Worlds Largest Army!

[steve863]

Hey Steve, I notice you didn't even try to address one other thing I wrote in that post.  How come?  No retort to any of the rest of it?

I read, and understood perfectly what you said in your prior post, and then responded.  You accused me of not reading what you posted.  I never said anyone should be able to buy any weapon they wanted, nor did I say they couldn't be checked and approved or denied.

If you read what I posted you either didn't have a response, or chose to resort to more mindless accusations of extremism rather than defend your position.  It's easy to understand why you can't see what has happened to the 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens.  Like my posts, you may have read the amendment, but either don't understand it, believe it should be restricted, or do not agree with it. 

I have read many of your posts that agree with lots of infringements on various 2nd Amendment rights that Americans freely exercised just 50 years ago without any issues.  But I guess the words don't mean what they did just a half a century ago, do they?  Maybe the whole Bill of Rights no longer means what it did 50 years ago.  Maybe the entire US Constitution should be ignored today too.

It's not gun owners that this country needs to fear in the 21st Century.  It's people of zeal, maybe well meaning, but without understanding, who believe insidious encroachment on our freedom and rights, is justified.  Why do they do that?  Because they are scared and think giving up some rights will buy them safety and security.  They are wrong.  Dead wrong!  They are the people that will bring anarchy to America, not those who believe in freedom and what the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights protects.

Well at least I am glad that you think the 2nd amendment shouldn't allow anyone to own any type of weapon they want.  As far as people not viewing the 2nd amendment as you view it, what can I tell you?  Maybe the gun owners in this country need some better PR ideas than what is currently used by the likes of the NRA and others.  Not like our society doesn't see gun violence each and every day in this country.  You may think people need to have even more guns to combat this while others obviously don't.  Who is right and who is wrong?  I don't know.  I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, while extreme views on either side are most likely wrong.

[nyantler]

It's not even about having more guns.. it's about keeping the ones we have... and gun crimes are not committed by guns they are committed by people using guns.. just like vehicle deaths are not committed by automobiles but by the people that drive them... and with the right licence I can drive the biggest automobile made... Funny how more people are killed in auto related accidents and there hasn't been any laws to ban any "assualt" vehicles...

[steve863]

It's not even about having more guns.. it's about keeping the ones we have... and gun crimes are not committed by guns they are committed by people using guns.. just like vehicle deaths are not committed by automobiles but by the people that drive them... and with the right licence I can drive the biggest automobile made... Funny how more people are killed in auto related accidents and there hasn't been any laws to ban any "assualt" vehicles...

I love it when people start comparing automobile deaths to gun deaths.  Automobiles were invented for transporting people.  Maybe someone could tell me what guns were invented for??  They were invented as a more efficient means to to stop or kill someone or something, be it in self-defense, war, hunting, etc.  Yeah, people die because of automobiles, as they do with planes, trains, bicycles, in their bathtubs, etc.  There is NO comparison between why many perceive guns as an easier means to kill someone to anything else that may kill people.  I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to realize that it is easier and a whole lot less personal killing someone with a gun than it is any other way.  You kill someone without laying a hand on the victim when a gun is used. 

[virgil]

you're right, steve.  this is an 'apples to oranges' comparison.  if comparing guns to cars is the best that the anti-gun control movement can come up with, it says a lot for the lack of rationale in their argument.

[steve863]

Virgil, what I was saying should be, as Doc used the term "common sense" to anyone.  As much as the pro 2nd amendment people try to say that those opposed to it have no common sense, I think many on the pro side don't have any either.  Without stopping to listen to why the other side might think the way they do, one will never come up with a common sense approach to anything.

[virgil]

steve, i agree.  unfortunately, there are people on both sides of these types of issues who have hardline stances and are not willing to consider any compromises for any reason.  these people, regardless of their position, are unreasonable.  i've used the term 'unreasonable' before on other threads- usually vjp gets pretty bent out of shape.  but, i think it's an accurate description.

[steve863]

LOL, Virgil, yeah you will find plenty getting all out of shape on a forum like this, but that is their problem and not ours.  Some people can see the reality of a situation while others can't mostly because they refuse to.  I could care less how others construe my opinions on all this.  I usually call things the way I see them which surely won't sit well with the hardliners.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

LOL, Virgil, yeah you will find plenty getting all out of shape on a forum like this, but that is their problem and not ours.  Some people can see the reality of a situation while others can't mostly because they refuse to.  I could care less how others construe my opinions on all this.  I usually call things the way I see them which surely won't sit well with the hardliners.

Steve,

What do you consider as a "resonable" application of the 2nd Amendment? What woudl be a good middle ground in your eyes?

[steve863]

LOL, Virgil, yeah you will find plenty getting all out of shape on a forum like this, but that is their problem and not ours.  Some people can see the reality of a situation while others can't mostly because they refuse to.  I could care less how others construe my opinions on all this.  I usually call things the way I see them which surely won't sit well with the hardliners.

Steve,

What do you consider as a "resonable" application of the 2nd Amendment? What woudl be a good middle ground in your eyes?

To me a reasonable application would be for all sides to look at guns in this country and give thought to why some people want them, while others loathe them.  There are valid reasons for the right to own and there are valid reasons why people think less guns in society would be better.  I think both sides need to stop and listen.  The pro gun side to why we are a nation with such a high gun violence rate for surely the easy availability of them must play a role, and the anti gun side to why people who have cleared background checks should not have the right to own for self defense, hunting, collection, etc. purposes.  I see absolutely NO reason why a middle ground couldn't be reached.  I honestly think we are close to a middle ground right now, but of course the pro gun side thinks every gun law is an infringement of what they think is a "God" given right, while the anti gun side needs to realize that their are millions owned by private citizens in this country and an awful few are ever used in crime.  Yeah, both sides need to give in and understand the realities here, and I have NO doubt that there will be plenty here who will say that we have given in plenty already.  But, in my opinion it's up to us to prove to modern day society that guns in private lawful ownership should not be feared, because the other side obviously still has plenty of evidence against us that maybe they should.  We don't want to compromise and put some attention to whose hands guns might be falling into and to the how and why's this is happening so readily and easily, then guns will without a doubt be in jeopardy for all of us one day soon in my opinion. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I think as a society we have an obligation to verify that a person is mentally stable (best as we can tell). I don't think we take a hard enough line with people that use guns for violence. What I find odd though....is the groups that seem to be backing the restrictions on gun ownership arre the same group that tend to support leanent (sp) sentencing and alternative sentencing. I really think a harder line needs to be drawn for offenders.

I am sitting here waiting for my paperwork to clear the gauntlet of approval. I think it is unreasonable that it could take 9 months to a year. As much as I really believe in the Constitution and 2nd ammendment....I do have to question states like Maine where only a drivers license is required. I just went through an FBI background check and it took a month to get me into a secure installation......but my permit take 9 months...lol.

The one comment you made I just have a hard time seeing work.......is us being able to convince those in favor of tighter restrictions that we are not a threat. The avenues I see them take makes me think they really hate guns.....we could all be church going.....charity contributing....models of a citizen and they don't want them in our hands.....I just can't figure out the motivation. It doesn't make logical sense to me......

[Mr VJP]

I guess these anti gunners think if they keep calling  unconstitutionally oppressive gun laws "common sense" laws, some people  will actually start to believe they are.  I guess common sense also says  liberties and freedoms of all types should be restricted for the  betterment of all societies. 

They claim these laws save lives  but can't explain why the states with the most "common sense" gun laws  have the highest gun crime rates.

:

If you never read John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime!"  You need to read it.  The guy is a statistician with no ax to grind and completely objective on the subject.  His facts are irrefutable.  But the anti's still try to throw mud on him with proven lies.

These folks will not be happy until ALL firearms are banned for possession by any private citizen.  They have said so many times in the past and have never retracted any of those statements.  Give them an inch.....

This is also borne out by the multiple infringements on firearms ownership since the first encroachments in 1968.

These folks are not "reasonable", nor do they believe their laws are "common sense", unless you mean as far as banning all guns is concerned.  If you don't like guns, don't own one, but nobody in America has the right to tell others what they can and cannot do, if it is legal.  Therefore, they strive to make it illegal.  A simple power and control strategy.  Agreeing with any of their proposals simply emboldens them to take the next step.

[Mr VJP]

Culver said:

"The one comment you made I just have a hard time seeing work.......is us being able to convince those in favor of tighter restrictions that we are not a threat. The avenues I see them take makes me think they really hate guns.....we could all be church going.....charity contributing....models of a citizen and they don't want them in our hands.....I just can't figure out the motivation. It doesn't make logical sense to me......"

It's quite simple really........It's not just firearms they want to eliminate in America.  They want to fundamentally change many of the things gun owners hold dear.  They intend to restrict freedoms in many other areas as well.  Religion, speech, employment, marriage, taxes, child rearing and parenthood are all things they want to change.  It's a lot easier to do when you force people to agree to it because the oppressed have no ability to revolt.

[nyantler]

As for guns and auto deaths being apples to oranges... death is death whether it comes from the hands of violence or if it comes from slipping on a bar of soap in the shower... "common sense" would say that if the goal is to stop the number of deaths in america... or around the world for that matter... then one would start from the top killer to the bottom killer.. guns are not even in the top 10... in fact more people die each year in pool related accidents... so again.. why all the money spent on passing more laws to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens? Because gun laws do absolutely nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals... if you think they do... you haven't seen the weapons that street gangs are using lately... that is the "reality" that I see... but I don't just call it like i see it.. I call it like it is.

[Doc]

There is no question that the auto and other comparisons are a legit as any argument and the only thing that enters irrelevancy into the argument is in trying to add "purpose of the item's invention" into the discussion. What that has to do with anything is beyond me.

Actually we as a society have admitted that an auto used in an inappropriate method makes a very effective killing instrument. We have some penalties for drunken-driving deaths that have written that thought into our legal system. However, we have not yet come to the point where we regulate horsepower, size, or how "Dangerous or menacing their appearance", based on the fact that you might misuse your auto.

[Mr VJP]

A more precise analogy would be to ask why we allow ownership of cars that are powerful enough to exceed 100 MPH?  What if Obama signed a law saying a car that can exceed 100 MPH can not be owned, no less registered or driven.  The logic being no one needs such a powerful car, they eat too much fuel and they present a danger to every other driver on the road.

You now have to turn it in for destruction, without any monetary compensation, or face 10 years in prison for violating this "common sense" law.  This could easily be passed too, as there is no constitutional amendment protecting your right to own a sports car!

[hunter]

I find it funny for phrases like common sense and middle ground top be used when the antis are neither. In NYC a person with a pistol permit not for business or work must carry his weapon in a locked box to the range or hunting grounds. I know a guy with a premise permit only for self defense in the home and he has to request permission to go to the range and practice one day a year carried in the lock box. And the antis still aren't happy. Go ahead try to be reasonable.

[Mr VJP]

And a non resident of NY with a Concealed Carry permit valid in 38 states isn't even allowed to be in possession of a handgun while he is in NY state.  And it ain't no slap on the wrist if he violates the law either, it's a few years in prison!

And a lot of NY state gun owners support this law because it seems "reasonable".

>

[steve863]

They claim these laws save lives  but can't explain why the states with the most "common sense" gun laws  have the highest gun crime rates.

:

This is actually not true.  I will let you look it up for yourself but even last year, states like Nevada, Louisiana, New Mexico, Tennessee, Arizona topped the list according to FBI figures as far as crime was concerned and none of these states have restrictive gun laws.  Sure some urban areas in restrictive states still have substantial crime rates, but NO one will convince me that allowing anyone and everyone to carry a gun in a city like Washington DC will help LOWER the crime rate, LOL!  Yes, NYC has some of the most restrictive gun laws, but guess what?  The crime rate has been dropping there for a good long while now, and cities with way less oppressive gun laws like St Louis, Atlanta, Memphis, New Orleans, Little Rock, Kansas City, etc, etc.  have way HIGHER crime rates than NYC.  So your premise that states with common sense gun laws have the highest crime rates actually doesn't hold much water at all.  Many other factors come into play in urban areas, and not all of it is due to gun laws.  You read too much NRA literature that fudges numbers to their favor in everything they say. 

[WNYBuckHunter]

And a non resident of NY with a Concealed Carry permit valid in 38 states isn't even allowed to be in possession of a handgun while he is in NY state.  And it ain't no slap on the wrist if he violates the law either, it's a few years in prison!

And a lot of NY state gun owners support this law because it seems "reasonable".

>

I am guessing that you are referring to those of us that support following the law as long as it is, in fact, a law when you say "support this law". Well, youd be wrong on that now, just as you were a couple of weeks ago when it was discussed in the other thread. In fact, I dont know any gun owner in NY that doesnt support reciprocacy with pistol permits. I dont think that I should have to get a Utah permit to be able to take my gun out of state, but I have one because even though I dont support the law, I still have to follow it.  :

[Mr VJP]

Ok, lets start here:

No one ever said anyone and everyone.  How about just law abiding citizens and no criminals?  Would you be OK with that?

Do you believe states like  Nevada, Louisiana, New Mexico, Tennessee and Arizona topped the FBI list as far as crime was concerned because these states do not have restrictive gun laws?  First, that is overall crime, not just firearm related crime.  And how about one has Vegas and the mob, one had Katrina and roving mobs, two have a Mexican border and one has Nashville.  States like Wyoming, Montana, Vermont and Idaho have similar gun laws and very little crime.  How can that be explained?

The states like NY, Calif, NJ, Massachusetts and Maryland have some of the most oppressive gun laws, but their statewide firearms crime rates are higher than all other states in the union.

As far as support for laws, if one is not actively opposing it, one is supporting it.  Especially when it only affects others and one believes violators should be arrested and imprisoned for a violation.  It is easy for someone to be tough with a law that has no impact on one's self.  By condemning others, one supports the enforcement, ergo one supports the law.

I am referring here to anyone who believes in "common sense" laws and is willing to prosecute innocent violators of this one.  Please tell me how this law is even remotely close to "common sense"?

[Mr VJP]

“John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime revives the wisdom of  the past by using the latest tools of social science. By constructing  careful statistical models and deploying a wealth of crime data he shows  that laws permitting the carrying of concealed weapons actually lead to  a drop in crime in the jurisdictions that enact them. . . . By  providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a  cause of the very evil it purports to cure, he has permanently changed  the terms of debate on gun control. . . . Lott’s book could hardly be  more timely. . . . Lott’s work is a model of the meticulous application  of economics and statistics to law and policy.”—John O. McGinnis, National Review

[Mr VJP]

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

[WNYBuckHunter]

As far as support for laws, if one is not actively opposing it, one is supporting it.  Especially when it only affects others and one believes violators should be arrested and imprisoned for a violation.  It is easy for someone to be tough with a law that has no impact on one's self.  By condemning others, one supports the enforcement, ergo one supports the law.

I am referring here to anyone who believes in "common sense" laws and is willing to prosecute innocent violators of this one.  Please tell me how this law is even remotely close to "common sense"?

Who are you to say I havent written multiple letters in support of reciprocacy in NY? I am also a firm believer that as a responsible, law abiding gun owner, you have the responsibility of following the current gun laws. Sorry, but I feel if someone intentionally breaks the gun laws, they are not innocent and they need to pay the price. I do not support the current law, but I do support following the law and not giving more ammo to the antis. Go tell your NRA reps that you are speaking out in support of others breaking the law and see what they say.  :

[steve863]

Ok, lets start here:

No one ever said anyone and everyone.  How about just law abiding citizens and no criminals?  Would you be OK with that?

Do you believe states like  Nevada, Louisiana, New Mexico, Tennessee and Arizona topped the FBI list as far as crime was concerned because these states do not have restrictive gun laws?  First, that is overall crime, not just firearm related crime.  And how about one has Vegas and the mob, one had Katrina and roving mobs, two have a Mexican border and one has Nashville.  States like Wyoming, Montana, Vermont and Idaho have similar gun laws and very little crime.  How can that be explained?

The states like NY, Calif, NJ, Massachusetts and Maryland have some of the most oppressive gun laws, but their statewide firearms crime rates are higher than all other states in the union.

As far as support for laws, if one is not actively opposing it, one is supporting it.  Especially when it only affects others and one believes violators should be arrested and imprisoned for a violation.  It is easy for someone to be tough with a law that has no impact on one's self.  By condemning others, one supports the enforcement, ergo one supports the law.

I am referring here to anyone who believes in "common sense" laws and is willing to prosecute innocent violators of this one.  Please tell me how this law is even remotely close to "common sense"?

LOL, typical manipulation of facts.  First you talk about states with high crime rates and then you try to come up with excuses why these states might have high crime rates.  Are there any excuses for states like NY, CA, MA, etc or  shouldn't they count?  Using states like WY, MT and ID as examples to your point of view is downright ridiculous.  I've been to WY and MT, a good many times and there are more antelope and deer there than people and even the biggest towns are nothing more than a couple of city blocks in any big city, so you cannot compare them to any other state.  Those states don't resemble any others even in the slightest way.  The populations is as milk white as you will find anywhere in this country, and you should know damned well that this is not the case and NEVER will be any place else in this country.  You accuse people who don't oppose common sense gun laws as supporting them.  That is because you know very little of the typical gun owner in this country.  You think they all think like you do and are as fanatical about them as you are, but guess what??  You are wrong big time! LOL

[nyantler]

If you look up state crime rates you'll find motor vehicle thefts included.. so again eliminating automobiles will still reduce crime..  just common sense.

How about drive-by shootings? autos and gun!! Maybe there should be a law that if you own one of the two you can't own the other ;D ... that would reduce drive-bys... just common sense right?