I've never gotten hate-mail, so here's my chance.
Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 161
Like Tree295Likes

I've never gotten hate-mail, so here's my chance.

This is a discussion on I've never gotten hate-mail, so here's my chance. within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Main Category category; As difficult as it is to say, particularly as a 57 year -old American who used to put his squirrel ...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    13

    Default I've never gotten hate-mail, so here's my chance.

    As difficult as it is to say, particularly as a 57 year -old American who used to put his squirrel rifle in his school locker in the morning [along with several other kids in central Indiana], there are some instances in this country today where firearm owners need to be regulated.

    Now, I know what Ben said about freedom and safety, and I agree. It's just that I think it may be proper to FORCE some safety OVER freedom for some of our populace, who may not have been given the opportunity to comprehend freedom. Or, are natural idiots. There ARE a few folks who should turn on red lights at every LEO 'pooter from Palm Springs to Palm Beach when they try to buy a weapon.

    You know, it never even occurred to us to shoot each other in those long-lost, white-washed, endless school winters, and believe me, there were several of us that brought the world, and one another, no joyous favors, ever. Several that GOT shot, in the end [but usually over a Janice, a Tiffany, or a Pam, sometimes ten years out, when each day is another life sentence at the carpet store].



    Our fathers, brave George, genius Tom, and that damned, beloved Adams [thumping his books] were ONLY about freedom. Willing to have their heads chopped right off. Willing to sign a document saying that, if things went south, they would do the time, 'cause they had done the crime.

    Please remember that if George and Tom and Ben and John had not won, they would have been tried [and executed - no question] for treason, as war criminals.



    However, they could not have believed in the possibility of a 30 round magazine in a handgun, or a mile-and-a-half rifle, any more than you can envision what it felt like to sleep at night in 1863 Alabama in August: Woolen union suit, and not a lot of A.C. [Really - think about it, there in your comfy recliner].

    [By the way, I used 'Bama cause I'm moving there in the next month. Which means I'm Texas born, Kentucky bred, and when I die, I'll be 'Bama dead.]



    If I see a young man walking down the street with a Ruger 10/.22 slung over his shoulder on a country road in Indiana today, I see a squirrel or squeal-pig hunter. If I see that same young man in downtown Indy, I see a really bad place to hang around and try to discuss the values of the YMCA.



    It's this, I guess, that I am tryin' to get to:



    It should be that fathers and mothers bear the vastly nefarious offense if their kid walks into a building with dad's Glock, a bad 'tude, and a magazine that holds 6,437 cartridges. Parents, you SHOULD know who you are.

    I can claim some experience when I say that if you can't get it done with seven or eight shots, you are probably trying to work above your pay-grade.



    "Shall Issue" permits, for those who could not pass a simple background check for "crazy", "meth-addict" or " child-molester", must be a thing of the past.

    Old Bob Heinlein, the greatest sci-fi writer ever [admit it] believed in fighting [with weapons] for the right to vote. I agree with that. I also agree with him about fighting through training requirements, educational tests, experience, and wide evaluation for the right to be a member of the American Franchise, and carry weapons.



    I know the "Domino" theory. But that turned out to be crap in the political arena [look up "Vietnam War" on Wikipedia:

    {Pssst: -it was started by a bunch of old men who had the crabs too many times, and it was never a war, and nobody won anything, and I got trench foot like a black truffel, which I scraped at anew every time we had a place to sit down and look out our back door, and I still get the chills even though they say the Trips are dead**],

    and I think it's crap in the firearms community. If you are a sane, CC-registered American citizen, I think you believe in keeping things tight. Nobody on this forum could be willing to be responsible for another school kid in the news, unless he threw a fifty yard pass with a broken ankle. I HOPE no one on this forum believes in "unilmited" weapons rights. Cause if you do, a serious matter of conscience will be upon you.

    And that right quick.



    I think tight and responsible means: permit required, background check required, no criminal or psychotic history allowed. Those things just make immutable sense, and argument is futile.


    It really is true that only the sane and honest people apply for permits, and only the REALLY honest ones admit they had a bout of depression in their past. Those folks are at least as safe as cops, if they have taken the time to learn the proper use of their tools.



    What do YOU think?

    -S
    ......................

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    24

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    24

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,834

    Default

    You will get no hate mail from me for that post. In my opinion if the writers of 2A were alive today and asked to write 2A now I do not think they would use the same words. But they are not and we have to go by whay they wrote over 200 years ago and apply those words to today. I do not think they meant or intended that is was the right of every fifth grader to be able to carry a glock 18 to class with them every day. I think they intended and fully accepted that it was OK for restrictions to be placed on guns. The argument is where that line should be and if you don't think there should be a line then you are living in a fantasy world.

  5. #5
    twogunwilly is offline American
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    edge of freedom
    Posts
    424

    Default

    I think you need to read the constitution and cite which part cancels an inalienable right.
    http://www.change.org/petitions/self...tate-residents
    NRA Life Member, SCOPE,SAF Join up!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    31

    Default

    I think that your invitation to debate was reasonable. You won't get hate mail.

    The "safety over freedom" argument is akin to the "if it saves one life" argument--a logical fallacy that can be expresses this way:

    1. X provides benefit Y
    2. The value of Y canít be measured
    3. Therefore X is justified no matter what the cost

    Example: People get hurt in auto accidents. Let's make airbags mandatory. The unintended consequence of this is broken hands, broken jaws, broken teeth, black eyes, chest injuries. Many more people are much more injured in low-speed injuries now.

    The loss of freedom can be measured. Its effect on safety can never be measured.

    But freedom vs comfort is exactly how tyrants have co-opted democratic revolution in Germany, Russia, etc. It gets to the point at which ordinary people will rat on their neighbors for the next government-supplied meal ticket.

    Let's put aside feelings and look at statistics. Professor John Lott is one of the authorities. Here's what he says:

    (Quote)
    Permit holders, not just on campuses, are exceedingly law-abiding. Consider the two states at the front of the current debate, Florida and Texas: Both states provide detailed records on the behavior of permit holders on easily accessible websites. During over two decades, from October 1, 1987 to February 28, 2011, Florida has issued permits to over 1.96 million people, with the average person having a permit for more than a decade. Few -- 168 (about 0.01%) -- have had their permits revoked for any type of firearms related violation, the most common was accidentally carrying a concealed handgun into a gun-free zone such as a school or an airport, not threats or acts of violence.

    Over the last 38 months, only four permit holders have had their permit revoked for a firearms related violation -- an annual revocation rate of 0.0003%. The numbers are similarly small in Texas. In 2009, there were 402,914 active license holders. 101 were convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony, a rate of 0.025 percent, with only few of these crimes involving a gun.

    Permit holders have succeeded in stopping a wide range of multiple victim public shootings, at schools and elsewhere. Yet, so far there has not been a single incident where a permit holder has accidentally shot a bystander.

    (Close quote)

    Read more: Should Bans Against Carrying Concealed Weapons Be Lifted On College Campuses? - FoxNews.com

    At this time, anyway, CCW people display much better safety than the police. And there is no record of any CCW holder "going postal". There are, however, hundreds of thousands of cases on record of CCW holders saving lives and protecting property.

    The safety nannies have the neurotic "magic wand" idea that if they just pronounce something, it will fix a problem. Well, in this case, there is no problem.

    Felons are already forbidden to possess firearms. Usually felonious behavior is linked to mental illness. And very, very rarely do "normal" productive people "snap".

    And, I haven't even mentioned the Constitution yet. Law makers and judges have been trampling over the Constitution for over one hundred years, and their blatant disregard has been accelerating. Those of us who have actually studied the document, and who love it, are drawing a line in the sand. CCW is part of that line.
    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. NRA CSSA GOA 2AF CCRKBA / Tactical Pistol Instructor

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4

    Default

    No hate here, just a reminder that when you infringe upon the Constitution, no matter how well intentioned, you:

    1. Open the entire Constitution to legislative debate and,
    2. Restrict only law abiders

    There is no doubt that there are people carrying firearms who should not be. More laws won't change that.

  8. #8
    B2Tall's Avatar
    B2Tall is offline Stirrer of the Pot
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SE Florida
    Posts
    1,880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archangel1911a1 View Post
    As difficult as it is to say, particularly as a 57 year -old American who used to put his squirrel rifle in his school locker in the morning [along with several other kids in central Indiana], there are some instances in this country today where firearm owners need to be regulated.
    I'm with you. Even the "Shall Not Be Infringed" literal interpreters of 2A are with you as well even though they won't admit it. When you ask them a simple question like "should somebody on trial (but not yet convicted) for murder be allowed to carry a gun into the courtroom?" or "should 1st-graders be allowed to carry at school?" or "should nukes be available to any private citizen who can afford one?", they'll dodge the question. They know that such things shouldn't happen but they're too afraid to answer "no" in public to any of those questions because it would mean they've just agreed to a restriction on 2A. IMO, I think many of the literal interpreters of 2A are angry because they've had their right denied because of a criminal record, habitual substance abuse, etc.

    I'd like to see every state allow CC and OC....to anyone who passes a background check and passes a basic firearm safety instruction course.
    (Insert random tough-guy quote here)
    "See my gun?? Aren't you impressed?" - Anonymous sheepdog
    The hardware is the same, but the software is vastly different.

  9. #9
    B2Tall's Avatar
    B2Tall is offline Stirrer of the Pot
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SE Florida
    Posts
    1,880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lhuff View Post
    No hate here, just a reminder that when you infringe upon the Constitution, no matter how well intentioned, you:

    1. Open the entire Constitution to legislative debate and,
    2. Restrict only law abiders

    There is no doubt that there are people carrying firearms who should not be. More laws won't change that.
    In response to your 2 points:

    1. The Constitution has always been open to legislative debate. It even contains guidelines for altering it. It's called Article V. Why do you think there are now 27 amendments instead of the original 10?

    2. Having to pass through metal detectors at a courthouse or an airport restricts the criminals as well. So does preventing entire classes of weapons from being available like rocket launchers or hand grenades. A law against certain convicted criminals from carrying will stop them from doing it again...when they're caught and sent to jail because of it. Happens all the time. Several times a week I peruse through the mugshots that're posted on the local paper's website. I almost always see people that get busted for possessing firearms when they're not supposed to. Those people are going to jail and won't be a threat to you and me.....all because of a law that restricts their 2A rights.
    (Insert random tough-guy quote here)
    "See my gun?? Aren't you impressed?" - Anonymous sheepdog
    The hardware is the same, but the software is vastly different.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B2Tall View Post
    I think many of the literal interpreters of 2A are angry because they've had their right denied because of a criminal record, habitual substance abuse, etc.
    a lot of times it is just a case of reasoning being blocked by an emotional attachment to an idea.

Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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