How To Scare The Shit Out Of Many American Gun Advocates: (Page 2)

StuckInTheSixties:

dvustimmer says:
"You have to RESTRICT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY in the obtainment of firearms therefore not infringing on law abiding citizens."

That's a pretty vague statement. Elaborate on that, please.

dvustimmer: That's not vague at all. Restrict criminal activity is restrict criminal activity. Now you want me to define what/how restricting criminal is and done.

In my case, I would have to say to restrict criminal activity of obtaining guns is about as worth while as the war on drugs. It's an impossible mission or objective to achieve. But it is an answer, and a correct one to boot.

Goose and gander here, are you clever enough to tell me how it is possible to restrict criminal activity and not infringe on the law abiding? I know I couldn't. If I go byond my original statment. But my original statement is correct and sound left at that, so is it up to me to prove it farther, which I can't, or you to disprove it, which you can't without expanding into examples.

I'm just stating in the end, it's clever wording and leading question.

kberry: I don't believe 1) and 2) are the same thing, otherwise I would have stated them as one thing. (: To remove guns from public access is just that--no gun access. To restrict gun access further would be to allow the public to retain their rights to own guns, but with more restrictions.

Perhaps they should put a tighter leash on gun sales and ownership. More accountability for those who wish to own? Either way, my point was that the public could either retain their rights to bear arms or they could lose them altogether in an effort to reduce criminal access.

StuckInTheSixties:

ƸŧɛɍƞɑłĐɑɍқƞɛŝȿ says:
"Perhaps they should put a tighter leash on gun sales"

I agree. This is what I advocate.

I advocate mandatory documentation of the "chain of ownership" for all firearms. This would essentially plug the so-called "loopholes" through which most illegitimate firearms pass from legitimate, law-abiding use and ownership into criminal use and ownership. This would cause a minimum of imposition on law-abiding gun owners.

It's much harder to take steps to prevent a law-abiding gun owner from becoming a criminal without far more severe impositions on law-abiding gun owners, but reasonable steps, albeit very imperfect steps, can be taken there, as well in the form of a "waiting period" between when a gun is purchased, and when possession is transferred to the next owner.

dvustimmer: Sits,

Lets try it this way....

Since non-criminals are the lowest cause of the trouble associated with guns, how can we increase criminal denial to guns while not depriving law-abiding people of their rights to access to guns without pissing all over the bill of rights?

StuckInTheSixties:

dvustimmer says:
"non-criminals are the lowest cause of the trouble associated with guns..."

What do you mean by "lowest"? Seriously, I have no idea what you mean by that. Lowest, like the sleaziest, least respectable? Lowest, like the segment with the smallest statistical proportion? I have no idea what you mean ... Perhaps you could restate that in less ambiguous terms.

dvustimmer says:
"how can we increase criminal denial to guns while not depriving law-abiding people of their rights to access to guns without pissing all over the bill of rights?"

Again, your terminology is rather ambiguous. "Pissing all over the Bill of Rights" is about as relative of a concept as one could come up with. In fact, there are TWO versions of the 2nd Amendment.

From Wikipedia:

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. One version was passed by the Congress, while another is found in the copies distributed to the States and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So take your pick. They're both totally ambiguous.

Some people interpret that as meaning that each state has the right to form their own well regulated militia, and the right of each state to do that can not be infringed upon by the Federal government, and that the amendment has no bearing whatsoever upon whether or not individual citizens, not a part of said state militias, can bear arms.

Given the wording, I find this to be a reasonable interpretation.

Other people interpret that as meaning that each state has the right to form their own well regulated militia, and the right of each state to do that can not be infringed upon by the Federal government, and that the amendment also guarantees that individual citizens, not a part of said state militias, can bear arms.

Given the wording, I also find this to be a reasonable interpretation.

In practical terms, very few people think that the 2nd Amendment guarantees all citizens to be free from any restrictions whatsoever concerning firearms. If you're one of those, than that simplifies things for you. That point of view is simple, clear, straightforward, and unambiguous. It needs no discussion.

But most people think that government has the right to make SOME restrictions on its citizens right to bear arms. If that's the case, then it becomes a matter of just what sort of restrictions the government can make.

That's where "pissing all over the bill of rights" comes in. For some, they feel the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to anything and everything, including fully automatic 50 caliber machine gun, anti-tank rockets, explosives, or anything else. Period.

For others, it means that it means only that states can have their own National Guard units. Period.

Those are the extremes. Most arguments fall between them, obviously. But just saying "pissing all over the bill of rights" can reasonably be anywhere between those two extremes. So how the heck am I supposed to know where YOU mean?

I hate to keep harping on you about it, but I'd suggest more precise language. I know it's difficult, and the subject is complex, but complex issues like this call for precise language, else we don't know what the heck we're talking about.

You see my post directly above yours. Would you say that my suggestions there are "pissing all over the Bill of Rights"?

If so, why?

dvustimmer: 1939 United States v. Miller involving a saw off shotgun unregistared being transported across state lines. The supreme court upheld the position of the National Firearms Act as Miller's action's could not be considered to keep and preserve a well regulated militia. I believe that to be the only landmark case the court has gone against the traditional interp of the 2nd amendment.

However the latest ....

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

The Court found that the D.C. ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment right because it prohibited an entire class of arms favored for the lawful purpose of self-defense in the home. It similarly found that the requirement that lawful firearms be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock made it impossible for citizens to effectively use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense, and therefore violated the Second Amendment right. The Court said it was unnecessary to address the constitutionality of the D.C. licensing requirement.

For the most part, the supreme court has held, except for one case involving interstate possesion, that the 2nd amendment is two distictint and seperate rights.....

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

.... has been upheld by supreme court numberous times "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" means infact neither the states or federal govenment can not deny people the right to arms. However they can regulate, limit the type, deny criminals, restrict conceel and carry, but defined as handgun, pistol, rifle, these items are not limited. A bomb would be limited.

The vast majority of supreme court rulings on a scale of a heck of a lot to one, keeps the two ideas of states right to regulate militia and people's right to own and bear arms as seperate rights.

I would have to say the supreme court has defined very well that individual ownership has nothing at all to do with and is not tied to the states right to regulate a militia based on this.

StuckInTheSixties:

Which case is this? Who v Who?

Nevermind, I found it:

District of Columbia v. Heller

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Note that it was a 5-4 decision.

dvustimmer: Correct, CD v Heller. Correct it was a 5-4 decision. An all the other case except the one I mentioned, 1939 United States v. Miller, keep the states (defined as states) right to form a well regulated militia as seperate from the people (defined as individual citizens of the country) the right to own and bear arms.

Point, supreme court has pretty much defined how we can restrict guns away from criminals, yet not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding. So the answer to your question also my vague question is all the supreme court cases dealing with this issue. DC v Heller pretty much stating that United States v. Miller from 1939 is "inconsistent" based on the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia in DC V Heller. Or put another way, it was wrong, and it is now void.

All my question was back was basically a different form of wording your original question. I just change the first part to a opposite to reflect the same statement you made. Essentially they are the same statement, and the addition of the bill of rights not being breach up for question is implied in your statement anyway.

Did you not say "Since Criminals are the highest....." I could ask you to define that to. What does that mean, they are all crack heads? They are more evolved? That was my point to begin with. It's clever wording, leading questions, and if debated back at you using the same trick, you call it "totally ambiguous." Which was my goose and gander statement. Your original question does imply the bill of rights although you did not come out and directly state it. But that is at the center of all of this. I stated it in my version because it's fairly obvious that is what it all comes down to protecting the law-abiding citizen.

So does that clear it up what I meant. The supreme court has many times over defined this. This is the line where it is respecting the bill of rights and protecting and safeguarding that clause v just pissing on the bill of rights.

The strange thing is alot of people who are out there in support of restrictions to no right to own a gun are the ones calling those protecting our 2nd wingnuts. I don't see the NRA out there supporting ones right to own a rocket launcher, nuclear device, chain gun. They are not. What I do see is a bunch of people trying to vilify people for legally owning and supporting the 2nd amendment by making absurd arguements and debating point which are baseless. And yes, a very rational realistic concept is criminals will work outside the law regardless, hence the term criminal, so a bunch of restrictions against the criminals and law abiding is not going to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals just restrict the law-abiding, hence the term law abiding.

I've never seen any fair question stated and immediately follow with implied if answers are this this way, and they say stuff like this, therefore they are not answering the question, they are sidestepping it. At that point it is not a fair question, it is a leading statement.

StuckInTheSixties:

dvustimmer says:
"Did you not say 'Since Criminals are the highest.....' I could ask you to define that to. What does that mean, they are all crack heads? They are more evolved? That was my point to begin with. It's clever wording, leading questions, and if debated back at you using the same trick, you call it "totally ambiguous."

Nope, I didn't say that. (I just checked.)

I suppose if you're going to "debate back at [me] using the same trick," it would work better if it actually was something I actually said. If I'm wrong, copy/paste it to show me, please.

dvustimmer says:
"I don't see the NRA out there supporting ones right to own a rocket launcher, nuclear device, chain gun"

Perhaps not. But they have lobbied against laws that would ...

~~ prohibit "fingerprint resistant finishes" on guns (Why would they do that?!?!?)
~~ prohibit Teflon-coated "cop killer" bullets designed to defeat body armor (Why would they do that?!?!?)
~~ require tagents (microscopic bits of plastic used for identification) to be added into commercial explosives (Why would they do that?!?!?)
~~ prohibit "straw purchases" of firearms (Why would they do that?!?!?)
~~ prohibit kits to easily convert semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons (Why would they do that?!?!?)
~~ prohibit massive "drum magazines " for those same weapons (Why would they do that?!?!?)
~~ prohibit silencers (Why would they do that?!?!?)

Etc. etc. etc.

dvustimmer says:
"What I do see is a bunch of people trying to vilify people for legally owning and supporting the 2nd amendment by making absurd arguements and debating point which are baseless."

Have I done anything like that? If so, show me. Copy/paste it.

I asked, and received no response from you, what you thought about this:

**************************************************************************
I advocate mandatory documentation of the "chain of ownership" for all firearms. This would essentially plug the so-called "loopholes" through which most illegitimate firearms pass from legitimate, law-abiding use and ownership into criminal use and ownership. This would cause a minimum of imposition on law-abiding gun owners.

It's much harder to take steps to prevent a law-abiding gun owner from becoming a criminal without far more severe impositions on law-abiding gun owners, but reasonable steps, albeit very imperfect steps, can be taken there, as well in the form of a "waiting period" between when a gun is purchased, and when possession is transferred to the next owner.
*************************************************************************
I ask again:

Would you say that my suggestions there are "pissing all over the Bill of Rights"?

If so, why?

franklin1950: a regulated militia ...... regulated by a government who may be the subject to the founders original thinking in regard to the citizens right to bare arms .

StuckInTheSixties:

Perhaps it should be.

Their "original thinking" was about muzzle-loading muskets, not fully automatic AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifles with 90 round drum magazines loaded with Teflon-coated "cop killer" rounds.

The Founding Fathers weren't thinking about that, were they?

They also weren't thinking of black people as free citizens with the same rights that they had, were they?

Nor were they thinking about women being able to vote, were they?

So perhaps every nuance of their "original thinking" isn't quite as sacrosanct as some people like to consider it to be when they carefully and selectively attempt to use that "original thinking" as an argument for certain points of view.

dvustimmer: SITS, " "Sinice criminals are the biggest....", OK, lets use that, same applies, does that mean statistical reference, more rotund physically, they perform more outside the law than...? Same thing, parching word.That's the point.

Did I say you may these statements...

"What I do see is a bunch of people trying to vilify people for legally owning and supporting the 2nd amendment by making absurd arguements and debating point which are baseless."

No I did not say you made that statement. Copy and paste where I referenced it as being what you had said previous. I said it as a clarification of what I believe goes on more as opposed to an opinion (not implied to be yours specifically) that it is the advocates for the right to own a gun as granted to them in the bill of rights that are on the defensive, not the offensive. Again, see Supreme court rulings and you would have to agree it is the other side of the debate wanting more restrictions that is really the side on the offensive. Not the side that the supreme court sides with as the correct interp of the clause.

The question you ask again you imply I did not answer, I did quite completely. The supreme courts has ruled where the line is crossed numberous times. All this stuff....

Quote
"I advocate mandatory documentation of the "chain of ownership" for all firearms. This would essentially plug the so-called "loopholes" through which most illegitimate firearms pass from legitimate, law-abiding use and ownership into criminal use and ownership. This would cause a minimum of imposition on law-abiding gun owners.

It's much harder to take steps to prevent a law-abiding gun owner from becoming a criminal without far more severe impositions on law-abiding gun owners, but reasonable steps, albeit very imperfect steps, can be taken there, as well in the form of a "waiting period" between when a gun is purchased, and when possession is transferred to the next owner."
End quote

Yea, so what. It's answered how far that can go in the supreme courts rulings. It's answered.

And now you want to expand this to the NRA trying to push thru teflon bullet, fingerprint resistant finishes and ask me why would they do that. Who know, who care, what is the relevance to all that keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals yet protecting the law-abiding citizens?

The fact is the anti-gun crowd is on the offense, and they don't like the way the supreme court has interp numberous times over and over again the individuals right to own a gun. That's the brass tax.

I actually do think a waiting period is a good thing, I do think documentation is a good thing, and I do know regardless if someone shoots me in the head up close with a standard .12 gage shotgun, or shoots me in the head with a automatic with a finish so it does not leave fingerprints shooting teflon bullets, either way, it still sucks to be me at that point. Is a tefon bullet an advantage? Sure in some situations. Would a bomb be worse, I would say so. What are you pointing at here. Because you are against those items therefore the NRA is for Bombs and chain guns? See, thgat's a leap of faith someone may take, I'm down with that as fair enough, I don't see it that way personally. But again, that has little to do with your original question.

StuckInTheSixties:

dvustimmer says:
"SITS, " "Sinice criminals are the biggest....", OK, lets use that, same applies, does that mean statistical reference, more rotund physically, they perform more outside the law than...? Same thing, parching word.That's the point."

Here is my original statement:

~~ Since criminals are the biggest cause of the trouble associated with guns, how can we reduce criminal access to guns while not depriving law-abiding people of their rights to access to guns? ~~

There are, indeed, more combined deaths from suicides and accidents than from criminal violence.

So with that in mind, let me modify that statement to suit you:

~~ Since criminals are a significant cause of trouble associated with guns, how can we reduce criminal access to guns while not depriving law-abiding people of their rights to access to guns? ~~

"I actually do think a waiting period is a good thing, I do think documentation is a good thing,"

Cool. We have some agreement, then.

"I do know regardless if someone shoots me in the head up close with a standard .12 gage shotgun, or shoots me in the head with a automatic with a finish so it does not leave fingerprints shooting teflon bullets, either way, it still sucks to be me at that point. Is a tefon bullet an advantage? Sure in some situations. Would a bomb be worse, I would say so. What are you pointing at here. Because you are against those items therefore the NRA is for Bombs and chain guns? See, thgat's a leap of faith someone may take, I'm down with that as fair enough, I don't see it that way personally. But again, that has little to do with your original question."

Well, you brought up the NRA.

You brought them up in a context that implied that they are REASONABLY not "supporting ones right to own a rocket launcher, nuclear device, chain gun." Since the implication of that was that the NRA isn't being unreasonable in that way, I felt compelled to point out ways in which the NRA has been extremely UNREASONABLE.

Whether or not the NRA is "for bombs or chain guns" is for them to say, not me.

I listed a number of positions that they have taken, positions that I find without any reasonable justification.

It's appropriate for the subject of the NRA to be included here. It's primarily through their efforts that things like the two items we both found agreement on have not been implemented. Once upon a time, the NRA was an organization that represented sportsmen, hunters, target shooters, etc. They weren't a political organization at that time. The were primarily SAFETY oriented. I was actually a member of the NRA when I was a kid, and completed their "Hunters' Safety" course.

Now, their primary purpose appears to be that of political lobbying, and the primary beneficiary of their lobbying efforts appears to be firearms manufacturers.

dvustimmer: SITS,
Well, you and I differ on our take on the NRA.

That said, I answered the question you posed. Which oddly enough reflects the question pretty much altogether. The supreme court rulings. Law-abiding of age, responsible citizens do have that right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed. Might be alittle postponed due to waiting periods and backround checks, might limit the scope of the weapon, but it can not be infringed or taken away. Pretty much that's how I read the courts rulingSSSSSSS with an S for plural or multiple times. So long as that freedom for the law-abiding responsible citizen is not infringed, you can go about reducing firearms of any kinds to the non-law-abiding-non responsible, citizens and non-citizens as you want as legally applicable as you can within the confines of all the other laws on the books

I would think you'd be in agreement with that.

BTW, whether or not you find the NRA's stance on teflon bullts and such unreasonable, I do think there is alot more to it than they just want to favor firearm manufacturer. You said it yourself, these are "cop killer" bullets. Why would we want that? Fact is, the reality of the situation is they are avalible illegally and criminals have ended up using these bullets in heist. There was a fameous incident that happen in Cali 5 to 8 years ago, where robbers basically in broad daylight just walked down the street in armor shooting at law enfocement with teflon bullts, law was shooting at them, and with no affect for about 5 to 10 minutes because of the armor they wore. So access to this stuff is there, be it illegally. Again, criminal means to work outside the context of law, law-abiding to work inside the context of law. Which element has the advantage in this case?

StuckInTheSixties: dvustimmer says:
"So long as that freedom for the law-abiding responsible citizen is not infringed ..."

Well, that's what this all revolves around. That freedom is relative. What one person considers a reasonable restriction another considers pissing on the constitution. While you and I might think that mandatory documenting of the change of ownership is reasonable, the guy with a table full of assault rifles at a flea market or gun show wants to be able make unrestricted sales of those guns to whatever dorks happen to walk up with enough money in their pocket. While you and I might agree that a mandatory waiting period between the time you pay (or reserve) a gun, and when you can actually take possession, others feel that this is an obscene abridging of their right to take possession right then and there.

It's relative. It depends on how you interpret that vaguely written 2nd Amendment. (The First Amendment has many of the same kinds of difficulties.)

dvustimmer says:
"BTW, whether or not you find the NRA's stance on teflon bullts and such unreasonable ..."

I not only find those things I listed as unreasonable, I think they're CRAZY unreasonable. Why in the FUCK would the NRA want to do those things? It's just crazy and irresponsible. If you disagree, if you think ANY of those things is reasonable, perhaps you can tell me why.

dvustimmer says:
"I do think there is alot more to it than they just want to favor firearm manufacturer"

I said "their PRIMARY purpose ..."

dvustimmer says:
"So access to this stuff is there, be it illegally. Again, criminal means to work outside the context of law, law-abiding to work inside the context of law. Which element has the advantage in this case?"

Advantage goes to those with the best training and equipment, of course. As for the equipment, some kinds of equipment are easy to obtain, other equipment not so much. The more difficult it is to obtain, the less likely it is to be used by criminals. Restrictive regulation makes it harder to obtain, and less likely to be used by criminals. That's the main reason why certain weapons, which criminals would LOVE to obtain, aren't used very often. If you were a criminal, wouldn't you love to have a high quality, compact fully automatic submachine gun, like an Uzi or MP-5? But those kinds of guns don't turn up in arrests very often. Why? They're very hard to get. Why? Because laws heavily restrict access to them.

It's really quite simple. Make access easy, criminals will have greater access. Make access difficult, criminals will have lesser access.

davidk14: .

About 20 years ago, I was friends with a guy whose grandson was taking karate with my daughter. We would sit in the bleachers and just chat. His grandson was going to have a birthday party and Peter invited the entire karate class to his house for a pool party.

We arrived at his middle class house. Lots of food, soda and the usual fun party atmosphere kids enjoy for a pool party.

My wife and I entered his living room and I noticed numerous pictures of him in combat uniforms from different times in his 40 year military career. Pictures of him in jungles and desserts, in snow and on beaches. He retired as a major from the army.

Hang on...I'm getting to the point, need to lay the picture out for you.....

Peter also was a 'trainer' who went into the field and trained other military forces.

He notice I was spending a lot of time looking at all his memorabilia. He then asked, " Want to see my gun collection?" I said sure thinking a few handguns, maybe a rifle or three.

He then asked us to follow him down the hallway. We came to a steel door. Not just a steel door, but a steel door. Keypad, code, the whole deal.

We entered a room about 30 feet by 30 feet. What I saw was enough weapons to arm a small army. Racks of rifles. Racks of automatic weapons. A frickin Gatling gun. A cannon. RPG's, An entire wall of handguns. Hand grenades. Shit hanging from the ceiling. 30 cal and 50 cal machine guns. One of those water cooled WW1 machine guns. I'd say, at least, 300 hundred different types of weapons...maybe more.

He showed us around and he knew his weapons. He was a collector. He also was a writer for gun magazines. He had stuff from every era going back to the days of flintlocks. It was amazing. He showed us an AK47 with the serial number 0000000001. He showed us Soviet made weapons, Egyptian made, Israeli made, beside US made weapons.

He then said, want to see the armory? What? There's more? He then led us to what I would simply say as a bunker. Another steel door, one of those auto slice 4" thick steel doors.

In this room, was the ammunition for every gun he had in the other room. Ammo cans stacked to the ceiling full of ammo. Every one labeled for which weapon in the other room. All the weapons weree in mint condition and fully capable to fire. He also had an ammo making machine to make his own bullets.

I had not really said a word the whole time. I was in shock. How the hell did a citizen living in Phoenix get this stuff?

I asked him. He said, "FederalExpress". I narrowed down my questions. He said, the 2nd amendment allowed him to purchase these weapons as long as he registered as a gun collector and register each weapon which he "said" he did. I asked him does the local police know he has this arsenal in the middle of a neighborhood? He said sure, they come by all the time. I asked about security and did he worry about criminals getting his weapons which many were full auto and military grade. He said, they might get in, but they would not get out.

I left that day with the wife and to this day, I still remember that entire 30 minute tour of an ex-military officer and his personal arsenal.

Yes, this was extreme and rare which I witnessed. But the ability to get weapons with minimal paperwork was amazing and to buy guns and get them delivered "in pieces' through FedEx was shocking.

What if......


.

StuckInTheSixties:

Interesting story.

I have a very difficult time believing it.

Working (I assume you meant working) RPGs? Hand grenades? FedEx?

This story is like one of those that I'll come across in here about someone's personal encounter with a UFO. I have to judge this by what I, as a layman, know about ...

~~ the laws of our land
~~ FedEx
~~ human nature
~~ etc.

And like one of those UFO stories, there isn't any way for the story to be verified ...

... and I have to ask myself: "Which is more likely - that this story is true, or not?

I gotta go with "or not."

StuckInTheSixties:

I'm tempted to copy this, and email it with an explanation to the BATF, with the simple question:

"Is there any possibility that this could actually be true?"

But if I did that, and got, as an answer, a resounding "Hell no!", it would do me no good. I'd be in the same situation as those UFO guys, and you:

Anyone reading it would be depending upon me not bullshitting them. There would essentially be no way for me to prove anything in any practical sense.

dvustimmer: SITS, I don't know if it's just me and I have a unique perspective, but reasonable or not to anyone, the NRA can make its case and the legislative branch can deside, and if that is unsatisfactory it gets balanced in the judicial.

I know what tripped me off in the first post, "the question" and then the narrowing was "take away their guns and they'll just use knives. However, they do just use knives at times, they are just as affective at times. Their is little doubt someone who is going to commit a crime has the advantage, because of the surprise unexpected element and use of superior force. It is a huge deterrent for them to see they don't have an overwelming advantage. Huge as in monumental night and day difference.

So while I do support known criminals being restricted from weapon ownership by all legal means, and I would go so far as to enforce they can only own a kitchen knife with a blade no longer than a streak knife, and it has to remain inside their house, yes I would definately go off on restricting them up the hill as far as I can, I equally support those Law-abiding citizens not only have the right to own, but to conceal and carry such weapon they own. Massive, massive deterrent for those thinking about commiting and armed crime.

davidk14: Sixties,

The problem you have with my post is that you did not ever have the extraordinary experience what I did that day. When I wrote what I did, I edited it to make sure my memory of that day was a clear as possible without exaggerations. If anything, I may have left out memories. I have a witness for that day. The grenades in the one room were not armed nor were the RPG's but the other room had all the explosives that were needed to arm them. I forgot to say that there was a civil war cannon with the cannon balls stacked next to it. The munitions were in the other room.

Twenty years ago. It is a memory. Thanks for not specifically calling me a liar. I appreciate that.

.

StuckInTheSixties:

dvustimmer says:
"I know what tripped me off in the first post, "the question" and then the narrowing was "take away their guns and they'll just use knives. However, they do just use knives at times, they are just as affective at times."

Sure. "At times." So what? Other weapons are also effective "at times." So what?

You seem to be implying that since both knives and guns can be "affective [sic] at time," they have some sort of equality. Sure they do. So does the common cold and AIDS. They're both caused by a virus. They have that equality.

Knives and guns. Colds and AIDS. In both cases ... So what?

Guns and knives aren't equal. You know they aren't. They're not equal in the destructive effects they have on society.

So why try to cloud the issue by implying that the are?

dvustimmer says:
"I equally support those Law-abiding citizens not only have the right to own, but to conceal and carry such weapon they own. Massive, massive deterrent for those thinking about commiting and armed crime."

How do you know that? I doubt it, myself. Got any credible statistics to substantiate that?

davidk14 says:
"The problem you have with my post is that you did not ever have the extraordinary experience what I did that day."

That's kind of the same thing that the UFO guys say. Actually, it's EXACTLY the same thing they say.

You're a reasonably objective guy in most matters. Can you suspend, for the moment, what you claim as your personal experience, and pretend to have read your post from the perspective of someone else? Don't you think it would seem pretty farfetched to the typical person reading it?

davidk14: .

Sixties,

I sent you information on the person who's home I was at.

.

dvustimmer: SITS, you are kidding right? A weapon is a weapon. Box cutter in an airplane served the purpose for the criminals to gain and maintain their objectives. It greatly lowered the risk of detection where trying to smuggle a gun thru had a greater probability of being detected. So yes, at times they are just as deadly and in a situation where a gun going off could kill everyone (Depressurize), in that situation, it was a much better weapon than a gun. So yes, "at times" is a very relevant statement.

You might not have the same shared experiences as me, I can tell you a knife is pretty brutal and in the right situation, because it limits attention when used to attack, it does not cause loud sounds itself when used unlike a gun. So yes, what you need to do is treat an object as a possible weapon a criminal might be able to use, and limit the whole scope as much as you can, not just guns. This is a large flaw in being so narrow as to only worry about guns. What needs to be worried about way more is the person that would wield a weapon in unlawful manner. We can't be the thought police, but we can be the fool me once, shame and me, and because of that you are going to be branded and not so free the rest of your life to use a weapon again police.

as far as your other question....

>How do you know that? I doubt it, myself. Got any credible statistics to substantiate that? < in reference to deterrent...

Yea I actually have the experience there also. I'm not afraid to get in someones face in defence of someone else. I know the first thing I need is to draw attention as much as possible to a situation. People do not react like you'd think. Someone can push someone else in a parking lot, and most people just put their heads down, keep walking, or watch from a distance and maintain that distance. You'd be amazed just how quick the aggressor changes when confront with a very loud, 6 foot 3 inch 230 lbs dude bearing down on him yelling "why don't you try pushing me around tough guy." You'd be amazed how many people at that point see an example and start to move into also and 911 gets a load of calls at that point. Yes, it makes a night and day difference.

So we do apparently not share the same experiences.

StuckInTheSixties:

david,

The information you sent me is anything but verification of your story.

Perhaps you could get him to pose with his room-o-weapons with a sign saying something like "David was right in his Wireclub forum post..." That would be totally convincing.

dvustimmer says:
"A weapon is a weapon."

Um ... what?!? Weapons are different. You might be able to kill someone with a matchstick, too. So what? You can probably kill someone with your pinky finger. Are you seriously going to equate a pinky finger with a firearm? Puh-leeeeze ...

"Box cutter in an airplane ... " etc. etc.

You're taking the most extreme example you can come up with and use it to represent the normal. That wasn't normal. Normal is what racks up crime statistics.

"You might not have the same shared experiences as me, I can tell you a knife is pretty brutal and in the right situation"

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing that a knife is as effectively destructive a weapon as a firearm.

I've written this, and I know you've read it:

Ever see any headlines like:

~~ Man fired from job returns to workplace, knives thirteen, killing eleven before turning the knife on himself

~~ Funeral today for innocent child killed in drive-by knifing

~~ Six dead when robber herds pizza shop employees in back room and knifes them all to death

Now substitute "gun" for knife. Suddenly those hypothetical headlines become all too familiar.

You should really stop with the argument that guns aren't any different than other weapons. It's a silly argument.

"This is a large flaw in being so narrow as to only worry about guns."

Although "worry" isn't the verb I'd use to characterize the concern I have about firearms, it's not that I "only worry about guns." It's that I worry MORE about guns than other weapons. With good reason.

"What needs to be worried about way more is the person that would wield a weapon in unlawful manner."

Especially if the weapon is a gun.

"We can't be the thought police"

I don't think anyone in this forum is advocating that. I'm certainly not. That's a matter of the First Amendment, not the Second.

"but we can be the fool me once, shame and me, and because of that you are going to be branded and not so free the rest of your life to use a weapon again police."

Um ... what?!? (That was incomprehensible.)

"as far as your other question....>How do you know that? I doubt it, myself. Got any credible statistics to substantiate that?< ...Yea I actually have the experience there also."

I wasn't asking you for a personal experience. I was asking you for credible statistics to back up a broad claim you made. (Don't bother. It was a rhetorical question. Those statistics don't exist. The nature of the claim is that it would be impossible to articulate it statistically ... IE, it's a pointless claim.)