Concealed carry: What for?
11-02-2011, 06:36 AM
#91
Out of my mind, back in 5
MotoGP
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Skurup, Sweden
Posts: 6,109
Tweety, my crack about state authoritarian vs. individual liberty was directed at autoteach, not you. It was intended as a razz, not an insult (although it might not have read that way). It had as much to do with things we've differed about on other threads as what's being discussed here.
For the record I don't see you as an authoritarian or enemy of individual liberty.
I do think it's fair to say you've got a more collectivist view of society and the individual's relation to it than some of us here. That's not an insult, just a recognition.
You've grown up in a (until pretty recently) homogeneous society of 9 million people. One race, language, culture etc. when you all come to one accord on something like firearms law you get a very high level of voluntary compliance.
Even if I agreed with you about the value of the laws you favor, and I don't, you'd never get an appreciable level of compliance here. For dozens of reasons you wouldn't.
Attempts to enforce compliance would make our last century's alcohol prohibition look like a walk in the park and a smashing success.
300+ million people, probably more than 300 million privately owned firearms.
Millions and millions of people refusing to comply with something like national registration. What would you do with them? Put them in prison? The prisons are already overflowing with criminals who have actually hurt people, not just refused to fill out some paperwork.
Support for any further gun laws in the U.S. is at a record low. The homicide with a firearm rate is half what it was in the U.S. 18 years ago. I don't believe any new laws will be passed in the foreseeable future.
For the record I don't see you as an authoritarian or enemy of individual liberty.
I do think it's fair to say you've got a more collectivist view of society and the individual's relation to it than some of us here. That's not an insult, just a recognition.
You've grown up in a (until pretty recently) homogeneous society of 9 million people. One race, language, culture etc. when you all come to one accord on something like firearms law you get a very high level of voluntary compliance.
Even if I agreed with you about the value of the laws you favor, and I don't, you'd never get an appreciable level of compliance here. For dozens of reasons you wouldn't.
Attempts to enforce compliance would make our last century's alcohol prohibition look like a walk in the park and a smashing success.
300+ million people, probably more than 300 million privately owned firearms.
Millions and millions of people refusing to comply with something like national registration. What would you do with them? Put them in prison? The prisons are already overflowing with criminals who have actually hurt people, not just refused to fill out some paperwork.
Support for any further gun laws in the U.S. is at a record low. The homicide with a firearm rate is half what it was in the U.S. 18 years ago. I don't believe any new laws will be passed in the foreseeable future.
All fair points... I agree that my views are different, based to a large degree on a different background... However, Sweden isn't as uniform as you might think... It's not as diverse or as segregated as the US in different groups, but it's still a mix of people from all over Europe, from a long time back...
I for one have ancestors that came to Sweden from France in the early 1700's, and from Finland only a little later... And in some views, I'm not even Swedish, as I'm part Samic, and part "Skåning" ie from the southern most part, who is still considered at least half Danish by the rest of Sweden... However both groups are completely integrated since centuries, and all are Swedish... So again, comparations are tricky, since we know only limited facts about the other countries, and how they work...
The fabric of how Sweden came to be a country is much, much different than the US... You have the constitution, confirming certain rigths... In Sweden, the right to bear arms isn't written down in that way, but you try disarming the Swedish people, and you will find that very hard, law or no law...
It's obviously a lot different from a large city to countryside, but in most smaller villages in the northern half of Sweden, a man walking into the post office, store, whatever with a rifle or shotgun on his shoulder wouldn't make many people react too much... The local police would at most ask him to show his gun licence if they crossed paths, and obviously, you aren't allowed to have a round in the chamber, but the gun can be loaded... Banks are obviously excluded from that list... It's however considered "bad form", to not use a case or gunbag when you are going to the shop, not a rule, just common courtesy... A gun is considered a tool, not a weapon in that respect...
To give you another little tidbit, which will probably make your mind boggle... While you can legally walk into the shop with a rifle on your shoulder, the folding knife with a 2" blade in your pocket would get you arrested, and likely means staying the night... Stick a bowie knife in your belt, and have a reasonable explanation and it's ok though... Again, tool vs weapon... The non folding knife a hunter uses, and carries on his belt is a tool, the folding knife concealed in a pocket is considered a potential weapon... That law have been in force a lot longer than any similar law in the US or other countries as far as i know...
11-02-2011, 07:28 AM
#92
Retired- but not tired!
SuperBike
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,478
Stats are hard to come by, but I did find some info that said handgun thefts are not the largest percentage of those used in crimes. More come from "straw purchases", where someone buys a gun legally for someone else (a criminal), and another larger source is "corrupt" sales to criminals by licensed dealers. Not definitive information, but interesting to debate. 
11-02-2011, 07:50 AM
#93
Senior Member
Superstock
Superstock
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 321
There's the sale of guns through gun stores then there's private sale which I think should be a greater focus of regulation. Aren't gun shows no background-check?
I don't see regulation as a means of confiscation. If the govt' wanted the guns, once a majority that supported that agenda got into power, they'd change the laws (and the constitution) and take them. As it stands, the number of CCW states is increasing, not decreasing.
I don't see regulation as a means of confiscation. If the govt' wanted the guns, once a majority that supported that agenda got into power, they'd change the laws (and the constitution) and take them. As it stands, the number of CCW states is increasing, not decreasing.
11-02-2011, 08:36 AM
#94
Remember stock is BAD!
SuperSport
SuperSport
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Jacksonville FL
Posts: 760
Stats are hard to come by, but I did find some info that said handgun thefts are not the largest percentage of those used in crimes. More come from "straw purchases", where someone buys a gun legally for someone else (a criminal), and another larger source is "corrupt" sales to criminals......
straw purchases - So what about the fast and furious guns that our own government made available?
Is that political enough for ya?
11-02-2011, 08:38 AM
#95
Senior Member
Superstock
Superstock
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 321
If the gun show seller is a federally licensed dealer the federal form 4473 and Brady check are required, same as at the gun store.
If the sale is between private individuals who are both legal residents of the state in which the gun show is being held no federal paperwork is required.
Gun show or no gun show it is illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited person and illegal to sell a gun to a person who is a resident of another state. That's the federal law.
California not only requires paperwork and background check for gun show sales, but imposes a 10 day waiting period for guns purchased at a 2 or 3 day show.
Because the purpose of the law was not to be "reasonable" or use "common sense", not to "save children" or make the world safe for democracy.
The purpose of the law was to destroy the gun shows. Which it did.
If the sale is between private individuals who are both legal residents of the state in which the gun show is being held no federal paperwork is required.
Gun show or no gun show it is illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited person and illegal to sell a gun to a person who is a resident of another state. That's the federal law.
California not only requires paperwork and background check for gun show sales, but imposes a 10 day waiting period for guns purchased at a 2 or 3 day show.
Because the purpose of the law was not to be "reasonable" or use "common sense", not to "save children" or make the world safe for democracy.
The purpose of the law was to destroy the gun shows. Which it did.
It also seems reasonable to me to impose the same waiting period (unless stores do not have the same waiting period in Ca.) as in a retail store. It is also a big competitive disadvantage to a brick and mortar buisness to have to impose when a competitor (in this case, gun shows) does not so I see this law as supporting private businesses too.
11-02-2011, 09:06 AM
#96
Senior Member
Superstock
Superstock
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 321
Bad guys will always be among us. That will never change.
I was looking to be educated with my question. Do you think the motivation of killing the gun shows was driven by a desire to reduce outlets for bad guys to acquire them? Could it have been done as a protection of private business as I speculated?
Edit: RK1, I must've been typing this reply while you were posting your reply above.
I believe the purpose of the wait/inconvenience period is to prevent impulsive crime, ie."going postal".
I was looking to be educated with my question. Do you think the motivation of killing the gun shows was driven by a desire to reduce outlets for bad guys to acquire them? Could it have been done as a protection of private business as I speculated?
Edit: RK1, I must've been typing this reply while you were posting your reply above.
I believe the purpose of the wait/inconvenience period is to prevent impulsive crime, ie."going postal".
Last edited by davidka; 11-02-2011 at 09:18 AM.
11-02-2011, 11:15 AM
#97
Senior Member
Superstock
Superstock
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 321
True. In the most disturbing event of it's type in recent history I believe the killer patiently waited out the waiting period before going on a rampage at Va. Tech. Worse yet, this kid was documented as unstable in many places. Background check did not catch him but again, the result in this case didn't meet the goal and when it does meet it's goal, nobody ever knows (killer goes home and sleeps it off).
11-02-2011, 11:49 AM
#98
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 3,869
Now I'm not saying that the argument that wait period isn't reasonable... actually the only reason that it works is that it is a very reasonable suggestion. What I'm saying is that it is easy to get comfortable and if certain people use valid arguments as a means to forward their political agenda, it is hard to reverse once it's on the books.
It's easy to get pulled in any direction. On one hand, a more watchful government like the Swedes that we've mentioned seems very reasonable. But in a nation full of hunters, having your rifles double as a home defense, it kind of works out. Reading into the handgun rules, it is much more difficult to obtain and keep one as they are not hunting weapons. Regular competitions, proof of classes, and limits on the number and caliper of guns are indicators of how the system works (in that, you're free to hunt, but as a people killing handgun, we're going to make sure you're being responsible).
Now, say, in Phoenix, there aren't nearly as many hunters here. So most people don't own a hunting tool that doubles a home defense weapon because it is larger and unnecessary. So if you're purchasing a gun, it is often just for the second reason. This leads to the other issues we've talked about, such as not being as familiar with the weapons and questionable motives, but nevertheless the rules wouldn't cater as well to the area.
Last edited by 7moore7; 11-02-2011 at 11:52 AM. Reason: damn spelling
11-02-2011, 01:18 PM
#99
Senior Member
SuperBike
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,802
You and I know this, but some will flat out refuse to believe it, as evidenced by davidka's post above. Since when have any government program's results lined up with the stated goals? After a few thousand years of being lied to and fucked over by government you would think that people would question whether the stated goals of this or that law or program are really the real goals at all.
Last edited by killer5280; 11-02-2011 at 01:28 PM.
11-02-2011, 05:39 PM
#100
Senior Member
SuperBike
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Belgium, WI
Posts: 1,611
Yeah well, a guy who is half Irish and likes Ron Paul can't be all bad!
FWIW, Sanders isn't actually a member of the Dem party. He's a socialist who caucuses with the Dems for the purpose of committee assignments.
As "liberal" as Vermont is, it's the only one of the 50 states which has never had any gun laws whatever. No storage laws, no registration, no "assault weapon" or machine gun ban. You can carry openly or concealed anywhere in the state, no permit required.
Violent crime and homicide rates lower than Western Europe. How odd!
FWIW, Sanders isn't actually a member of the Dem party. He's a socialist who caucuses with the Dems for the purpose of committee assignments.
As "liberal" as Vermont is, it's the only one of the 50 states which has never had any gun laws whatever. No storage laws, no registration, no "assault weapon" or machine gun ban. You can carry openly or concealed anywhere in the state, no permit required.
Violent crime and homicide rates lower than Western Europe. How odd!
As for the jabs at me, I think that there are some assumptions made and comments posted by some that are attempts to disarm the conversation that others present. This is done to deflect the eyes off the presented information towards the non-issue of political standing. Was it accurate? For me, no it wasnt. But trying to diffuse a conversation to remain rooted where you are and sway others towards your belief is part of the society that we have bred. It is the basis for our legal system: What is right vs who argued better. With that said, let me address why I think education and training is necessary.
I am a teacher in a high school. I deal with kids from Cognitively Disabled (Mentally Retarded for those that haven't kept up with the politically correct terms) all the way up to Valedictorians. How? I teach consumer level courses on top of the trade based courses that make up much of Technology Education. One of the girls in my class 2 years ago got a 34 on the ACT and had all her math done before college (Physicist) while one of my students will always live with some type of assistance (not license-able to drive). Knowing the demographic of the youth of today, I can honestly say that there are individuals that I would have no problem with them carrying, even at school as a 16 year old. There are others that would have pulled guns on me, and I see know change in their future to this regard, near or far. I know students from both parties that would love to carry. I dont want the emotionally disturbed person having just as much access as the non disturbed. Maybe that is selfish of me, but I just dont think some of these kids will be adults that should carry. Hell, some of them shouldnt have kids (too many of them). It is not so much that I don't want to carry, it is that I dont think that I should have to always be worrying about protecting myself. Speaking of which:
Hartland Man Arrested After Firing Gun, Reporting Himself - Port Washington-Saukville, WI Patch
At least he knew he did something wrong after the fact
11-02-2011, 06:07 PM
#101
Senior Member
Superstock
Superstock
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 321
Because the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa Claus all really exist? Useful idiots may, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, really believe that gun laws will make us safer, but the real agenda is to disarm and cow into submission law abiding people, i.e., to make helpless subjects and victims out of us.
You and I know this, but some will flat out refuse to believe it, as evidenced by davidka's post above. Since when have any government program's results lined up with the stated goals? After a few thousand years of being lied to and fucked over by government you would think that people would question whether the stated goals of this or that law or program are really the real goals at all.
You and I know this, but some will flat out refuse to believe it, as evidenced by davidka's post above. Since when have any government program's results lined up with the stated goals? After a few thousand years of being lied to and fucked over by government you would think that people would question whether the stated goals of this or that law or program are really the real goals at all.
If "we the people" found ourselves in a situation where we needed to turn out private arms against the government, the fight would be over in an afternoon. We haven't had arms to defend against or fight a standing military since before WWI. Today's military can level cities from over the horizon. We would never have a chance.
If you believe that laws don't make you safe then I invite you to visit somewhere where there aren't any for a month. Maybe Somalia?
The US population continues growing incredibly fast because this is one of the best coutries in the world to live in. It is so solely because of it's laws.
11-02-2011, 07:38 PM
#102
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: altoona, pa
Posts: 2,934
This country is one of the best, but it seems that we're on our way downhill, also at a geometric pace.
11-02-2011, 07:38 PM
#103
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Norman OK
Posts: 121
I'm sorry you are so paranoid of your government but your view that gun control is solely about taking your guns away is all in your imagination. If the government wanted your guns, they'd take them. It would be easy.
If "we the people" found ourselves in a situation where we needed to turn out private arms against the government, the fight would be over in an afternoon. We haven't had arms to defend against or fight a standing military since before WWI. Today's military can level cities from over the horizon. We would never have a chance.
If you believe that laws don't make you safe then I invite you to visit somewhere where there aren't any for a month. Maybe Somalia?
The US population continues growing incredibly fast because this is one of the best coutries in the world to live in. It is so solely because of it's laws.
If "we the people" found ourselves in a situation where we needed to turn out private arms against the government, the fight would be over in an afternoon. We haven't had arms to defend against or fight a standing military since before WWI. Today's military can level cities from over the horizon. We would never have a chance.
If you believe that laws don't make you safe then I invite you to visit somewhere where there aren't any for a month. Maybe Somalia?
The US population continues growing incredibly fast because this is one of the best coutries in the world to live in. It is so solely because of it's laws.
America is Great because it was founded on the right principles. Just my opinion.
And Somalia sucks because it's just a bad place to live. It's possible to live in a place with essentially no consequences regards to laws and live well.
The reason we're "paranoid" about the gov taking our guns away is because they might try it sometime, though Texas would leave the Union and I'd move there. America has always been a Nation of Equals and having guns puts us on an equal level of power with the government.
A few quotes:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
-- Hitler, April 11 1942
I think you'd be hard pressed to say any of these men above are incorrect in their statements. Just food for thought.
11-02-2011, 07:52 PM
#104
Senior Member
SuperBike
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Belgium, WI
Posts: 1,611
You're completely correct about the military having the power to level these cities in seconds flat, but what solder is going to fire on American Citizens in their own homes? I'm from a military town and I'd find it hard to believe those guys would fire on their neighbors and friends. Don't forget that soldiers are citizens with private weapons too, and I doubt the'd give theirs up.
America is Great because it was founded on the right principles. Just my opinion.
And Somalia sucks because it's just a bad place to live. It's possible to live in a place with essentially no consequences regards to laws and live well.
The reason we're "paranoid" about the gov taking our guns away is because they might try it sometime, though Texas would leave the Union and I'd move there. America has always been a Nation of Equals and having guns puts us on an equal level of power with the government.
A few quotes:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
-- Hitler, April 11 1942
I think you'd be hard pressed to say any of these men above are incorrect in their statements. Just food for thought.
America is Great because it was founded on the right principles. Just my opinion.
And Somalia sucks because it's just a bad place to live. It's possible to live in a place with essentially no consequences regards to laws and live well.
The reason we're "paranoid" about the gov taking our guns away is because they might try it sometime, though Texas would leave the Union and I'd move there. America has always been a Nation of Equals and having guns puts us on an equal level of power with the government.
A few quotes:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
-- Hitler, April 11 1942
I think you'd be hard pressed to say any of these men above are incorrect in their statements. Just food for thought.
Is a felon a free man?
Is the fear of the govt taking your arms and the thought that the soldiers wouldnt fire on us a contradiction? Misinformation goes a long way: Ruby Ridge
Can Texas survive without the US? (afterall, they do take just a few handouts through various programs, at a rate of greater than 100% return if I remember correctly)
These questions will undoubtedly be viewed negatively, but it is the type of questions one should ask in a pro/con analysis. You know, the type of questions that dont feel good. Lets say I want a new car, I ask "can I afford it?"
11-02-2011, 08:16 PM
#105
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Norman OK
Posts: 121
I have some curiosities:
Is a felon a free man?
Is the fear of the govt taking your arms and the thought that the soldiers wouldnt fire on us a contradiction? Misinformation goes a long way: Ruby Ridge
Can Texas survive without the US? (afterall, they do take just a few handouts through various programs, at a rate of greater than 100% return if I remember correctly)
These questions will undoubtedly be viewed negatively, but it is the type of questions one should ask in a pro/con analysis. You know, the type of questions that dont feel good. Lets say I want a new car, I ask "can I afford it?"
Is a felon a free man?
Is the fear of the govt taking your arms and the thought that the soldiers wouldnt fire on us a contradiction? Misinformation goes a long way: Ruby Ridge
Can Texas survive without the US? (afterall, they do take just a few handouts through various programs, at a rate of greater than 100% return if I remember correctly)
These questions will undoubtedly be viewed negatively, but it is the type of questions one should ask in a pro/con analysis. You know, the type of questions that dont feel good. Lets say I want a new car, I ask "can I afford it?"
I doubt that soldiers would openly fire on peaceful civilians without someone provoking them i.e. shooting at them. Men who did this in Vietnam have been put in jail for the same thing, even if they were "following orders."
I'm sure Texas would have difficulties after immediately leaving the US, but it's not like they couldn't take on loan until they cut enough spending and increased tax revenue enough to cover their costs. But it wouldn't just be Texas, I'm sure Oklahoma and Arizona would be quick to follow, and let's face it, Texas and Oklahoma basically own the refining and natural gas industries in the US, respectively.
11-02-2011, 08:41 PM
#106
Senior Member
Superstock
Superstock
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 321
You're completely correct about the military having the power to level these cities in seconds flat, but what solder is going to fire on American Citizens in their own homes? I'm from a military town and I'd find it hard to believe those guys would fire on their neighbors and friends. Don't forget that soldiers are citizens with private weapons too, and I doubt the'd give theirs up.
America is Great because it was founded on the right principles. Just my opinion.
And Somalia sucks because it's just a bad place to live. It's possible to live in a place with essentially no consequences regards to laws and live well.
The reason we're "paranoid" about the gov taking our guns away is because they might try it sometime, though Texas would leave the Union and I'd move there. America has always been a Nation of Equals and having guns puts us on an equal level of power with the government.
A few quotes:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
-- Hitler, April 11 1942
I think you'd be hard pressed to say any of these men above are incorrect in their statements. Just food for thought.
America is Great because it was founded on the right principles. Just my opinion.
And Somalia sucks because it's just a bad place to live. It's possible to live in a place with essentially no consequences regards to laws and live well.
The reason we're "paranoid" about the gov taking our guns away is because they might try it sometime, though Texas would leave the Union and I'd move there. America has always been a Nation of Equals and having guns puts us on an equal level of power with the government.
A few quotes:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
-- Hitler, April 11 1942
I think you'd be hard pressed to say any of these men above are incorrect in their statements. Just food for thought.
I'd like to think American soldiers couldn't bring themselves to fire on Americans, Libyan citezens wish that were the case for them and their military too. Things change. If our country were to become that messed up, the revolutionary population would no longer be seen as Americans to the military and the government (treason). People who believe in the principal of gun ownership to protect the public from the government must concede that this scenario is possible.
Ghandi was a proponent of non-violent resistance. I believe that part of the wisom of this was that it was harder for a government to justify fighting down the resistance militarily, giving it endurance.
This is all hypothetical of course. I don't believe the USA can go down that road.
Last edited by davidka; 11-02-2011 at 08:43 PM.
11-02-2011, 08:48 PM
#107
Senior Member
Superstock
Superstock
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 321
Interestingly relevant to this conversation is that a felon loses his/her right to own firearms for the rest of their lives. A couple states (Va. is one) do not allow felons to vote after serving their sentences either.
11-02-2011, 10:18 PM
#108
Senior Member
SuperBike
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,802
I'm sorry you are so paranoid of your government but your view that gun control is solely about taking your guns away is all in your imagination. If the government wanted your guns, they'd take them. It would be easy.
If "we the people" found ourselves in a situation where we needed to turn out private arms against the government, the fight would be over in an afternoon. We haven't had arms to defend against or fight a standing military since before WWI. Today's military can level cities from over the horizon. We would never have a chance.
If you believe that laws don't make you safe then I invite you to visit somewhere where there aren't any for a month. Maybe Somalia?
The US population continues growing incredibly fast because this is one of the best coutries in the world to live in. It is so solely because of it's laws.
If "we the people" found ourselves in a situation where we needed to turn out private arms against the government, the fight would be over in an afternoon. We haven't had arms to defend against or fight a standing military since before WWI. Today's military can level cities from over the horizon. We would never have a chance.
If you believe that laws don't make you safe then I invite you to visit somewhere where there aren't any for a month. Maybe Somalia?
The US population continues growing incredibly fast because this is one of the best coutries in the world to live in. It is so solely because of it's laws.
I'm not paranoid of anything, but I'm not naive, either. Perhaps the US military could do all the things you mention, but things don't really work that way. Our military hasn't won a war since WWII, not that it couldn't if it were given the chance. Our military can't even win wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after 10 years, and if those wars are so controversial imagine how it would be if it were asked to quash a rebellion here in the US.
The fact is that if half the population of this country had a single minded goal there is nothing the military could do to stop it.
So all we have to do to be a better place to live is pass more laws? Is that what you're saying?
I think you should check your facts about US population growth relative to the rest of the world. Most of the fastest growing countries in the world are not places that could be described as bastions of freedom and tolerance.
I'm a firm believer in non violence and the spirit of individual freedom, but I am under no misapprehension that there isn't an agenda to disarm us and incrementally erode our freedoms and erect a police state. That has already happened in large measure. The US is going down that road as we speak (type).
Back to the topic of the thread: I am a proponent of unpermitted open and concealed carry.
Last edited by killer5280; 11-02-2011 at 10:22 PM.
11-03-2011, 01:15 PM
#109
Senior Member
Superstock
Superstock
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 321
I'm not paranoid of anything, but I'm not naive, either. Perhaps the US military could do all the things you mention, but things don't really work that way. Our military hasn't won a war since WWII, not that it couldn't if it were given the chance. Our military can't even win wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after 10 years, and if those wars are so controversial imagine how it would be if it were asked to quash a rebellion here in the US.
The fact is that if half the population of this country had a single minded goal there is nothing the military could do to stop it.
So all we have to do to be a better place to live is pass more laws? Is that what you're saying?
I think you should check your facts about US population growth relative to the rest of the world. Most of the fastest growing countries in the world are not places that could be described as bastions of freedom and tolerance.
I'm a firm believer in non violence and the spirit of individual freedom, but I am under no misapprehension that there isn't an agenda to disarm us and incrementally erode our freedoms and erect a police state. That has already happened in large measure. The US is going down that road as we speak (type).
Back to the topic of the thread: I am a proponent of unpermitted open and concealed carry.
The fact is that if half the population of this country had a single minded goal there is nothing the military could do to stop it.
So all we have to do to be a better place to live is pass more laws? Is that what you're saying?
I think you should check your facts about US population growth relative to the rest of the world. Most of the fastest growing countries in the world are not places that could be described as bastions of freedom and tolerance.
I'm a firm believer in non violence and the spirit of individual freedom, but I am under no misapprehension that there isn't an agenda to disarm us and incrementally erode our freedoms and erect a police state. That has already happened in large measure. The US is going down that road as we speak (type).
Back to the topic of the thread: I am a proponent of unpermitted open and concealed carry.
I have checked my facts about the population growth. The point I was making is that the US population is growing fast while most other developed nations are not growing so fast. People are still choosing to come here to the US from everywhere else in the world.
I still don't believe private arms has any influence on the control or lack thereof that the government has. As far as a government with a modern military is concerned, we are already disarmed.
Imagine if even half of this country could agree on anything.
11-03-2011, 02:43 PM
#110
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: altoona, pa
Posts: 2,934
All good points.
I have checked my facts about the population growth. The point I was making is that the US population is growing fast while most other developed nations are not growing so fast. People are still choosing to come here to the US from everywhere else in the world.
I have checked my facts about the population growth. The point I was making is that the US population is growing fast while most other developed nations are not growing so fast. People are still choosing to come here to the US from everywhere else in the world.
If I could get free, i'd be corresponding from down under or from somewhere in Europe. Two Bushes, and soon to be, two Obamas, costly nonsense wars, and the corporate oligarchy proves that there is nothing here for me. Till then, I'll console myself with the realization that it's not the worst place to be imprisoned.
11-04-2011, 06:49 PM
#113
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Norman OK
Posts: 121
Number of Hunters in America | Number Of | How Many
That's literally 10 to 20 times the size of the US military.
In addition, this figure doesn't account for all the individuals that are wither unregistered hunters or simply own guns. And who's to say that these people won't hand out their excess weaponry to others who share their love of the Second Amendment.
The idea that the US military would, or even could, overpower the citizens is simply outrageous. Everyone in the Military is a volunteer, and I'm sure many would rather serve a minimum jail time for ignoring an order than to kill other US citizens because they wouldn't yield their weapons. And these military persons would be required to give up their personal arms as well, giving them that much more motivation not to follow these orders. Besides the fact that I doubt anyone would give the order to fire on US civilians.
Point being that even if the Government decided to overthrow the power of the American people, they couldn't. There are too few soldiers in the homeland to begin with, fewer who would be willing to give up their personal weapons, and fewer still who would kill other US civilians.
11-04-2011, 07:30 PM
#114
Senior Member
Superstock
Superstock
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 321
Our immigration policies, both actual and de facto, favor uneducated, unskilled, **** poor parasites from the third world. Eligible for welfare, food stamps, WIC coupons, Section Eight Housing Vouchers, "Earned" income tax "credit", Medicaid, "free" public education etc. the instant they receive their green card.
We've already got over 300 million living here. Why would you favor turning America into an India or a China?
Do you think there are too few cars on the rush hour highway? Are you feeling lonely? WTF!!!
We've already got over 300 million living here. Why would you favor turning America into an India or a China?
Do you think there are too few cars on the rush hour highway? Are you feeling lonely? WTF!!!
The number of hunters in the US varies anywhere from 23 million to 43.7 million.
Number of Hunters in America | Number Of | How Many
That's literally 10 to 20 times the size of the US military.
In addition, this figure doesn't account for all the individuals that are wither unregistered hunters or simply own guns. And who's to say that these people won't hand out their excess weaponry to others who share their love of the Second Amendment.
The idea that the US military would, or even could, overpower the citizens is simply outrageous. Everyone in the Military is a volunteer, and I'm sure many would rather serve a minimum jail time for ignoring an order than to kill other US citizens because they wouldn't yield their weapons. And these military persons would be required to give up their personal arms as well, giving them that much more motivation not to follow these orders. Besides the fact that I doubt anyone would give the order to fire on US civilians.
Point being that even if the Government decided to overthrow the power of the American people, they couldn't. There are too few soldiers in the homeland to begin with, fewer who would be willing to give up their personal weapons, and fewer still who would kill other US civilians.
Number of Hunters in America | Number Of | How Many
That's literally 10 to 20 times the size of the US military.
In addition, this figure doesn't account for all the individuals that are wither unregistered hunters or simply own guns. And who's to say that these people won't hand out their excess weaponry to others who share their love of the Second Amendment.
The idea that the US military would, or even could, overpower the citizens is simply outrageous. Everyone in the Military is a volunteer, and I'm sure many would rather serve a minimum jail time for ignoring an order than to kill other US citizens because they wouldn't yield their weapons. And these military persons would be required to give up their personal arms as well, giving them that much more motivation not to follow these orders. Besides the fact that I doubt anyone would give the order to fire on US civilians.
Point being that even if the Government decided to overthrow the power of the American people, they couldn't. There are too few soldiers in the homeland to begin with, fewer who would be willing to give up their personal weapons, and fewer still who would kill other US civilians.
There are people out there that still believe that a compelling reason to own weapons is to one day protect themselves from an oppressive government. If that belief is sincere than they don't agree with your view that American's wouldn't shoot at Americans (look up the Kent State shootings where Ohio National guardsmen fired on unarmed college students). It is not impossible for a division in a country's population to occur where a part of the population is no longer considered to be citizens or equals. If we were having this conversation in the 70's or early 80's I'd dare you to walk around in your community for a week promoting communism to demonstrate the point.
How about Germany in the 30's and 40's? They were developed, modern industrial country in the middle of some hard times. Things can change fast.
Last edited by davidka; 11-04-2011 at 07:40 PM.
11-04-2011, 08:48 PM
#115
Senior Member
Superstock
Superstock
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 321
I'm not disputing any of that, only that when people leave their country, more often than not, they choose this one, whether they're destitute or productive. If it's any consolation, more people have been deported in the last few years (400,000 this year) than any other time in our history. Most were the people you mentioned I'd bet.
11-04-2011, 09:11 PM
#116
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Norman OK
Posts: 121
There are people out there that still believe that a compelling reason to own weapons is to one day protect themselves from an oppressive government. If that belief is sincere than they don't agree with your view that American's wouldn't shoot at Americans (look up the Kent State shootings where Ohio National guardsmen fired on unarmed college students). It is not impossible for a division in a country's population to occur where a part of the population is no longer considered to be citizens or equals. If we were having this conversation in the 70's or early 80's I'd dare you to walk around in your community for a week promoting communism to demonstrate the point.
How about Germany in the 30's and 40's? They were developed, modern industrial country in the middle of some hard times. Things can change fast.
How about Germany in the 30's and 40's? They were developed, modern industrial country in the middle of some hard times. Things can change fast.
And of course there will always be incidents like Kent State where poor communication and a particular individual causes a bad situation to become worse. But that was an isolated incident where the Guardsmen outnumbered the students and a single man took it upon himself to fire at the students.
Fortunately if there were a division I'll be on the side with all the trained marksmen and firearm owners.
And look at the quote by Hitler in my earlier post combined with your earlier statement just confirms my theory.
11-04-2011, 10:05 PM
#117
Senior Member
Superstock
Superstock
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 321
They're the same thing, your just looking at it from your own stationary perspective. You're thinking about the state of the Nation today. If a time comes where guns are to be collected by the government, the ones who refuse to give them up will be declared criminals. If a person's defining characteristics are listed in single words from top to bottom, the word criminal almost always finds itself higher on the list than American. It's easy to shoot criminals. How about David Koresh and his cult group? The FBI murdered those [American] people.
Quoting Hitler supports my argument (besides, he's talking about an already conquered population outside his country). The ***** did everything that you seem to think cannot happen.
11-04-2011, 11:35 PM
#118
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Norman OK
Posts: 121
They're the same thing, your just looking at it from your own stationary perspective. You're thinking about the state of the Nation today. If a time comes where guns are to be collected by the government, the ones who refuse to give them up will be declared criminals. If a person's defining characteristics are listed in single words from top to bottom, the word criminal almost always finds itself higher on the list than American. It's easy to shoot criminals. How about David Koresh and his cult group? The FBI murdered those [American] people.
Quoting Hitler supports my argument (besides, he's talking about an already conquered population outside his country). The ***** did everything that you seem to think cannot happen.
Quoting Hitler supports my argument (besides, he's talking about an already conquered population outside his country). The ***** did everything that you seem to think cannot happen.
Hitler came to power so easily and so ruthlessly because he deprived the people of their rights and they never knew it. He took millions a legal German citizens and executed them because they were different. It was obvious that the Jews were being persecuted to Germans; they just didn't know the scale.
No idea how Hitler saying it's easy to conquer a people who have no Arms and you saying that this exact thing happened in Germany when Hitler ruled doesn't qualify that keeping our Arms is pivotal in keeping our freedom. Please describe your logic.
11-05-2011, 06:01 AM
#119
Senior Member
Superstock
Superstock
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 321
That assumes every gun owner would refuse to turn over their guns. It also assumes a far different number of citizens than you stated in an earlier post "anywhere from 23 million to 43.7 million".
You are also not understanding the quote you provided. Hitler is not talking about conquering unarmed people or giving an already conquered population their hunting rifles back, he's talking about integrating them into his military and arming them in that way (tanks, artillery, etc.). Assuming there were hunting weapons and military in Eastern Europe, they were armed when the Germans conquered them.
You are also not understanding the quote you provided. Hitler is not talking about conquering unarmed people or giving an already conquered population their hunting rifles back, he's talking about integrating them into his military and arming them in that way (tanks, artillery, etc.). Assuming there were hunting weapons and military in Eastern Europe, they were armed when the Germans conquered them.
11-05-2011, 09:42 AM
#120
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Norman OK
Posts: 121
That assumes every gun owner would refuse to turn over their guns. It also assumes a far different number of citizens than you stated in an earlier post "anywhere from 23 million to 43.7 million".
You are also not understanding the quote you provided. Hitler is not talking about conquering unarmed people or giving an already conquered population their hunting rifles back, he's talking about integrating them into his military and arming them in that way (tanks, artillery, etc.). Assuming there were hunting weapons and military in Eastern Europe, they were armed when the Germans conquered them.
You are also not understanding the quote you provided. Hitler is not talking about conquering unarmed people or giving an already conquered population their hunting rifles back, he's talking about integrating them into his military and arming them in that way (tanks, artillery, etc.). Assuming there were hunting weapons and military in Eastern Europe, they were armed when the Germans conquered them.
-- Hitler, April 11 1942
That's the quote. It would seem to me that Hitler is indicating that hostile rulers that allow their subjects Arms are going to get overthrown. Not seeing your logic behind how this quote is him talking about enlisting the people.
And as to how many people would give up their guns
Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun(that's about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning 260 million guns).
Read more: How many gun owners are there in the United States of America
I guarantee you not one person who owns a gun is going to just give it up. That gun cost them money and they aren't just gonna let money walk out the door.
My final point is that it's impractical to simply outlaw firearms in the USA. About the only way it COULD be done is how it's happening now. Regulation, restriction, and finally prohibition.
Fully automatic guns, while not illegal in the US, cannot legally be produced anymore. In other words, there are no NEW full auto weapons in the US. You can however, remove the module from an older weapon and put it in a new one. Or you could go so far as to build a new module and use the serial number from the old one. Personally I believe this is a violation of my Constitutional rights.
