountains that cause this aberrant behavior... As we have seen, it is not the gun laws or regulations... it is not the density of the population... it is not the taxation rate.... it must be the mountain air...

    If we have the faith of a mustard seed.... (I'm told) we can move mountains... so let's get the mountains out of the US... that'll fix it!
    NH_Esau, goldmaster and nedrgr21 like this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

current numbers of crimes committed by assault rifles

,
number of crimes committed with assault rifles
,

percent of crimes committed with assault weapons

,

powered by mybb aarp games

,
powered by mybb bike week 2006
,

powered by mybb brain injury australia

,

powered by mybb criminal activity

,

powered by mybb fact opinion

,

powered by mybb free legal forms and printable

,

powered by mybb inventions of the past

,

powered by mybb movie theaters

,

powered by mybb people from

,

powered by mybb people in planes

,

powered by mybb people magazine

,

powered by mybb theater

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors