gordy
Full Member
Posts: 246
|
Post by gordy on Apr 13, 2018 16:32:31 GMT -5
Rarity is irrelevant when a person threatens your own life, or, that of someone you love. The instinct for self-defense part of human nature. If I wanted to know why people purchase weapons of any type, I might simply ask them. And since most people fear their own death, or, that of a loved one, I could accept those reasons--- reasons which happen to be compatible with the one you think is logical. The only exceptions I can imagine at this time is that of an assassin's motive, or, the motives of a deranged individual or psychopath. It is rumored that when the Dalai Lama was fleeing Tibet, he did so with a rifle on his shoulder. Maybe, maybe not. If true, he might have believed that it was necessary to defend himself and/or others. Who would want to take that choice from him? Self preservation is indeed a very strong instinct but owning a firearm in case you might encounter a rarity event remains a weak arguement, if for no other reason than you will most unlikely not be ready or able to defend yourself from a surprise or predetermined assault. What is more likely to occur is the perpetrator taking your firearm from you and using it on you or some future crime.
I firmly believe that the strongest support for owning one or many firearms boils down to being obsessionally fascinated with ownership and the possibility of encountering a reason for lethally using one. Very few "hunters" actually do so as a necessity for food but rather for the sport of killing something that has life----a trophy.
The raison d'être for creation of the 2nd Amendment are no longer valid. The amendment was created about 250 years ago. Today the USA has perhaps the strongest standing military in the world and is not concerned with an attack upon it's sovereignty and is supported or power checked by a National Guard, Federal, State and local police forces all of whom are trained in the use of firearms.
The use of the Dalai Lama story whether true or not is a grasping at straws to justify the need to own and carry a firearm. Someone like the Dalai Lama or a head of state is a target that is more likely to be assaulted by a professional assassin. Neither high profile individuals nor average citizens are going to succeed in protecting themselves from a professional. Only professionals might offer that type of protection.
So if we can agree upon the likely primary reason for firearm ownership is to satisfy an obsession, then we only need to examine the mental stability underlying that obsession. I fear that obsession is based upon the need to have some sort of absolute power in that there is finality to owning and firing a weapon and it is even more frightening if the obsession is satisfied to some extent by owning an assault rifle. The only purpose for an assault rifle is to kill humans no other reason justifies it's existence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2018 11:11:43 GMT -5
Some folks are so woefully uninformed, when they try to claim all these things about hunters and gun owners. To paraphrase an old saying: Better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. I know you won't like to hear or see it as these facts go against your agenda, but these are my hunting rifles, both of which have accounted for several deer in the past three seasons (each was humanely killed with a single shot), and all have been quite tasty:   |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Apr 14, 2018 12:07:48 GMT -5
these facts go against your agenda I think you misunderstand my agenda. I want to keep guns out of the wrong hands. That cannot be done unless we know where the guns are. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Apr 14, 2018 12:38:57 GMT -5
these facts go against your agenda I think you misunderstand my agenda. I want to keep guns out of the wrong hands. That cannot be done unless we know where the guns are. NO to any registration, they just need to know who isn't supposed to own guns and if they are not supposed to own guns than they aren't going to register them anyways. Like G.Gordon Liddy said about him not being able to own guns anymore, he said that he doesn't own any guns but his wife has quite an arsenal. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Apr 14, 2018 13:32:09 GMT -5
Like G.Gordon Liddy said about him not being able to own guns anymore, he said that he doesn't own any guns but his wife has quite an arsenal. Exactly. That's why our gun laws don't work. There are a zillion loopholes and people will keep dying. The NRA is right: guns don't kill, people kill. In particular, people with access to guns kill. Unfortunately, the NRA has no solution. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2018 14:37:04 GMT -5
Like G.Gordon Liddy said about him not being able to own guns anymore, he said that he doesn't own any guns but his wife has quite an arsenal. Exactly. That's why our gun laws don't work. There are a zillion loopholes and people will keep dying. The NRA is right: guns don't kill, people kill. In particular, people with access to guns kill. Unfortunately, the NRA has no solution. Rather, they have a 'solution' many people do not like. But wait. Isn't it up to congress to give a solution? Historically speaking, the NRA has been an organization primarily concerned with the training and teaching of safe gun use among the citizenry. Until fairly recently, there was no reason for them to lobby because former generations naturally supported the 2nd Amendment. For better or for worse, the American culture has been effectively 'Europeanized' over the last 50 or so years, in my view. Funny how much most Americans used to hate the Europeans, especially in colonial times. Now they adore them.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2018 15:18:15 GMT -5
As has been mentioned several times previously, that without strong moral values and a life imbued with spirit, this country's future looks dim, regardless of our present gun laws. A free society requires a populace with moral fortitude and integrity. Otherwise, anarchy eventually takes over and makes it ripe for a dictatorship to emerge. I recall the words of Thomas Jefferson who warned the people of his time that if America ever forsook the agrarian way of life, and, instead became primarily a merchantile (industrial) society, the people would be corrupted because they would no longer rely upon nature which keeps humanity humble. Instead, the people would depend upon each other for their living, which invites a variety of harmful temptations. This is not to say that we must now abandon our present technological and industrial way of life, although some would like to do so, but rather, now is the time for a spiritual and moral renewal in the way we live.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2018 0:34:59 GMT -5
How broadly and narrowly do you define "preserve the principle of self-defense" ? If one encounters a person seriously threatening another, say a little old lady, with a gun, is the use of your gun in self-defense for the protection of the little old lady acceptable or must you wait until the gun-totter turns the gun in your direction? If it is acceptable to use one's weapon to defend another against the threat of harm, then would it be okay to arrest with force if necessary to halt another that is DUI and a danger to others or even yourself? If it is indeed considered within the broad definition of "preserve the principle of self-defense", then perhaps we could disband the police forces and simply broaden the possession and use of firearms under the 2nd Amendment. Students in schools could be given a credit course in the use of firearms and a working knowledge of a broadened 2nd Amendment. It would of course be mandatory for all persons over 16 to possess and know how to use a firearm. Defense of another is NOT self-defense by definition, and puts a HUGE responsibility on any civilian who carries. That citizen could find themselves in a large ethical dilemma. Problem: Taking time to resolve ethical dilemmas and taking instant action doesn't work well for the person with the dilemma. MANY good people have died because they had to take time to think their way through a situation when the bad guy has no such dilemma. While the good guy is thinking, the bad guy is shooting. Too bad for the good guy. I'm not saying don't carry, but you have to think your way through the questions you have posed long in advance. Then you have to have the resolve to act quickly, and be prepared to take whatever 'heat' comes your way after. A tough, tough deal. You could try to do good, and still end up in HUGE legal problems/jail. Don't count of your police force to keep you safe. They will show up afterwards with their aluminum clipboards, and do a crackerjack job of cataloging what happened. Arming and training people under the age of 25 is a bad idea. Their brains are not yet developed. Not a popular viewpoint, but my best idea anyways. |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Apr 16, 2018 5:15:50 GMT -5
Cops: Parkland teacher arrested after leaving gun in restroom That's why I think arming teachers is a bad idea. This will stop school shooters but result in a much greater increase in gun accidents. There's quite a difference between someone randomly doing something on their own, and being both a volunteer AND screened, trained, subject to regular refresher training and ongoing oversight, etc. (I do NOT mean to imply that all private firearms owners should be burdened with all or most of that, save for the initial screening, and disqualification WITH DUE PROCESS if something comes up later. But those bearing a firearm in official connection with their professional activities might reasonably be held to a higher standard, IMO.) There are a few districts in various states that have ALLOWED (AFAIK, none have required!) screened and trained teachers to be armed. I'm not sure how that's turned out - there may not be enough of that to have a sufficient level of authoritative reporting to draw conclusions. BTW, AFAIK the restroom in question was NOT in a school. Not that that makes it that much less monumentally stupid, but let's just say that's someone who should have failed screening had there been such a program in place. Concealed carry should be done in such a way that one retains control at all times, even when taking a dump, and doesn't need to leave the firearm lying around. There are plenty of harnesses and holsters available that enable that, assuming one chooses a reasonably small pistol or revolver and not some Dirty Harry cannon. Non-uniformed cops can do it right (including their backup gun), so you'd figure that other people could be trained. I have no particular objection to some modest (i.e. not a burden or obstacle for someone likely to be able to be qualified) training requirements in both law and procedure for carry (open or concealed). |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Apr 16, 2018 5:19:37 GMT -5
Like G.Gordon Liddy said about him not being able to own guns anymore, he said that he doesn't own any guns but his wife has quite an arsenal. Exactly. That's why our gun laws don't work. There are a zillion loopholes and people will keep dying. The NRA is right: guns don't kill, people kill. In particular, people with access to guns kill. Unfortunately, the NRA has no solution. People with access to knives kill; London's murder rate now sometimes exceeds NYC's, and they're instituting severe knife control, and even confiscating some carried tools that aren't even sharp or pointy. With a bit more skill, people with access to heavy blunt objects can kill too, or people with functioning hands and feet. (those are both not far behind firearms and knives among the methods of choice) A semiauto firearm gives somewhat greater ability to do more harm faster; that's it. Otherwise, it's no different from any other tool, that can be used lawfully or unlawfully at the bearer's discretion. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Apr 16, 2018 8:18:04 GMT -5
A semiauto firearm gives somewhat greater ability to do more harm faster; that's it. Exactly. That's why automatic weapons are banned. |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Apr 16, 2018 8:21:03 GMT -5
A semiauto firearm gives somewhat greater ability to do more harm faster; that's it. Exactly. That's why automatic weapons are banned. Big mistake; civilians should have parity with the basic weapon of the infantry soldier. Liberty only exists when citizens are more powerful than government. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Apr 16, 2018 8:23:58 GMT -5
I have no particular objection to some modest (i.e. not a burden or obstacle for someone likely to be able to be qualified) training requirements in both law and procedure for carry (open or concealed). Agreed. I think possessing a gun is like driving a car. There should be modest training (i.e. not a burden or obstacle for someone likely to be able to be qualified) in both cases. Some people believe that possessing a gun is not like driving a car because of the 2nd amendment. The courts disagree - they allow reasonable regulation in both cases. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Apr 16, 2018 12:25:13 GMT -5
Exactly. That's why automatic weapons are banned. Big mistake; civilians should have parity with the basic weapon of the infantry soldier. Liberty only exists when citizens are more powerful than government. I believe that only a well regulated militia should have weapons as powerful as the government. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2018 13:44:05 GMT -5
Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe
two groups within the United States:
Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.
(Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and
under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.*Either type of militia qualifies as "well-regulated" if some sort of management can be undertaken during an emergency. *Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
|
|
