2nd Amendment Rights
As a Democratic competitive shooter and hunter, I would ask Mr. Carter's view on the 2nd Amendment and gun control in general. Frequently I attend competitive shooting matches in the tri-state area with semi-automatic rifles (traditionally called high-power matches by shooting enthusiasts). Will Mr. Carter protect my right to carry firearms, own and shoot semi-automatic weapons (dubbed assault rifles by the uninformed), and carry concealed? This is a very important topic; so important in fact that the Supreme Court will rule on it in the next month or so. I feel the right to keep and bear arms is not negotiable and is as important as the first or fourth amendments. Often times political candidates say they support hunting and sportsmen afield as a way of deflecting the their actual views on gun control. What do you think?
James Rivers - Watauga County North Carolina
- James Rivers's blog
- 934 reads
James Rivers
Do you want the right to have a bunch of these too? Just trying to bracket and halve the discussion so I know exactly what we're really talking about here.
You have to admit
That's funny.
Since I'm among the uninformed who do not understand the use/purpose of the semi-automatic in hunting or any other sports activity, could you please, Mr. Rivers, explain to me what the purpose of a semi-automatic is?
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Betsy, it's the damn deer.
They're getting better and better weapons all the time, and hunters have to keep up.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Ok, I did a little research
(very little, actually), but this is what I understand: A semi-automatic enables a hunter to get his/her shots off more quickly, just as one would assume from the description "semi-automatic."
They are used by different hunters for different purposes. Some prefer 'em for birds, for example, because of the speed. Not sure why they're called "semi-automatic" instead of just automatic, but maybe that, too, is about speed.
Rat-a-tat-tat.
The argument about hunting is going to fade from view as available lands are being gobbled up and habitats destroyed. Those canned hunt places are going to proliferate (regretttably). A canned hunt isn't really hunting, of course. Animals are kept within a confined space and fat cats or just plain idiots pay thousands of dollars for the privilege of shooting at a critter accustomed to being fed in a given spot each day.
Hunting is dying. We're going to all get used to reading about cities or towns hiring people -- not hunters -- but snipers rather, to wipe out pesky deer herds that have been eating ornamental gardens and getting in the way of traffic. These professional groups will replace the hunter as surely as concrete replaces forest.
My cheerful two cents on this topic.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
semi-automatic requires trigger pull for each shot.
----insert witty remark here----coming soon----
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Yes, Robert.
Did something I said suggest otherwise?
It still takes less time; it's still considered faster. My source tells me his aim is less sure with a semi-, but that he uses it for getting faster shots off.
Oh, I get it. You're answering (rather cryptically) as to the distinction between semi-automatic and automatic.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
I was responding to this:
Automatic weapons keep firing until empty when you pull the trigger, at least in my experience. Semi-automatic weapons require you to pull, release, pull, release. BUT, you don't have to work an "action", such as this .30-30 level action.
Or, a bolt action.
Or, the old pull action that I can't find pictures of today.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Thanks, Robert
Those pictures make a difference. It's kind of embarrassing to have grown up in the South all my life and not have more familiarity than I do with this culture. No one in my family hunted, though,so the subject just never came up around the family table.
Since then I've had to learn a bit about it, though not as one who actually hunts. (And hell, I'm a vegetarian.)
We are seeing, though, such a rapid loss of lands for habitat that I don't think we've got more than a couple of generations left of those who will carry on whatever traditions for hunting existed in their families.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Hunting traditions
Loss of habitat is indeed the single most important factor facing hunting and wildlife. Since hunting and wildlife go together, it may be correlated that when there is no hunting left then there will be no wildlife. I find it particularly interesting that people move into the mountains that my family has lived and hunted in since the Revolutionary War and say I shouldn't hunt or shoot. They come here for various reasons: Lack of crime, beauty, great place to raise kids, etc. They never consider why this place is beautiful, why there is a lack of crime, why it's a great place to raise kids. Maybe, just maybe, it is because us dumb old hillbilly rednecks kept the wolves at bay for over 200 years (yes with guns). And they now purport to know what is best? If they knew what was best then why didn't they fix the problems in whatever screwed up place they came from? They don't want me to hunt, yet they build houses in places that I used to hunt. Almost hypocritical if you ask me. They post the hell out of their land, yet hike on mine (mine is NOT POSTED). I plant crops (apples, corn and deer clover) for the wildlife. They have finely manicured lawns that give no cover to animals that really need it (rabbits and grouse). They cut down the Hawthorne Berry bushes as being ugly (a great grouse food), and plant them back with exotics that have absolutly no value to the wildlife. They wouldn't know an old variety apple (Virginia Beauty, Stamen Winesap, Rusty Coat, WinterJohn, Big Ben Davis) if it hit them in the head and could care less as they cut them down when they buy a piece of property. They ridicule me as a redneck, yet sure seem interested to buy my families land for further destruction (who is the stupid person here?)
I was driving to Blowing Rock the other day with a buddy and stopped at a gas station for gas. Some crabby old lady and her husband actually had the gall to ask me why I carried weapons in a gun rack (they were my buddies). I asked them how she felt about driving a deadly weapon at which point she stuttered and stammered her way back into her gas guzzling boat of a car. Her mouth was still moving rapidly as she drove away. It was very confusing what she was getting at. I wonder if Coach Carter would have a problem with me and my guns in a gun rack at a station that I have done business at the better part of 35 years? She didn't see my concealed, high capacity 9mm that I carry constantly, but I am sure she wouldn't have approved of that either.
I am a Democrat, but not your typical one. I believe in the environment, the right to keep and bear arms and personal responsibility. I put my money where my mouth is. I plant food for wildlife, pay expensive hunting license fees, and harvest my fair share of game. If this somehow makes me an ignorant Democrat then I am guilty as judged (notice I don't judge anyone here).
James Rivers
James Rivers
James Rivers
Mr. Rivers,
What in the world does this mean?
Sounds like you are insinuating that stopping hunting would mean an end to wildlife. The two may be correlated, but there is no causal link in the direction you seem to mean. Is is true that if there is no more wildlife there will be no hunting left, but it is certainly NOT true that if there is no hunting left there will be no wildlife. So what exactly did you mean by the line? Or was it just kind of fluff?
Hunting and Wildlife
No, I am not insinuating that stopping hunting would mean an end to wildlife. I am saying it is so (and not casually). In nearly every area of the world where hunting has been stopped or disallowed, wildlife has suffered to the point that many species simply don't exist. Take Zimbabwe under Mugabee for instance. With his regime in power professional hunting guides were put out of business and expelled from the country. His population is starving in many instances, and they are going after animals to eat. The killing is on the industrial scale; not to simply feed a few villagers. Here in the United States the passenger pigeon exists no more. Why? They were not protected by hunting laws, seasons, or hunter funded wildlife programs and are, as a result, extinct.
Take the deer population in Florida in the late 70's. With skyrocketing deer numbers biologists warned of a population crash born of disease and starvation. They recommended allowing an extended season by hunters to cull the excess. Greenpeace and other animal rights extremists, argued long and hard that they would trap and relocate deer. In short, they stopped the deer hunt. Aside from trapping ONE deer, they did nothing. Deer in Florida, 30 years later, have yet to recover in many areas.
The Gray Wolf. It has been restocked in many parts of the west. Now that numbers have reached sustainable levels, the same extremist groups that stopped the Florida deer hunt are at it again. They don't want hunters hunting the very animals that exist due to Wildlife recovery programs funded by HUNTERS. Amazing!!!! Astounding!!! What they are sure not to tell you is the reason many wildlife agencies are pushing for the hunt is because the overwhelming numbers of wolves in many areas are killing deer and elk at such a rate that hunters are not buying licenses. No license fees means no game wardens to protect against poachers, no wildlife biologists to study and monitor herds and basically vast dearths of animals.
So yes I say that no hunting means no animals. Here in Watauga County the bobwhite quail is rare. Is wasn't rare 30 years ago. 30 year ago hunters (many of whom were farmers at the time) engaged in land use practices that benefited quail and rabbits. Those same farms are now subdivisions. Hunters cannot hunt in those subdivisions and the resulting loss of wildlife is breathtaking. Hunters need areas to hunt. With those areas come wildlife programs designed to, guess what?, promote wildlife. Areas of the state with high numbers of hunters, have high numbers of animals.
Not sure how you will cherry pick this one, but it ain't fluff. You may not advocate hunting, however I might ask what you have done for the wildlife lately? Do you plant food plots? Do you manage your land to promote wildlife. What do you do? Or do you engage in fluff rhetoric against those with whom you don't agree.
Two detailed postings from a hunter and a 2 1/2 sentences from a non hunter. Go figure.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Why hunters matter
An easier way to put this would be that without hunters, a sizeable constituency that pushes for habitat preservation would be lost.
Without the advocacy that hunter contribute to the cause, other environmental groups would lose a key support when it comes to getting legislation passed to keep air, land and water clean.
Hunters have an undeserved bad rap. By far, most are conscientious and law abiding, and concerned about more than whether a given weapon fires. Of course, as with other groups, a few bad apples can stand out and seem to represent the bunch.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
I can live with that.
I can live with that. Nicely put. Whether we all agree or not, some good comes from all involved.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Ms. Brunette, you rock.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
A couple of things
This is fairly diverse community, mostly liberal, with a few conservatives here and there to keep us straight on the evils of Big Government. As such, you will find a larger-than-normal percentage of vegetarians and those with pro-animal rights opinions. You can couch it in whatever terms you feel will make it sound less bloody, but "harvesting game" is still killing animals. Increasing populations so more animals can be killed is hard to sell as a "humanitarian" effort, and I hope you can see the reasons why.
At any rate, hunting, and the other two things you mentioned (semi-automatics & handgun carry) are vastly different issues, and lumping them together (by either side) is one of the reasons why the Second Amendment is being tested so much these days. There are guns that are designed (and marketed) to kill animals and guns that are designed (and marketed) to kill people. Even in that second (kill people) category, public opinion is mixed:
The reason it's mixed is very simple: you don't need an AK-47 to protect your home.
You can count me as one of the "preserve the 2nd Amendment" crowd, but you can also count me as one who thinks the gun rights lobby who successfully advocated for the expiration and non-renewal of the assault rifle ban is jeopardizing the 2nd Amendment more than any other entity.
Killing animals
I am unable to see the reasons why it is bad to kill animals. When deer die via starvation is a pretty horrible death. When a deer dies via coyotes or other predators it is even more horrible. Now tell me how my bullet is worse than a gang of coyotes tearing and then eating the guts from a deer while it is still living. Sorry to be graphic, but that is the way it is. Why I DO think it is a good thing to hunt and eat the game that I have killed equates to the fact humans are predators. They always have been. I am a predator and killing my own natural meat (no preservatives, fat, or hormones involved) is a pretty down to earth fact. I am proud of it and will continue to be. In fact it is part of my culture and has been since recorded history. Going by your rules, does that mean American Indians were somehow remiss in killing and eating buffalo? Or fish? Indians that hunt in todays world are murderers by your definition and should become vegetarians? The Cherokee tribe here in NC continues to hunt and fish as part of their heritage. Oh yeah and by the way, the reason those noble red-men are still here is because they resisted by armed means (they didn't submit to the trail of tears event in which an out of control government disarmed and then repressed a segment of society). They didn't give their arms up by those who said they would be better off by doing so. We can all take a lesson from that one and several other similar historical events.
As I have said before in several different posts, I make a distinction between hunting and the second amendment. In fact, my lead in post indicates such. Re-read it and see for yourself. It is the anti-gun politicians who first started this "lumping" together of issues. In fact, Obama and Clinton both do it as we write this piece. I would like to know how semi-automatics are marketed to kill people? Does that mean knives are marketed to slice people up? Does that mean matches cause arson? Talk about "lumping" something together, that is hypocrisy if I have ever saw it. Semi-automatics, like all other firearms, are designed to do one thing; send a projectile out the end of the barrel. The manner in which the user uses the firearm is the issue.
Who are you to tell me what I need to protect my home? I use high capacity semi-autos to protect my home, to hunt with, and to shoot competitively. I don't purport to tell you that you shouldn't drive, buy box cutters, or any other activity. I am not my brother's keeper. Since semi-automatics constitute a very small percentage of the weapons that cause crime, then why not go after the weapons that really do the damage? A majority of people in the United States say we need no new gun laws on the books, and that enforcement of existing laws is adequate. This is the most recent of the "gun polls", and surprise, surprise; it receives almost no media coverage.
Personal responsibility will do far more to positively affect society than will more laws, rules and regulations.
James Rivers
James Rivers
I'm not going to address the hunting/meat thing.
We need both. We need personal responsibility, and we hope that adults who live in social contract with us behave responsibly. But there are adults who sometimes don't behave responsibly - for example, the men who hunted on my land even though it is clearly posted. I needed the laws and regulations then to have some "back up" to go to them about the problem, and ask them to stop. I had to let one of them know I would call the authorities. That backed up my request, and he began behaving responsibly.
It seems like we can have a reasonable conversation. I don't know enough about guns to talk about which ones you should have and which ones you shouldn't. I'll leave that to the hunters and veterans who post here. I choose not to have one in my home.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
guns
Fair enough. If you don't want or wish to have guns in your home then you shouldn't. The thing that gets us gun owners wound up is not having the same choice to have guns in our homes/lives. This is what I have been driving at for some time now. Our politicians need to find another "witch hunt" to prosecute, and leave us the hell alone. Many ideals promulgated by Democrats might actually gain traction and support from folks like me if they would shut up (and not vote for anti-gun legislation) on the gun thing. Hey, lets save the environment. Lets make our nation stronger through prudent policy. Gun owners and hunters are not that much different than anti-gunners and anti-hunters. We generally want land set aside to hunt and shoot on that might normally otherwise be developed. Anti-hunters and shooters tend to want that very same land to set aside for wildlife and outdoor recreation. Why not work together towards that goal? What harm is a public shooting range on a large tract of land that is purchased by funds from a combined effort on both our parts? Same thing- what harm is it to shooters and hunters if someone wants to bird-watch, ride mountain bikes, swim in clean streams and hike back country trails. There are still some key areas of land that could be bought and held in public trust (with both our views supported)if such a movement were to start. Boy wouldn't it be a grand thing for a grassroots effort of that kind to start!!! Politicians might finally be held accountable for NOT taking care of the environment. Heck, I know many fellow hunter/shooters who would support such a situation.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Well, I wouldn't spend my recreation time
any where near a shooting range, but I get your point, there are some shared environmental concerns.
Please correct me if I'm wrong - but don't you already have that right? You have guns, don't you?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
rights
Yes we do have that right Linda. I would clarify by saying 'keep that right'
James Rivers
James Rivers
Weapons
Remember Charles Lee Whitman? You know, the University of Texas Bell Tower Shooter. He used a bolt action like the one pictured above to kill 18 students. He was stopped from killing far more by students who retrieved their personally owned rifles. These students kept Mr. Whitman pinned down until police and more armed citizens could ascend the tower steps and kill him. Motivations of the shooter are far more important than the weapon involved. Take the beltway snipers. Much was made of the fact they used a Bushmaster AR-15 Assault weapon. What wasn't aired is the fact that most shots fired were single, well aimed shots. The Assault Weapons capacity for firing multiple shots never came into play for Malvo. Again, assault weapons are used in an extremely small percentage of crimes as assault weapons are rather difficult to manipulate by those not trained to do it. Gang Bangers and other criminals do not seek out assault weapons as most criminals are not well versed in weaponcraft. For that matter, most police aren't either. Many speciality courses exist at places like Blackwater to teach patrol rifle classes to police officers who have access to assault weapons but do not know how to use them. For that matter, many civilian assault weapons courses are attended by police departments. Assault weapons are not the problem. Lax laws, repeat criminals and a tort society are.
James Rivers
James Rivers
it helps if one does not appoach every comment post in a
defensive manner.
cute
It helps if one does not approach each post he/she doesn't agree with by spouting one line quips filled with emotion and nothing else
James Rivers
James Rivers
Read again
Remember Charles Lee Whitman? You know, the University of Texas Bell Tower Shooter. He used a bolt action like the one pictured above to kill 18 students. He was stopped from killing far more by students who retrieved their personally owned rifles. These students kept Mr. Whitman pinned down until police and more armed citizens could ascend the tower steps and kill him. Motivations of the shooter are far more important than the weapon involved. Take the beltway snipers. Much was made of the fact they used a Bushmaster AR-15 Assault weapon. What wasn't aired is the fact that most shots fired were single, well aimed shots. The Assault Weapons capacity for firing multiple shots never came into play for Malvo. Again, assault weapons are used in an extremely small percentage of crimes as assault weapons are rather difficult to manipulate by those not trained to do it. Gang Bangers and other criminals do not seek out assault weapons as most criminals are not well versed in weaponcraft. For that matter, most police aren't either. Many speciality courses exist at places like Blackwater to teach patrol rifle classes to police officers who have access to assault weapons but do not know how to use them. For that matter, many civilian assault weapons courses are attended by police departments. Assault weapons are not the problem. Lax laws, repeat criminals and a tort society are.
James Rivers
James Rivers
James Rivers
We purposely feed deer in our back woods
which are copiously marked with NO HUNTING signs. We are rewarded with visitors to our back yard in early morning and early evening. I love watching them.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
A lot of people do this
And I can appreciate how enjoyable this would be. The only concern I have about it is that any activity that reduces a deer's fear of humans is ultimately unhealthy for the deer.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
I think it's balanced out by my neighbors' zeal for hunting
The deer seem to know it's safe harbor here.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Yikes!
I trust they respect your property boundaries.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Smiling sweetly.
They do now. >blink<
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Why, didja shoot 'em?
;-)
I'm a weird sort of leftist that is enthusiastic about private arms ownership.
In lieu of a treatise on political philosophy, I will offer a historical example that informs my perspective.
The Spanish Republicans who fought to preserve their democracy in the 1930s were under-armed and under-equipped in the face of Franco's rebellion. The result was 40 years of Fascist dictatorship, and the systematic imprisonment and murder of tens of thousands of people who had fought for the legitimate, democratically-elected government of Manuel Azaña.
America's "arsenal of democracy" never did a thing for the Spanish Republicans.
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
Oddly, no, I didn't shoot them,
Oddly, no, I didn't shoot them, wiseass, er, Branden. I knew who they were, I went to their house, and asked them not to hunt on the land where the big sign says "Posted, No Hunting." Even though they be hunters, and I don't, we seem to speak similar languages, so we were able to understand each other.
Quite well. (I made it clear I wouldn't hesitate to call in the po-lice.)
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Amazing!
Incredible. It reminds me of a quote from George H. W. Bush:
It's amazing how such radically different species as liberal child-welfare advocate and selectively-literate suburban-wildlife-hunter can learn to get along...
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
remarkable, even.
They are mostly nice folks. There is only one I don't really care for, and it's got nothing to do with him being a hunter. He's just an ass.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Short on consideration
I'm glad to hear that things are mostly amicable...but it still strikes me as a jerk thing for neighbhors to have done: "oh, the previous guy moved out, so these 'no hunting' signs are suddenly meaningless".
I would probably react with great alarm to people showing up on my property with guns. I have read that in Texas, that kind of thing would get a person shot. I assume your reputation didn't precede you, or it's even worse. "Sure, it's all right to hunt over there now. The woman who lives there is some f*ckin' liberal, what's she gonna do?"
I may be pretty hard-core about gun rights, but I also strongly disapprove of open carrying, because (duh) guns intimidate. I don't cotton to people trying to intimidate their neighbors.
I guess all of this is to say you handled the situation much better than I'm afraid I would have! I probably would have called the police first and gone around for the friendly "hello-and-funnily-enough-that-sign-still-means-what-it-says" meet-and-greet later.
Maybe I've just met too many colossal assholes? :)
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
We didn't really get a chance to talk, did we?
I can be pretty forceful in person. :)
In the case of the one ass, yeah, he was trying to intimidate. I figured showing up at his front door and talking to him face to face was the last thing he would have expected. And I asked to speak to him and his wife together. And I took my big black dog with me, who I swear to god growls on cue.
It's all worked out. We've become the pet yankees, or something to the rest of the neighbors. The kids love me because I talk to them, and my better-half is a computer genius, so now they don't have to call the geek squad, they call Grace. In return, our lawnmower gets fixed when it needs it, we got help digging a drain to keep our garage from flooding after they paved the road. It's all good.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
open carry
If open carry intimidates like you intimate, then police shouldn't carry their arms in the open? Many states require open carry if you don't have a concealed carry permit. No problems that I can see. Does this also mean you think I shouldn't carry my guns in a gunrack in my vehicle? Remember, blanket laws for firearms are a nightmare once they are enacted.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Maybe they shouldn't
I'm not dogmatic about this particular point, so if you don't argue as if you're talking to a brick wall, you might be able to change my mind.
If...
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
Hunters
Linda,
You seem to revel in the fact you don't allow hunters to hunt on your property. Not sure which county you live in, however you might do well to take a step or two back and take a birds eye view on hunters in Western North Carolina. In may native Watauga County, there were very few deer from around the turn of the century until the early 90s. Then something wonderful happened. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, at the urging of hunters, enacted a stocking program to stock deer and turkey back into Watauga County. The deer season was closed for five years while this effort took place (mainly in western Watauga County). The end result can be seen in the backyards (like yours) and farms of Watauga County. Deer and turkey are at all time highs. And it is due to hunters. Linda, did you buy a hunting license? Hunters did and do which means we bear the fiscal responsibility of virtually all wildlife programs in the state. The deer you enjoy so much (and ironically post against hunting) are there because of hunters. Believe it or not, us hunters also love watching them also. Some may be taken each year to keep the numbers in check, but remember that without hunters they would't be there at all. Hunters don't exist unless there is something to hunt. It is as simple as that. In Africa for instance, many nations that have undergone civil wars consequently outlawed hunting in their countries. The results were dramatic and sad. Lions, leapords, elephant, Cape Buffalo, and most especially Rhino were nearly wiped out. Why was this? Well it is simple. Not hunters to pay the license fees meant no Wildlife programs or enforcement. No programs or enforcement means no numbers control and widespread poaching. This equals no animals. Hunters in the United States ensure this is not the case here. It is your property and you may do as you wish on it (unless Robert P. has anything to do with it such as mandatory government inspections to see if you are feeding the deer the right kind of food), but you might be a little more friendly to the hunters that made it so you can enjoy your deer.
James Rivers
James Rivers
James Rivers
Mr. Rivers,
I live in Moore County. I don't own the property I live on, I rent it. Our landlord is a hunter himself, and he made the decision that there would be no hunting the small piece of wood. The deer are in no danger of over-running the neighborhood, nor are they in danger of starving. Besides the apples, corn and nuts we put out for them, my "yard" is woods, filled with wild apple, hawthorne, various nut trees, all kinds of native NC plant live that deer and other animals thrive on. The fenced area is meant only to keep my dogs in, not to keep the wildlife out.
And yes, I am very happy about enforcing the no hunting on the land I live on. The hunters in my neighborhood thought that when my landlord moved out of this house and we moved in, the posted signs meant nothing. They found out differently when I confronted them. (not while they were hunting, but at their front doors). I asked them to respect the signs and my property. They do. And we are friendly - we are neighbors. I know them, they know me, and we respect each other.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
No hunting
Linda,
When you said "we" in the posting of the land, I could only think it was you and maybe a significant other. Great to hear you get along with your neighbors. The posting of land is certainly a homeowers right. I keep my land open to hunters, hikers, fishermen and nature lovers in general. I have found hunters to be an excellent, non-expensive method of watching after my property. There are many deer and turkey on my property, and hunters know if things are left as they are, then they will continue to have the opportunity to hunt. Many times they call me with information pertaining to out of control ATV riders and once a hippie pot smoking party.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Damn hippies.
that's too funny. If you were an author trying to make up "you", there couldn't be a better passage.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
South Park.
Hippies! Hippies all around me! Agh! /cartman voice.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
hippies
I wondered if someone wouldn't bite off on the hippie comment. I don't really care if the rainbow people party and smoke pot - good for them. I just don't like it when they trash my land. Building extremely large (and I mean big) bonfires with no means to contain it if it gets out of hand and large amounts of trash discarded are not what I consider neighborly traits. I didn't call the police, didn't get violent, didn't really do anything except ask them to pick up all the trash and extinguish the fire. Like I said, I am pretty tolerant of people, even the pot smoking crowd. Thanks to the hunters hunting on my property for telling me about it.
James Rivers
James Rivers
The land I live on is sacred to me.
I try to walk it every couple of days, to see what changes have happened - especially now in the spring, it's just a wonder-land. I walk as gently as I can, and try to let Nature happen around me.
I've also found that if I sit really still and center myself, I become part of it. You can imagine why we don't want hunting there.
The ATV's drive me crazy - I did call the sheriff because of them. They'll just destroy everything.
I won't say anything about the hippies and their party -- they might have been friends of mine. :-D
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
natures and hippies
Then perhaps you will enjoy nature with some of your hippie friends on my land someday. Hope you do. Fine with me. If I were to be in the area checking on it, I would politely ask you if you were having a nice day, tell you to watch out for rattlesnakes, and be on my way. You would notice a gun or two, I am sure, but my guns wouldn't be a big deal to you as you puffing a giant doobie wouldn't unduly alarm me (I have never smoked pot and never will).
Speaking of rattlesnakes, did you know they are now protected in NC? It is about time. I love seeing rattlesnakes and am thrilled at owning property that is excellent habitat for these misunderstood critters. The simple fact that us humans still have to watch our step in our overly mundane world excites me. There is still a creature that can kill a human. Wow!!! Amazing. More power to Crotalus horridus horridus (timber rattlesnake). I have seen some real monsters in a rocky area they seem to frequent. I once saw two coiled together and wondered if they were mating.
Now some will call me crazy for my radical views. Good. Maybe they are the crazy ones. I know what I like - the environment, guns,and freedom. If we work to keep all three then we cannot go wrong.
As for the ATVs, they give me the most problems of all. I am talking about the recreational riders who like to zoom up steep hills and race. They tear huge trenches in the topsoil which washes and eventually becomes a steep ditch. In one weekend they can do enough damage to cause me several days of backbreaking work to get everything back to normal. And when you catch them they are about as rude a bunch as I have ever seen. I caught one young idiot as he rounded a sharp bend in the road. I was standing there with a double barrel shotgun (see, I didn't have one of those darned assault weapons as the shotgun was the better gun in this case) and he nearly turned over trying to stop. In the ensuing confrontation he refused to give me ID or take his helment off and actually cursed at me. To make a long story short he gave up both the helment and ID when I started to blast his ATV to smithereens. No problems from him or his brother, but there are others that I am having a hard time catching up to.
Some of those guys that hunt my land use ATVs. They know how I feel about ATVs in general and tread very lightly. This is a case where I would revoke hunting if they were to cause damage.
Speaking of hunting methods, I enjoy hunting entirely on foot. You mentioned becoming part of nature. I feel much the same way when I do a backcountry hunt on foot. Sitting on a large rock outcropping with no manmade sounds is pure soulfood for which I have an insatiable appetite. Slipping along some dim mountain path , sucking up every ounce of mother natures gift of spiritual freedom, gives me strength. Strength to get through this increasingly complicated and ever-changing world.
James Rivers
James Rivers
I use an ATV on my land for yard work
It is possible to ride them for enjoyment without tearing up the land. Uwharrie has trails we can ride on for $5 / day if we want to go crazy. I'm sure most people who ride them for hunting are not out doing donuts and churning the grass / topsoil. That would scare off the critters. We don't own enough land for hunting - or really riding for pleasure - but it is possible to enjoy riding without tearing up your surroundings.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
Not everyone who rides an ATV is as careful.
It looks like it would be fun if you were careful and had the right space for it. My yard and woods aren't the right space! :)
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Uwharrie
Betsy,
I have hunted the Uwharries on many occasions. I also hear you have some large Timber Rattlesnakes down that way. I believe the state record largest Timber Rattlesnake came from the Uwharries. You are correct that ATVs can be ridden carefully to avoid destroying the environment. Have fun.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Misunderstood critters
Stop talking like you're surrounded by foes, James ("Now some will call me crazy for my radical views. Good."). You may be surprised at the common ground you can find.
I, for one, think we ought to reintroduce wolves to rural areas across the U.S. to get the deer population under control.
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
misunderstood
If you would peruse the posts you would see that many who don't agree with my views try the name calling and denouncement method. I notice you say nothing to those folks. Why is that? Because you agree with them? I have already addressed the common ground stuff you are talking about. If you are content with being a cheerleader, then try and cheer in a manner equal to all.
I don't want wolves reientroduced across the east. Deer populations can, and are, controlled by hunters.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Wolves.
Amen, Branden. Let the natural predators take care of the deer over-population the way nature intended.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
nature
Humans are just as natural facet of the environment as wolves. We are here, we aren't going away, and folks need to realize that. Hunters do a much better job of controlling deer populations than do wolves. Besides if wolves ate all the deer then hunters wouldn't buy hunting licenses and all wildlife would lose out. It is already happening in some places out west where out of control wolf populations are decimating wolf and deer herds. And guess what happens when wolves eat themselves out of deer and elk - they attack humans and starve to death. The population crashes and then you have an environment severely out of balance.
James Rivers
James Rivers
You've got evidence of a wolf attacking a human?
Really?
I'd like to see it.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
You've got evidence of wolves not attacking humans
Really?
I'd like to see it. Prove they don't attack humans.
James Rivers
James Rivers
I asked you first. :)
First of all, it's silly to ask someone to prove a negative. I'm asking you for evidence of a wolf attack on a human. That should be easy enough. There should be a newspaper article or something. C'mon, James Rivers. You've got to be better at this than that.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Research
Linda,
I am not into doing research for others. If you don't take my word for it then it is up to you to prove it wrong. Just to show you are wrong (again), here is a newspaper article from the Anchorage Times. There are several more documented in North America. Now that it is no longer a negative, prove it wrong (or will you go in the direction that you went on the meat eating issue - not wanting to discuss) Wolves might not be the cute cuddlies you wish them to be:
Wolves attack joggers' dogs on Fort Rich
'They were not afraid of us,' woman says
By JAMES HALPIN
jhalpin@adn.com
Published: December 22nd, 2007 12:08 AM
Last Modified: December 22nd, 2007 06:01 AM
Neither the three women nor their dogs heard the pack of wolves creeping up behind them as they jogged on Artillery Road in the frigid morning air.
Camas Barkemeyer, 26, her dogs Buddy, a 3-year-old American bulldog, and Ginger, a 6-year-old husky, were among that group on Fort Richardson a little after 10 a.m. Thursday. One minute it was peaceful. Then she glanced back and saw the pack of about eight wolves spanning the road, only a few feet behind.
A melee ensued, accompanied by screaming, snarling, blood and pepper spray.
"The thought went through my head: 'What dog? What dog am I going to let go?' " Barkemeyer said. "It was the most terrifying thing I've ever been through."
The increasingly emboldened Elmendorf wolf pack is blamed for killing one dog and wounding another in Eagle River this week as Anchorage saw its seventh wolf attack in the past month, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
The wolves, possibly led by a hungry pack leader in search of easy meals, seem to have taken to attacking dogs during the day, even when groups of people are present, Anchorage-area wildlife biologist Rick Sinnott said.
"That's definitely a bit of escalation on the wolves' part," Sinnott said.
"We're a little more concerned about these instances because the wolves are kind of upping the ante a bit. If they keep it up, we will have to do something lethal."
This bout of wolf encounters began around 6 p.m. Dec. 13 in the Powder Ridge subdivision of Eagle River, when Mike Krause, 39, was walking his 75-pound yellow Labrador retriever, Brit.
He was on pavement, in an unfinished but lit area of the subdivision, when a lone gray wolf rushed out from the tree line and attacked the dog, his wife, Val, said.
Krause rushed the wolf, yelling and waving, and scared it back a bit, she said. But the wolf didn't leave, and Krause took Brit to a nearby porch.
ADVERTISEMENT
"(The wolf) wasn't scared; he just kind of looked at him and backed off," she said. "He had them trapped on the porch for a while."
Eventually the wolf left, leaving Brit with a saliva-soaked neck but no puncture wounds, Val Krause said.
For nearly a week no attacks were reported.
Then Wednesday, at least one wolf returned to Beverly and Jack Bronner's home in the same subdivision. About 8 p.m., their 20-pound miniature schnauzer, Punky, wanted to go outside, and they put her out in the yard on a lead.
The night was cold, about 5 below, and they didn't want to leave Punky out for long, Beverly Bronner said. Only minutes after the dog went out, Jack went to get her.
"He opened the door and she was gone," Beverly said. "The leash was out there and she was gone."
They hadn't heard a sound.
Thursday morning, Jack Bronner and Sinnott tried to find the dog, but only found some blood spatter in the grass and a matted down area, presumably where the wolf was lying in wait, Beverly Bronner said in a telephone interview Friday.
Then, the same morning, Barkemeyer's group had its run-in.
After her bulldog, Buddy, began fighting one wolf, Barkemeyer sprayed a can of pepper spray at it, causing it to back away. But the rest of the pack didn't.
She arced the can, spraying a "rainbow" of pepper spray so the wolves would back down, she said. It worked, temporarily. But the wolves continued to move in every time the women stopped screaming.
They were able to keep the wolves at bay, through relentless yelling, as they made their way back to the exit three-quarters of a mile away, Barkemeyer said.
The wolves finally left them at the gate, where they were out of breath and arm-heavy from yelling and pulling the dogs along, Barkemeyer said.
No one had a chance to notice during the scrape, but Buddy had gotten scratched across his chest and shoulders. He also had bite wounds on his butt and more delicate spots, which needed to be stitched up, she said.
"They were not afraid of us," she said. "Something needs to be done."
That sentiment, echoed by Beverly Bronner, seems to be gaining support.
Wolves attack chained-up dogs fairly regularly in Alaska, Sinnott said. Often, the animals are hungry -- especially in years with little snowfall to slow down moose and make them easier prey.
But for generally people-shy wolves to attack dogs in front of humans is more unusual -- and worrisome, he said.
"They weren't focused on the people at all, they were after the dogs," he said. "But a person could get hurt just in the melee."
Military and railroad employees are using pyrotechnics, rubber bullets, buck shot and pepper spray to try to scare the wolves and teach them to fear people, Sinnott said.
Fish and Game is also encouraging people to legally trap the wolves, he said.
Anchorage has about 25 or 30 wolves in up to five packs, but the Elmendorf pack, which ranges from the Air Force base to the Palmer Hay Flats, is the only one suspected of attacking dogs during recent months, Sinnott said.
A hunter reported shooting and killing a large black wolf -- like one known to be in the Elmendorf pack -- on the Palmer Hay Flats on Thursday, Sinnott said. But the animal's hide had not yet been sealed and he could not confirm if it actually was a part of the problem pack.
This is the second string of wolf attacks in Anchorage within a month. On Nov. 28, a dog being walked behind the Alaska Railroad track near Eklutna was killed when the pack attacked.
A woman and her dog walking on a lighted loop of the Beach Lake trail system in Chugiak Dec. 4 were also confronted by several wolves, though the dog was uninjured in that encounter.
The next day, a woman walking her dog on Artillery Road heard her pet give a quick yelp as it vanished. The dog's head and collar were found the next morning about 50 yards off the road.
Another confrontation took place Dec. 8, when a woman walking two dogs on a gravel road northwest of Elmendorf's flight line saw several wolves that followed her for about 15 minutes, though they didn't attack.
Wildlife officials recommend keeping dogs on a leash or under close voice control, and carrying pepper spray for backcountry travel.
For Barkemeyer, that won't be necessary. She isn't heading back out anytime soon.
"I run back there all the time, and I don't want to think about how many times I've been watched," she said.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Well, aside from the fact it's Alaska,
where critters generally behave different than the lower 48, maybe these attacks on dogs are a result of the wolves reading this article that you posted downthread:
Of course, that would require the wolves to not only have access to a computer, but an Internet connection as well. Have any been spotted outside of cafes with wifi capability, possibly clutching fang-scored, drool-dripping laptop in their jaws?
If the wolves start chasing balloons, breaking windows, attacking beehives or running rampant through drugstores in search of the Tylenol display, we'll know for certain it's all about protecting the children.
Gators come in at #2? Holy crap.
No wonder all the old folks go to Florida. If one state's worth of wild animals can beat all but one cause of death in the 49 other states, there's pretty heavy selection pressure against running around and playing in the water.
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
proof
Linda,
As you can see, I have provided proof on the wolf thing. No answer? Funny how a liberal doesn't seem to want to answer when they have been proven wrong (again). Maybe you should quit while you are behind by only two (wolves and the meat eating thing). Now, I challenge you to prove otherwise that my research and comments are somehow in error. Thank you and have a fine day my dear Linda. LOL!!!!!!!
James Rivers
James Rivers
How to deal with trespassers
So, you told the ATV riders to get the hell off your property, and told the hippies to stop bogartin', right?
Gas, grass, or ass—nobody camps for free!
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
Gas grass or @#$
Well, not in those terms. The ATV riders (see above)will know the deal as I catch up to them. The hippies are as free to walk on my property as anyone else as long as they don't start a forest fire and burn the place down. As for the &*@ part, um, I guess one or two of those hippie chicks were kind of good looking in a weird sort of way. Well, hell, now that you mention it, there was this one hippie girl who was downright hot now that I think back to it. Maybe Linda can set me up........ Ok, now I am starting to get off subject.
Advice for you? NC is a fantastic state - that's why so many are moving in. Depends on what you like to do. If you are an outdoor freak then I would recommend the coast or mountains. If you like an eclectic, young professional crowd then Raleigh or Charlotte would have just about everything you are looking for. Also, our gun laws aren't all that bad at this point. There are several shooting clubs and ranges dotted throughout the state. Get involved in one of those for both personal enjoyment and as a means of connecting to the community. You would be surprised at the information you can get on a myriad of subjects through fellow gun owners (places to live, things to do, places to fix your car). They are sort of like a ready made friend. Good luck.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Shooting clubs
Actually I've been thinking about that. For an (oddball type of) gun rights guy, I'm a terrible shot.
I had planned to get out of my armchair 2nd Amendment phase while still in Indiana, but things didn't turn out that way...
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
Of course that thing about the right to bear arms
doesn't have much to do with hunting, does it?
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Semi Automatic weapons
Brunette,
Wow, 20 years ago this question would not have come up in Western North Carolina. With all the folks moving in from other locations, it must be hard for them to get used to the concept of individualism that locals enjoy. Anyway, not at all hard to explain the semi-automatic concept as I thought I already had. I'll be happy to do so again. Competitive shooting - a multitude of shooting events around our great nation utilize semi-automatic rifles and have done so for the past, oh, say 100 years. High Power competitions are extremely popular as they have always been with thousands of shooters competing on any given weekend. Shooters typically use M14 or AR-15 semi automatic weapons at ranges from 200-600 meters (the AK series are typically not used as they are not accurate enough). In Camp Perry Ohio, the national shooting championships are held each year to determine best shots in the nation in both military and civilian classes. Again, semi-automatics are used in many of the events at Camp Perry including high-power matches. As a side note, the military and civilian shooters use military ranges under military instruction in many areas ( I shot high power at Camp Pendelton with the Marines on many occasions as the Base Commander thought it important to give civilians a place to shoot in overcrowded San Diego). Continuing, the use of semi-automatics (dubbed assault rifles by the uninformed) have taken place in sport and competitive shooting for decades. Many of the shooters in these events go on to law enforcement and police oriented careers where a solid foundation of shooting is of great benefit. Hunting. Semi-automatic rifles are carried afield each year by the tens of thousands by hunters and sportsmen. Some on this site try and insinuate that an unfair advantage is somehow given to the hunter if he/she uses a semi-automatic. Not sure how they came by this as they seem not to be hunters. The truth is very little advantage is garnered by the hunter. Game does not typically stand by while a hunter simply blasts away. Follow up shots are few in number (you should hit it the first time) and often animals are on the move. A pump action rifle is as fast as a semi automatic and we tend to hear nothing concerning those weapons. Why is that? Some hunters choose semi-automatics because they fit well while others prefer them to other available arms. In may case I sometimes carry afield a Winchester Model 8 semi-automatic rifle. Production of the Model 8 started in 1908 with my particular rifle being produced in 1926. Frank Hammer, incidently, used a Model 8 to end the careers (permanently) of Bonnie and Clyde. So you see, semi-automatic rifles are not some new phenomenon, but rather old systems with a large following.
So there, you have two stated purposes of the semi-automatic rifle. There are more. Take home protection for instance. Several semi-automatic weapons are ideal for home defense. Take the WWII issue M1 Carbine. It is short, compact, easy to operate by those smaller in stature (women and young people), and very reliable. If I were going to arm my wife with a semi-automatic other than the AR-15 she already has access to, then it would have to be the M1 Carbine. The last, and most important purpose for owning and operating a semi-automatic firearms is simply because someone wants to and has an inherent right to. Just as you want to practice your freedom of speech, freedom of privacy, or any other inalienable rights routinely enjoyed by Americans, the 2nd Amendment is no exception. It is so important in fact that the Supreme Court is ready to rule on it in June. A balance of power is immeasurable in importance for a nation. This balance of power exists between the government and the people. Any tipping of power towards the government end of things doesn't bode well for the people. Semi automatic weapons are simply part of this balance. With Mr. Carter being a candidate to represent me in Washington, I feel an answer on his stance on the 2nd Amendment is in order. There are other Democratic politicians who have stepped up to the plate and done the right thing concerning the 2nd Amendment, and I expect Mr. Carter to or he won't get my vote.
Is this detailed enough for you Brunette? Now how about explaining your end of the issue at hand. Thank you
James Rivers
James Rivers
James Rivers
James Rivers
Like I said
The 2nd Amendment doesn't have anything to do with hunting.
That simple enough for you, James Rivers, James Rivers, James Rivers?
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Mr. Rivers
I grew up shooting quit a bit, although I preferred free-hand, iron sights - thought it took more skill. Also, I had family/friends that collected guns of all sorts. So, I can understand that there are a FEW people who could/should be able to responsibly own these firearms. But, what about the rest, what about the leakage onto the gunshow scene where they are picked up by criminals or those who should not have them? So, I've had an idea for some time. I wonder if you support it.
So, gun enthusiasts get to keep their weapons, while gun nuts do not.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
thanks for bringing reasonability to the thread, Robert.
I just didn't know how to do it with this one.
As a gun-control advocate, I can live with your proposals. And there was a time when I actually believed that ONLY the police should have guns.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Few people equals elitism
-Robert P.,
I shoot iron peep sights at high-power matches. I still use iron sights while hunting, although I will switch to a scope when my eyes get to bad to focus on the sights. I would ask who you think the FEW peoople are. Isn't that an elitist slant? With that being said maybe you or your friends with a lot of guns shouldn't own guns. Or knives, or baseball bats or samauri swords simply because someone THINKS you shouldn't. The "leakage" onto the gun show scene has never been a significant source of guns for criminals. That is a made up fallacy by the spin oriented media and Brady Campaign. Less than 1% of all crimes by gun are committed by so-called assault weapons. I have attended gun shows all my life, and street thugs would stand out like a sore thumb. Criminals typically obtain their weapons by stealing them or buying them from folks who steal them, not at gun shows.
1. Why the two weeks? What difference does that make? Some pistols are not legally allowed for hunting as they are not powerful enough. Why ban those weapons as they make great home defense or target guns? So you are saying that a semi-automatic rifle that is used for hunting is ok to possess anytime, anywhere? That doesn't make much sense as gun ownership and hunting don't have as much to do with each other as do guns and the right to keep and bear arms.
2. All other weapons should be legal to own: see above
3. How do you regulate a God Given, inalienable right? Do you fill out a Special Speech Permit to talk in front of a crowd. Or a journalist permit to post here?
4. Why lock your weapon during transport? How does one defend him/herself with non-functioning weapons? Do criminals have to abide by this one also?
5. So we pay for the action of criminals? wow! That's kind of scary. Why wouldn't the person who caused physical or property damage have to pay for it? Mental damage? So your friend or child that borrows your car and kills another in a drunk driving accident means youshould be held accountable?
6. Your exempt from civil libility if you place "The Club" or on your steering wheel and it is stolen. Maybe they steal one of your knives and kill your wife with it. Should you be held responsible for that?
7. This is interesting. Would you submit to cameras being placed in your home to ensure you don't abuse your kids, beat your wife or commit the act of sodomy. You seem to operate on the basis of guilty until proven innocent and total waiver of 4th Amendment rights. Heck, would you advocate placing a device in your car that will electronically send police computers a signal when you speed resulting in a speeding ticket being mailed to you?
8. You agree to pay 5000 for not installing a club on your automobile. You agree to pay 5000 dollars for any potential weapon not stored according to what someone else thinks? Uh huh, that's what I thought.
9. You cannot give any of your treasured possessions to sons, daughters, wives or others of your choosing. You instead ask Big Brother if you may do so. Don't give cars, chain saws, land or anything else away as someone might do something bad with it. Operating on this principle is silly and downright ludicrous!!!!!
I have a few ideas of my own:
A. Any weapon is legal in any state as per the 2nd Amendment (what part of "shall not be infringed upon" don't you understand?
B. Punish criminals, not law abiding gun owners
C. Misdiagnosis by doctor kills far more folks in the US than do guns. Lets send all those doctors away for emotional and physical damage.
D. Do away with a libility based society and take responsibility for actions.
E. Less government intrusion into the lives of Americans. Less rules and lawmaking and more personal responsibility.
F. Public gun ranges as recreational centers for young people
G. Continuation of a proud and respectable tradition of gun ownership.
Believe it or not, some of us Democrats actually think for ourselves and are not our brother's keeper!!!!!!
James Rivers
James Rivers
You have a more liberal reading of the 2nd amendment
Than do I or most Americans. All your arguments are facetious. Doctors are punished if they commit malpractice, but they have a strong lobby and the punishments are usually not enforced. Cars aren't created for the sole purpose of hurting other things and are almost NEVER stolen with the intent of hurting other humans. I would permit, and by law have no choice but to permit, a visit by police and a social worker if a neighbor reported that I was being abusive to my wife/children. I never said anything about having a 24/7 camera in place, just random visits. Facetious.
Free speech often does require a license and it doesn't kill people, if it threatens to kill people it is against the law and you can be jailed for it. If it instills and promotes hate, it is against the law and you can be jailed for it.
On one hand you say "Do away with a [libility] based society and take responsibility for actions." but then if you leave your automatic weapon lying on the front seat of your truck, and someone steals it and sprays a middle school, killing a bunch of innocent people, you don't want to be held accountable for your irresponsible gun practices.
You'll never win. All weapons will never be legal, and they shouldn't be. Whether you like it or not, guns do kill people, just in the hands of other people. Guns will be regulated, the question is whether we regulate certain types of guns COMPLETELY OUT OF EXISTENCE. That is what the people who are polar-opposites of you want. No guns. Period. I'm saying there is a middle ground where people who want guns could have them, but they would have to step up and take some responsibility. You want to live in a fantasy land where each person is a law unto themselves. Fine, go to Afghanistan or Sub-Saharan Africa where those social mores are still practiced.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
liberal reading
The 2nd Amendment is not meant to be interpreted this way or that. The framers made the language pretty clear. What me must remember, and Scalia supports this point, is the Constitution is in place so WE don't change. Not the other way around. If we were to change the meaning of our base document to suit prevailing attitudes, we would be in serious trouble!!!
Which of my arguments are facetious? I contend that your arguments are both a fallacy and not grounded in common sense or logic!!!! Doctors are most certainly not punished for committing malpractice. The thousands upon thousands of misdiagnoses resulting in death do not wind up with punishment of the doctor. That is a fallacy.
You say cars aren't created for the sole purpose of causing hurt. Guns are not created for the sole purpose of hurt either. As I have explained, rather thouroughly by this point, is that weapons are used for many, many uses other than killing (preventing crime, hunting, collecting, sport shooting, etc..) But cars kill far more folks than guns yet folks like you don't seem to eager to ban them!!
I never said ANYTHING about a neighbor reporting you to police. I drew a parallel (you must have missed it) between advocation of preventative firearms regulations and preventative regulations designed to limit your ability to break laws or cause harm to others. In other words, if you wish to see limitations on my basic right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then why would I be wrong on imposing my own special set of limitation on you? Many folks abuse their kids each year. Many folks engage in the illegal act of sodomy each year. We have to stop this insidious behavior by folks like you. Can't you see how beneficial it would be to mandatorily have a camera installed in your home? I think it is a great idea. And maybe a device installed in your car someday that will send a police computer a message when you speed. By your inclination for controlling others, you would probably be happy to receive the speeding ticket in the mail. Right?
My first Amendment protections need a license. Where and when? You are right, speech designed to harm others can land you in jail - AFTER IT HAS OCCURRED. Your wishes to ban firearms occur BEFORE the illegal act occurs. Apples and oranges. If you set a pre-condition on firearms then why not Freedom of speech or press? The simple threat of you using illegal word should be enough to ban the use of Word- perfect or pens and pencils. Right? Do you see what road we can merrily go down by your flawed logic? Punish criminals, not law abiding gun owners.
Leaving my automatic weapon (you have to have a class III license for a fully automatic weapon my friend) should NEVER make me liable if a thief commits a crime by stealing it and then commits another crime by misusing it. If you leave the keys in your car and someone steals it and kills someone in a drunk driving accident then it is you who must pay? Not making a lot of sense here.
It is you who will never win. As you can see, many other like- minded Democrats are starting to fire back (no pun intended). Whether you like it or not people kill people in a multitude of ways. First man born of man killed man. He did it with a rock. A few Muslim extremists killed nearly 3000 with a few box cutters. Timothy McVeigh did it with some fertilizer squirted with Diesel.
As for you rant on Afghanistan or Sub-Saharan Africa. Afghanistan beat a large Soviet Army. How did a rag tag bunch of camel herders do that? They did it because they were armed. Contrast this with your mistaken choice of sub Saharan Africa. The folks in Darfur for instance were disarmed long ago. The only people with guns there are government sponsored militias who rampage and pilfer at will. They are able to do this because the common citizens have no access to, yep you guess it, guns!!!! Kind of hard to lop someone's arm off when they are pointing a gun at you!!! With globalization comes a special benefit to gun owners and activists. The advent of mass communication (blogs, internet, etc.) it greatly stifling the efforts of a biased media to reflect flawed values (like the ones you espouse). If you have noticed the gun effort is gaining great momentum. The Supreme Court is scheduled to give a ruling on the 2nd Amendment. Nearly all states have concealed carry laws (shall issue laws which prevent corrupt judges and sheriff's from denying a citizen the right to carry based on nefarious reasons). Many states have recently passed "Castle Doctrines" which basically says you don't have to retreat from someone entering your house OR property. Several states are looking into passing laws which will allow now helpless college students to carry concealed on campus (Utah allows it already). So, no, we are not by any stretch losing. We are gaining. We will continue to gain. If Mr. Carter aligns himself with the pro second amendment crowd in convincing fashion then he might have a shot (no pun intended again)
James Rivers
James Rivers
Not facetious, just stupid.
You're arguments may not be facetious, but they are certainly lacking in something. Like common sense. Nearly everything you state is either flat-out wrong or horribly twisted by some weird Nixonian logic.
As for winning, if you were going to win then tanks and RPGs would be legal. You'll never win, it's just a matter of degrees. I'll win because I understand that and will be happy with a happy medium. You're a "true believer" and people like you never win, they just cause havoc.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
6 liner
Robert P,
Hey dude, lighten up. I make a dedicated effort to explain my views. You are not doing the same thing. You draw reference to perceived personal deficiencies (I have many of those for sure, but common sense hasn't ever been a problem). If you would like to explain what my arguments are lacking in then you have a blank screen and opportunity. You indicated in an earlier post the tendency for new posters not to last long. From your six line reply I say it is you who is slipping Robert P. Could it be, just maybe, that the 2nd Amendment and unrestrictive gun ownership has more merits than people assume? Robert, the liberal news media NEVER gives a decent accounting of guns in any situation. After years of this media bashing with no ability to fight back, the liberal generated myth surrounding guns began to grow. Now that we have an outlet to educate folks to the OTHER SIDE OF THE PICTURE, posts like mine are becoming more common. Perhaps supposed open minded people should practice being open minded on the gun issue.
Take the book by researcher Robert Lott "More Guns, Less Crime". In this book Mr. Lott breaks down many of the myths associated with guns in society. Take the 2.5 million uses of guns to prevent crime or injury in the United States each year for instance. Lott explains how the vast majority of positive uses of guns are not reported by the media. You seem a little frustrated right now Robert. Take a deep breath and realize life is a grand thing. If you choose to have guns in your life, then great. If not, great. Just don't hamper my rights. That's not asking much. I will be a "true believer" and believe you will do this!!!!!! What are your opinions on the Patriot Act and abortion?
James Rivers
James Rivers
One more thing
I just noticed you called me stupid. That's not very nice now is it? Would candidate Carter call me stupid for expressing my views? Will candidate Carter support my 2nd Amendment rights? If he doesn't support my constitutional rights would you call him stupid or just accept him as a status quo Democrat? Add stupid to the ever growing list I am forced to endure on this increasingly hostile blog. If you didn't agree with Rosa Parks would you have called her stupid, or worse............? Think about how you categorize and stereotype us gun owners. How you classify and mold our views hints at racism, discrimination, bigotry and non-tolerance.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Don't call me stupid!
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
I love that movie, Branden!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
I consider myself fairly well-informed,
and there is a huge difference between an AK-47 and a semi-automatic shotgun, which is why the "assault rifle" designation is used by law enforcement and others.
What makes an assualt weapon?
They are merely weapons that were developed from fully automatic models. Meaning they had the equivalent appearance to weapons banned by the 1934 Machine Gun Act. The shotgun I grew up with met the definition of an assault weapon, despite being specifically used for hunting and had a plug. The reason, it had a capacity of more than 7 shots and a detachable magazine. The gun was plugged, so I couldn't get more than three shells in there, as is the law for bird hunting, but it was still illegal for the manufacturer to sell new models. I could see mine, since it was pre-ban and could continue to use it.
A rifle was designated as an assault rifle is it had two of the following features.
Large capacity ammunition magazines
Folding or telescoping stock
Conspicuous pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
At first it looks like a great idea, until you actually find more out about it. For instance, a bayonet mount? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Grenade launcher? Rifle grenades are already highly regulated by the Destrutive Devices Act. This bill did nothing.
How about pistols?
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
Excellent you have a heavy pistol that is the semi-auto version of an automatic firearm.
and for shotguns?
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine
This was one of the worst laws ever created.
This thread is not about weapons,
unless they're needed to stalk Roy Carter. From another thread:
You're right, but it's still a good place to talk about weapons.
This guy is obviously stalking Roy, but he provided an interesting lead-in for folks to discuss guns, gun culture, hunting, automatic weapons.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Stalking?
Robert P.,
Stalking. I joined this website to become informed. I would like to make an informed decision on the day I exercise one of my most cherished consititional rights - the right to vote. I have encountered nothing but hostility from fellow Dems on this site for simply asking a question. My views on guns are under attack and now I am a stalker!! I will answer these posts as I get to them, but get real. Try not to be so reactionary when someone asks a pertinent question or two. If asking two questions is stalking then I wonder what else sets you off!!!
I drive a Nissan Sentra in an effort to conserve gas and do my part to save the environment. I then ask Roy Carter if he drives an SUV or full size vehicle in response to his purported view environmental issues. Is this wrong ? I vote for people who do, not people who expect me to do without doing themselves. I simply want to know Mr. Carter's views on Guns and a little something on what he drives so I can be sure he is not a hypocrite.
James Rivers
James Rivers
You need to understand.
You might be knew to this, but we aren't. We see a lot of people who show up and post inflammatory "questions" during their first hour/day and then are never seen again. Or, they create multiple accounts and do the same.
Since I posted this you have come back and interacted with quite a few people. Good. However, the way you started is akin to walking into a local bar televising the NCSU-Miami football game in Raleigh and shouting, "I think that NC State sucks and I wonder if any of you would care to correct me?"
Your probably going to get pummeled. Whereas if you walk into your local pub where everyone knows you and shout out the same thing you would get a much different response.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Inflammatory questions
Robert P.
Now let me see if I have this correct. My questions concerning my 2nd Amendment rights are inflammatory? How is that? I just re-read my initial post that started all of this, and it does not seem inflammatory in the least. In reading people's responses to my posts is where I see inflammation!!! I am still here posting and have posted under this account. Who else is here posting pro-gun statements besides possibly one other?
The way I started is not as YOU SEE IT. Do you think some Democrats, especially those living and growing up in rural environments, own, operate and maintain guns? I know a lot of fellow Democrats that go to the local shooting club with me. As for getting pummeled, I am not seeing that. I see a lot of hollow emotion and very, very little fact. If this makes me inadequate somehow then I am guilty I guess.
I simply wanted to know Mr. Carter's views as they pertain to my initial post. Nothing more nothing less. If folks want to engage then fine. I am no stranger these days to defending my 2nd Amendment rights. It seems as if more folks than ever are in my business. Time to become engaged on all fronts is what I say. I am doing that right now. You too seem to feel strongly on certain subjects. Great. I harbor no ill will toward you or anyone else as long as my rights are not eroded in any fashion. I look forward to further discourse.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Member for 1.5 hours, two comments and/or posts.
Both questioning Roy Carter. If you haven't been around for awhile then you might not be familiar with the term "concern troll".
As I said, which you might not have taken from my above comment, you came back to discuss the issue. Good enough.
I hope that in a time when the planet is about to fall apart, and you talk about energy efficiency, that you'll focus on other issues that have greater impact on humanity.
God, gays, and guns are just a way of driving us apart.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
The 1.5 hour member
robert P.
It seems as if you are the 1.5 hour member. You are not replying to the various posts submitted on this thread anymore. As with most liberals of your caliber, you try and fade away without being noticed as your emotional retorts and biases have been refuted time and time again. This tends to make you uncomfortable (as it very well should), and you in turn seek out those who give you support. Funny how ONE gun owner can put a bunch like you on the run while simultaneously exposing your flawed logic, racist tendencies, and generally poor thinking process. You came on strong at the beginning (when you had a little back up) and were beaten back post after post. You, Linda, and others, finding little solace in having to think for once, simply quit. I find that a bit odd and very astounding.
Perhaphs you should take a look at your general belief system and do a little revamping!!! LOL!! If Democrats would embrace guns (and other God given, Constitutional Rights) the party might get somewhere. Instead, old style hardliners like you continue the same tired old rhetoric that worked when there weren't things like the internet, blogs, and text that can now easily expose the many flaws and inconsistencies you so verily espouse. Wake up Robert P. It's a new world out there.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Mr Rivers is a stalker?
How creepy.
It's a shame. I know there are a lot of hunters out there who don't enjoy having their image tarnished by someone who's on a human stalk.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Forgot one
Oh I forgot one. I am creepy also. Just keep adding to your list Brunette. Not sure how you came by this; I guess by listening to others. Do you always react when someone says something about another? If it was said that I was a ten foot tall martian from Mars who loved salty Margaritas would you believe it? Have some independent thought for Christ's sake.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Maybe you forgot a couple more Mr Rivers?
Mr Rivers! I notice that you put on a excellent discourse in defending the 2nd amendment here. However! If you are true defender of the 2nd, you know dang well that the purpose of the 2nd is to keep the King or any Tyrant honest and has nothing to do with hunting or wildlife and any other Blues Brothers excuses about owning weapons.
Do you agree? And finally! Are you a NRA member or a member of the Gunowners of America? If you are NRA member, than you should be shot with a 50 cal sniper rifle on sight for being a traitor with that bunch of rich white establishment racist bastards.
2nd Amendment
Maxey,
You are correct in that the 2nd Amendment correlates more to a balance of power than to hunting. If you read my reply to Robert P., above, you will see that my very first comment is indicative of exactly what you just said. Here it is again: "That doesn't make much sense as gun ownership and hunting don't have as much to do with each other as do guns and the right to keep and bear arms." I couldn't agree more with you. Many politicians these days attempt to circumvent the gun issue by saying they support hunters rights. What exactly are hunters rights? What does this have to do with gun ownership? I wonder if Mr. Carter is of this mindset. If he is then I doubt you would vote for him based on what you say above, correct? When I hear a politician indicate my 2nd Amendment rights revolve around hunting, I immediately become suspicious. As you say, the 2nd Amendment is in place to keep the tyrant at bay.
I am a "seasonal" NRA and GOA member. By seasonal I mean that I buy year long memberships instead of lifetime memberships. This allows me to wield power over these organizations in case they fail to support in some way my 2nd Amendment Rights. I am a member of the NRA through the end of the year and may not renew if they court McCain at the upcoming NRA convention. McCain, as you probably know, is not a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendemnt. At one point in his career he voted for some anti-gun legislation which, in effect, makes him suspect in my book. I am currently not a member of GOA, however I might join soon as they are on to McCain (they give him an F rating).
As for being shot with a .50 cal. Wow. Kind of strong rhetoric for the anti-gun crowd isn't it? LOL!!! So I am not entitled to exercise my 1st Amendment rights of speech and assembly? And you are? The 5 million or so other NRA/GOA members should also be shot? Quite a statement. I didn't know that many people were wrong to believe in the constitution. I wonder if Mr. Carter thinks I should be shot, that I am a traitor for holding membership in a particular club or organization, and that gun owners are wrong (there are at best guess 80 million gun owners nationwide). If that is the case he will have a hard time in Northwestern N.C., I can assure you!!!
By the way, I am not rich nor a racist bastard. Do you research and you will see many gun laws themselves were concieved of due to racism. It is kind of hard to enslave a race if they are pointing guns at you!!!! Don't fool yourself into thinking the prohibition on concealed carry in many southern states was the result of crime control. It was people control. White slave owners and later KKK did not want to run the chance of messing with an armed black man. So what did they do? They disarmed the blacks. Those laws have perpetuated themselves through the years, and organizations like GOA and NRA realize this. And they are racist? Lets look at some large cities in the United States. Take Washington, DC, New York, and Chicago. Those cities have severe restrictions on carrying weapons. Who are the residents of those big cities? Yes, blacks. Now why is it that rural white America are trusted to carry guns (with crime rates approaching those of Japan and England) and the good black citizens of the inner city aren't? Stinks of racism to me. Keeping the black man down Maxey. Do you believe in that? As a gun owner, I believe and trust in blacks just as much as whites to own and carry weapons. Do you?
This is interesting. In less than 24 hours I have been called creepy, a traitor (who should be shot), a stalker, white, racist and finally a bastard. I didn't realize you folks were so racist, stereotypical and generally hateful yourselves. I have done nothing but ask a couple of questions of Mr. Carter and have been met with some pretty serious sounding hostility. I have not called, or insinuated in the least, any of these things to anyone on this site (even though they advocate abridging my God Given, inalienable rights!). I am secure in my beliefs, and will fight for them. I don't carry this fight on with one line, emotional filled quips or with hateful words. If you don't agree then at least come up with the why or hows.
One thing I don't understand about our party. Give the weapons thing up!!!! It is a losing issue!! Why not court the gun owners, win elections, and do those things that make our party important? It seems that some of us have at least some common held values and beliefs. One person on this post likes watching deer in his/her yard. Great. I do to. I hunt those deer, but love seeing them. It seems that this is one issue(s) that should not divide a party. Simply allowing law abiding gun owners to do their thing isn't that crazy of a concept.
James Rivers
James Rivers
I think I got James in my sight! Oh there he is!
By the way, I am not rich nor a racist bastard* Sgt York James
Never said that Dude about your personally! I see you are playing the Guilt collectism association political correct game. Shame on you for using establishment liberal control freak Orwellian gabage terms here.
Listen Sgt York! You appear to be not up to date on the NRA past History. The NRA was form after the civil war by Union Army Commanders and given a Federal Charter as a agent of the Federal Government. It's so-called purpose was to suggest or advise to Congress and the States about the educational knowledge of the 2 nd and to prepose laws to protect it or the selective laws for certain groups who could not attain the right to bare arms if they didn't reach certain educational training testing. These selective groups were the former slaves who were deny the right to bear arms by the States with the full support of the NRA as a federal agent. That's right! The NRA was the first classic example of fascism in the USA as a so-called private state association.
GOA was not form until the late 1970's and had nothing to do with racism in the last century.
As a gun owner, I believe and trust in blacks just as much as whites to own and carry weapons. Do you?* Sgt York
Of course I do sgt york! Hell! I want all races armed to the teeth to repel any Nazi or Communist that thinks they can tell me when to flush my toliet with the force of law. And stop telling me about you running scare of my 50 cal sniper rifle in the Wal-Mart parking lot. I belong to the 101 st Golden Chips state milita of Northern Montana, so don't screw with me and my loyal troops. We are also loyal members of the local Lions club on Thursday nights at Ted Turner Bison steak house at High Canyon Montana. You should attend our meeting at the Lions club. We are holding a lottery on a used M-1 Abrams battle tank next week that we aquired from Homeland Security to fight terrorism in Montana.
ps....And stop bugging Coach Carter! I am his tight end on the weekends on his Arena football team [Danial Boone Longrifles]in Wilkes county.
Another balance of power quote
Here is another balance of power quote used in a post to Brunette that supports your assertion of keeping tryants at bay: "This balance of power exists between the government and the people. Any tipping of power towards the government end of things doesn't bode well for the people. Semi automatic weapons are simply part of this balance."
Thanks. By the way, i am out of the area for a couple of weeks and may not be able to check in. I will reply when I get back.
James Rivers
James Rivers
The problem with this argument
is that by the same reasoning, individual ownership of nuclear weapons would lend an even greater "tip" to this 'balance of power.'
It also assumes that any one individual is entitled to assert his own law in opposition to the government, and blow away those pesky agents that want to talk to him about taxes or the children in the basement or the recent demolition of a government building.
Heaven knows the Founding Fathers never contemplated the existence of the freakin' NRA, the lunacy of its leadership and the twisting of the meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment that we see today.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
obligations
The 2nd Amendment in itself entitles one to assert laws in opposition to governments. That was why it was formed in the first place!!!! If a government gets out of balance somehow and needs to be brought back into line, it is the 2nd Amendment which allows it to occur. Furthermore, a criminal who is shot while engaged in some activity designed to hurt me, my family, or a third party is not asserting one's own law in opposition to the govt. In fact, it is one's moral obligation to end the life of said criminal so he/she is unable to do further damage!!!! With your reasoning the civilians who assisted the police in killing Charles Lee Whitman asserted their own law in opposition to the govt?
How is the leadership of the NRA loony? Protecting my 2nd Amendment rights is a pretty serious matter. The Animal Liberation Front, PETA, or Earth First are pretty loony. ALF is actually on the terrorist watch list as they advocate killing people if necessary to liberate animals. Do you think the leaders of ALF, PETA and Earth First are loony also?
The intent of the 2nd Amendment is the same as it was over 200 years ago. Nothing new, nothing different.
James Rivers
James Rivers
You're in the deep end with shallow waders now
Wrongo- Ask Randy Weaver. I was about to suggest you ask David Koresh but then I remembered that he isn't available.
By the way, self-defense against a threat to your person or property by a criminal or critter is provided for by our laws already. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
I don't see what the 2nd Amendment has to do with ALF, PETA or Earth First. Maybe you can explain that.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Eh?
Admittedly, my views are closer to James's than yours on the 2nd Amendment (even if I think he's tone deaf on how to win respect for gun rights among liberals and progressives), but I hope I can persuade you that Weaver and Koresh aren't any better examples of implementation of government gun regulation prerogatives than David Hicks or José Padilla are for pre-trial detention policies.
(Or, for those with longer memories, think of Abner Louima, Amadou Diallo, and the NYPD's "rules of engagement" with uncharged suspects at various stages of detention by the police.)
More succinctly, you being right about the scope of the 2nd Amendment wouldn't have made the federal government's handling of Waco or Ruby Ridge less wrong.
I think that more, uh, "liberal" laws regarding gun ownership and carrying might hive off a lot of supporters from the reactionary wackjob Right. As a social policy, I think it's smart to isolate gun-happy sociopaths, not drive responsible gun owners and enthusiasts into alliance with them.
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
I have a feeling Brunette is
I have a feeling Brunette is more of an advocate than you think, Mr. Rivers.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Amazing how a legit question, even if on a controversial subject
can slide so quickly into the realm of personal attacks and snide remarks.
Given that humans are carnivores...and that we require protein to survive...man has been killing and eating animals for thousands of years. Those who eat meat but are appalled by the thought of hunting and killing an animal surely know hamburger or bacon doesn't grow on trees. If you are a meat eater and have never tasted a venison ham wrapped in foil with onions and apples and left to cook slowly all day buried in the coals of a morning campfire, you've missed a real treat. Although I no longer hunt, I'd like to retain the right to do so...and not be told I can't own a firearm because someone is afraid I'll use it irresponsibly. I do own a bolt action rifle. I've never considered owning a semi-automatic rifle for large game hunting. It's unnecessary.
While I can't quote sources for others to read, repeating rifles were developed for the purpose of killing other people, not for hunting. Semi-automatic and machine guns are simply an extension of technology to more efficiently kill other humans.
Anyone who kills to eat doesn't need a semi-automatic weapon. Period. OTOH law-abiding folks who enjoy shooting and improving their marksmanship on paper targets shouldn't be kept from doing so with military style semi-automatics. Like it or not, it's a skill that translates to survival in wartime...and our world isn't getting any more peaceful. Civilians with good marksmanship skills have been crucial to our success in wartime (remember Sgt. York?).
Just to be clear, my opinion is that anyone who doesn't eat what they kill (unless it's pests like barn rats) is beyond contempt. Anyone who kills another living creature just to be amused is not someone I want to associate with.
Finally, there's lots that can be said about guns and criminals and self-protection. Most folks are pretty polarized on the subject. For me it boils down to this: If criminals who commit a crime using a firearm or threat of use of a firearm, were locked away immediately and forever, without any chance for parole, ever, it would help. That isn't going to happen. Criminals will get and use a gun no matter what the law says...because a gun makes a criminal powerful...especially if the criminal knows his victim doesn't possess like weaponry.
So...I come down on the side of law abiding citizens being able to carry a gun for protection...with proper training and a permit...and for homeowners to lawfully be able to possess a firearm on their property without a permit.
Just my opinion.
Stan Bozarth
I'm just curious
Mr. Rivers, after reading most of your posts here and I think it's very interesting reading BTW, two questions, if you will... If you want answers to your questions from Mr. Carter, why don't you contact him directly? He does have a website with contact info. Also, you say you wouldn't vote for McCain because he once voted for some kind of gun legislation. In your view, is there any kind of gun control legislation that you would support?
Progressive Democrats of North Carolina
Progressives are the true conservatives.
Contact info
I tried contacting him and can find nothing on his website which will allow me to contact him. I saw him answer someone on this website so I thought he might answer me. I will probably end up attending one of his rallies and just ask him directly.
I would most certainly support some gun legislation. Legislation designed to place criminals who use guns in either jail or the electric chair and legislation that eases restrictions on the carry of weapons anywhere in the state by law abiding citizens. Vermont has no restrictions on carrying weapons. You can strap on a handgun and walk about as you please. No problems there.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Vermont is a great state
Yup.
A state which both elects an unashamed socialist (Bernie Senders) to the House of Representatives, and then the Senate, and which doesn't have any gun laws seems to me to have an usually strong grasp on the proper role of government.
Incidentally, it's also beautiful. My wife and I went on a road trip to northern New England a few years ago, right before leaf-peeper season. We had a great time.
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
gun in Vermont
You never addressed Vermon't gun laws, or absence of them.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Gun Control? What does that mean? In the history of nations,
one can clearly see that disarming the population was always a pre-curser to the implementation and rise of Tyranny.
The government fears an "armed" public. The primary beneficiaries of "Gun Control" are the Government and those who have no regard for the "Rule of Law" (Criminals).
Federal law already, and rightly so, forbids the unlicensed private ownership of "Weapons of War, i.e. fully automatic weapons (machine guns), bombs, automatic converters, certain explosives and a list of others.
I am more weary of my government than those who own weapons. Criminals are not normally effcted by any law regulating thier activity, including owning guns.
I love freedom, liberty, safety, and some degree of control in my life. It is our Constitution which guarantees those things, not government.
I consider the government's control over who can own a gun in America to be a direct threat to my own freedom and liberty.
Liberal as I am , I am not willing to make some trades.
Liberty for safety is not a good trade.
Marshall Adame
Thank you Marshall, for an intelligent and thoughtfully correct
reply. I feel precisely the same.
Stan Bozarth
Geez, Marshall
Does it matter what kind of gun? We're talking about an "armed public," right? What about nuclear weapons? How about ricin?
Why would "guns" be so precious if what is precious is the right for the public to be armed?
No compromise possible here?
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Hi Brunette, all the things you mention are already illegal
if in the hands of an individual, except for the "gun". Weapons of war, or mass destruction are already illegal to possess.
The point I was making, but maybe not well enough, is that placing one's trust in government for one's personal protection is a mistake. Any government as big as our own has more capacity and tendency to do more harm to you than to protect you. It is not necessarally "intended" harm, but harm is often the result of a government action intended to protect it's citizens.
Because we have a recognized right to arm ourselves, there will always be the potential for serious and tragic incident, but freedom and liberty comes at a price. No single person in North Korean has a fear of being attacked, shot or otherwise hurt by any other individual. For the most sake, they are very safe. They also live in terror of their own government, are starving and have no right to stand nose to nose with their government to address a grievence. They are sort of "safe", but not free to any degree.
It is my firm belief that should the U.S. government ever succeed in disarming the citizens of America, tyranny would be close behind.... and following that....revolution.
Marshall Adame
Who said anything about disarming?
thou dost protest too much, methinks.
Progressive Democrats of North Carolina
Progressives are the true conservatives.
I think you missed something, Marshall
The principle you espouse does not provide for the limits you later acknowledge by implication -- that is -- that ricin and nuclear arms are already illegal.
The point I made remains, which is that if the principle is in the 2nd amendment's "right to bear arms," then where is the line drawn? To answer that lines have been drawn in other ways doesn't answer at all. Any weapon might be developed at any time that is as lethal as ricin or a nuke. If your argument is that the citizenry is entitled to arm itself against its own government, then why would you draw limits as to how effective that citizens weaponry might be?
Explain to me how any citizen has as yet used fire arms to defy the "tyranny" of the government. Randy Weaver? Didn't work out, did it? David Koresh? Hmm, no, that didnt' work either.
Please provide an example of how this essential principle you believe in so firmly has been justified by experience in the United States. I am not asking about the American Revolution against England. I'm asking about this country, this Constitution, and how we the people have succesfully defended (WHAT?) against the U. S. A. by force of arms.
It's also interesting to me that people who say they are arguing in support a citizen's right to defend himself against the tyranny of the government -- are always offering examples of criminal acts by other citizens being resisted or otherwise contained instead. But THAT is not what the 2nd Amendment was about at all.
Funny that we hear these yelps of "Second Amendment Rights!" when the yelpers are actually talking about hunting or they're talking about protecting themselves against burglars. And we hear these yelps despite the fact that no one in this conversation has suggested taking away your hunting guns or the revolver locked in your nightstand.
You don't need an actual assault weapon for hunting or self-protection. And if you are thinking you've got to arm yourself against the day you and the federal government disagree about a point of law, you're not going to win no matter how many assault rifles you've stockpiled in the compound.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Actually Bru...whether the conversation is going on here or not
is irrelevant. A March article from the Boston Globe..in part...
.
I don't think Marshall is advocating that people stockpile weapons in anticipation of some tyrannical event perpetrated upon us by our government. On the other hand, a government that knows its citizens are armed has to be a bit more circumspect in how they screw the citizenry...as in the case of King George Bush. His rule by fiat will end soon because of a peaceful election. But what if it didn't? What if things got really bad and Bush declared Martial Law and said there would be no election...and used Blackwater to enforce his edict and tried to set our own troops against us?
I suppose you'll say I'm silly or crazy for even mentioning such a thing. We can ponder why Bush wanted to and did gut Posse Comitatus...and he has clearly violated our Constitution on many occassions.
The vast majority of gun owners in this country are responsible law abiding citizens. There are laws requiring background checks or a permit or special license to purchase a handgun. Ordinary citizens abide by these rules. Sometimes a nut-case slips through because there are other federal privacy laws that prevent authorities from knowing that person is also a psycho...if not yet a criminal. Criminals don't give a hoot about any of it. Tyrants don't care about the law either. Law abiding citizens shouldn't be legislated into becoming defensless against either...IMO.
I also opine you're putting a spin on Marshall's words that isn't fair. He didn't advocate people having the right to own the things you mentioned...poison gas, etc...and such hyperbole obscures reasonable discussion.
Stan Bozarth
Do you really think my neighbor and his shotgun
are a match for what Blackwater could throw at us if they so desired? Please.
I'm all for a person's right to keep a gun for personal protection, if they so choose. I'm all for a person's right to keep a gun for hunting, if they so choose. I'm all for a person's right to keep a gun for collecting purposes, if they so choose. I just want them to register their guns. I want them to license their guns. Personally, I think they should have to take out liability insurance in case one of their guns shoots one of my kids, dogs, cars, etc.
But I'm not silly enough to think that a citizen militia, armed with whatever y'all have is enough to stop Blackwater if GWB really wants a 3rd term.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Blackwater
Blackwater is way overrated. It may be unpopular and a demon in many folks eyes, but it is hardly capable of making a dent in a theoretical citizen vs blackwater showdown. A few thousand armed blackwater employees (may of whom are gun owners and wouldn't hire on to such an effort) against an armed and driven public wouldn't stand a snowball's chance.
James Rivers
James Rivers
I disagree,
but by this point, you won't be surprised by that. :)
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Give me proof
If you disagree, then give some reasons why you think an armed citizenry isn't more than a match for the lightly armed Blackwater (which has no domestic law enforcement authority whatsoever).
James Rivers
James Rivers
Blackwater Vs State Milita's by[take no prisoners] General James
Blackwater is way overrated. It may be unpopular and a demon in many folks eyes, but it is hardly capable of making a dent in a theoretical citizen vs blackwater showdown. A few thousand armed blackwater employees (may of whom are gun owners and wouldn't hire on to such an effort) against an armed and driven public wouldn't stand a snowball's chance.* General 2 star James Rivers
As commander of the 45 th Indiana state independent milita [Slam Dunk Hoosiers], where in the heck do you get your Intel? From Blackwater? You know dang well Blackwater has 40 spoff midget fighter jets and 34 Black painted Bell attack choppers, not counting their full production line of the Grizzy Attack Hummers. There is no way my Duck hunters and Rabbit dogs can hold them off in a full fledge firefight in a Kroger parking lot.
Yours.. Major Max
"Peace though superior firepower with the new and improve Chrisp's Cream Puffs."
I'm hoping Marshall will answer my questions
And that he will recognize the points I've made.
1. The Second Amendment has ZIP to do with hunting.
2. The Second Amendment has ZIP to do with defending yourself from a criminal.
3. The Second Amendment's purpose is inapplicable to today's circumstances only in part because WE HAVE A WELL ARMED MILITARY. We HAVE police. WE HAVE the National Guard.
And yes, Stan,
, this is completely unrealistic. Extreme and unrealistic circumstances are not a good foundation for law or for interpretation of law.
The only effective armor you would have if you wanted to take on the U.S. government because you and "IT" are in disagreement over a matter of law would be a cyanide pill.
I didn't say Marshall advocated that people have ricin and nuclear arms. I didn't SPIN a damned thing. I am saying that the principle he is espousing [i.e. protection against tyranny of the government] does not present a constitutional argument against people possessing weapons that deadly and effective or even more deadly and effective.
After all, if you're talking about taking on the freakin' U. S. Government, you'd better have something better than a few assault rifles hanging around.
Please do me the favor of not intervening to answer a question I directed to Marshall. There was a reason I directed it to him, and I think he's more than capable of framing his own response.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Just a few comments....
Extreme and unrealistic?
I never dreamed the President of the United States and our Military would engage in widespread violations of the Geneva Conventions by knowingly and willfully abusing prisoners, and deny people the right of Habeas Corpus. Nor would I have dreamed our goverment would snatch people and take them someplace to be tortured....or systematically violate our laws in the name of "homeland" security, or gut Posse Comitatus...and spy on ordinary citizens.
Regarding taking on Blackwater...etc.?
You might want to spend some time studying both the French and US Vietnam Wars and the French and Norwegian resistance movements during WWII before making light of what an angry, armed, and committed citizenry can do.
Doing you the favor of not intervening.....?
I'm sorry. I thought this was a BLOG where people realized others would likely comment on their posts. I had no idea you were carrying on a private conversation and had special privileges.
(my unworthy self genuflecting and slowly backing away from your omnipotent and majestic presence...)
Stan Bozarth
The idea
was imbedded in my having addressed the questions to Marshall.
I don't mind the idea of you commenting on my comment. But in this case, my frustration is that you didn't address the points, and thus offered a distraction rather than a response.
Worse, you suggested that my challenging a further articulation of the principle that was supposed to be at the base of the conversation was "spin," which it certainly wasn't and isn't, and then -- while dismissing as "hyperbole" the idea that people would justify ownership of weapons comparable to ricin or nukes on the basis of arming themselves against tyranny -- you go on to offer an absurd scenario under which we the people have to arm for resistance against Blackwater.
I know that I should be more patient, but again, this is why I specifically addressed the question to Marshall to follow up on MARSHALL's point.
Comparing the primitive conditions of Vietnam, or even the form of warfare used in WWII to the possibilities for citizen resistance here in USA demonstrates that your own read on history hasn't caught up with recognition of the lay of the land in the United States in 2008. (It also fails to note that in those cases, the resistance was against occupiers.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
History is what it is. You seem to think the items
I mentioned don't apply because of the current "lay of the land." You're not clear about what you think the "lay of the land" is. But, you apparently think I should know what you think it is, and since I don't I'm out of touch. Great argument, Bru.
If your idea of the "lay of the land" is what I imagine it to be, then all our talk about being a nation of laws and a democracy is idle chatter.
We might as well lay down and submit to whatever the government does and thank our lucky stars to be alive and occasionally be thrown a bread crumb. Like Cheney and Bush, we can talk tough and wear a flag pin to show our patriotism, but behave as cowards when push comes to shove. We'll just turn away and hide while our freedoms are stripped away because we, as a nation, are too cowardly or apathetic to actually fight for what we say we believe.
My point about Vietnam and the other references was simply to say that a few determined and passionate people can make a huge difference. They were willing to put themselves at risk for what they believed. THAT was my point! I should have spelled it out for you.
In my opinion, your remarks about poison gas and nukes were unrealistic and take away from meaningful discussion. It hardly matters.
See ya...
Stan Bozarth
Devil's advocate here, Stan
In this day and age, the "keep the government honest" argument to preserve the 2nd Amendment is not only weak, but possibly counterproductive, for a couple of different reasons:
a) A society that has known freedom for as long as we have doesn't need an armed citizenry to keep their government in check. One merely has to look to Western Europe for proof of that. The freedoms we've lost under Bush came about because we allowed anger and fear to guide our decisions, not because we were "afraid" of our own government. That's the real danger, not whether the police (or military) can kick down a door without worrying about being shot.
b) The second (and more paranoid) reason this is a bad argument is because the government makes (and interprets) the law. Aside from a small percentage of conservatives in Congress, you're not going to find too many elected/appointed officials who will share the belief that they (personally) are potential tyrants that need to be kept in check. Do you see what I'm getting at? In simple language:
"Please let us keep our guns so we can protect ourselves from you."
"Well, if that's all you're worried about, then you don't need those guns, because we're not a danger to you."
While Jefferson and some others might have viewed an armed populace as a deterrant to homegrown tyranny, the vast majority of the framers viewed it as the primary deterrant/defense against outside invaders. And it was. And it still was during the heady days of the Cold War. The Kremlin and the KGB explored numerous scenarios back and forth for years, and they kept bumping up against a 200 year-old militia in every city, town, village and lonely highway-crossing gas station, all over this country.
Could be, Steve...
You make some points that bear consideration.
I do disagree with this statement:
I think we lost these freedoms because we failed to fight hard enough to keep them...or have them restored...and allowed a corrupt administration to violate our Constitution.
Stan Bozarth
This is going to sound elitist,
but most Americans don't really understand what's happened or believe there's anything to fight about.
The original Patriot Act was an emotionally-charged mistake, but the subsequent renewals and revisions are what really piss me off. In addition to leaving most of the original overreaching powers in place, we've even added domestic methamphetamine production and other non-terrorism crimes into the law, instead of stripping or repealing it.
And we're about to reelect a whole lot of Democrats who have kept this mistake alive, including our next President.
Hi Brunette. The 2nd Amendment Argument is well said here
in this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The issue is not pro or anti-government, but rather a "Constitutional" question which does not lend itself to expediency or social fads. The Supreme court, in 2nd Amendment arguments, has always ruled, or chose to remain silent in favor of the individual.
Was the 2nd Amendment written to restrict the individual, or the Government?
This is very solid and unbiased reading. It only reports the facts and rulings.
Marshall Adame
Randy Weaver and Waco did
Randy Weaver and Waco did work out. Randy Weaver, although he lost his son and wife to federal agents, did receive compensation in the multi-millions by an embarrassed govt. Waco caused quite the outrage and strengthened gun movement in a positive way. Folks saw what an out of control govt. can do when it is left unchecked.
I have an example. It took place in Carthage Tennessee right after WWII. Many WWII vets weren't allowed to vote by the local sheriff. They gathered up arms, confronted a large govt. force, killed a few of them, and voted.
Also what you ask more may not be quantifiable. The mere fact that the citizenry is armed might work to prevent tyranny. Similar to how the mere possession of nukes prevents other nuke wielding countries from nuking us. Also, history is not over. There may come the time when we need to be armed. Let's hope not, but Americans are famous for not trusting government.
I do need a semi-automatic (dubbed assault weapons by the uninformed) for whatever I want it for. Hunting, self-defense,etc are all good uses and needs to permission from anyone.
You say we haven't talked about what the 2nd Amendment is all about. I beg to differ. If you read my prior posts I say the 2nd Amendment has nothing at all to do with hunting and everything to do with a balance of power. When I say balance of power I am talking about tyranny.
As for winning against a tyrannical government. Prove we cannot win. In a survey conducted of soldiers for just such a scenario, a majority of them said they would not fire on U.S. citizens. 85 million gun owners is quite a force. This is quite impressive considering there have never been more than 500 known IRA members at any one time!! I think if those blokes could keep the nation of Britain at bay for all those years then we could make quite a dent ourselves. Take Chechnya's rebels as another example. A rag tag ban of Muslims is still keeping the Russian army at bay. A rag tag band of rebels in a place called Afghanistan eschewed the Soviet Army!!! A few dozen poorly armed Jewish civilians kept the mighty German Army at bay in the Warsaw Ghetto for nearly year. A citizen force defeated a British Army in our war for independence. A very lightly armed band of Al Quaeda fights is still keeping the American Army at bay in Afghanistan and Iraq. So you are very, very wrong on this count.
Are you a gun owner? If not then how do you know that semi automatic wouldn't constitute a good hunting or self defense weapon. They have been doing just such for about a hundred years. This seems to be one of those "made up" issues by hypocritical liberal Dems (like Rosie O'Donnell) for the purpose of making a problems where there is not one. Rosie by the way "yelped" as you say for the confiscation of handguns. A short while later it was learned here bodyguards carried, yep you guessed it, semi-automatic handguns!!! I don't put much stock in what an anti-gunner says. They are usually hypocrites.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Randy Weaver and Waco did
Randy Weaver and Waco did work out. Randy Weaver, although he lost his son and wife to federal agents, did receive compensation in the multi-millions by an embarrassed govt. Waco caused quite the outrage and strengthened gun movement in a positive way. Folks saw what an out of control govt. can do when it is left unchecked.
I have an example. It took place in Carthage Tennessee right after WWII. Many WWII vets weren't allowed to vote by the local sheriff. They gathered up arms, confronted a large govt. force, killed a few of them, and voted.
Also what you ask more may not be quantifiable. The mere fact that the citizenry is armed might work to prevent tyranny. Similar to how the mere possession of nukes prevents other nuke wielding countries from nuking us. Also, history is not over. There may come the time when we need to be armed. Let's hope not, but Americans are famous for not trusting government.
I do need a semi-automatic (dubbed assault weapons by the uninformed) for whatever I want it for. Hunting, self-defense,etc are all good uses and needs to permission from anyone.
You say we haven't talked about what the 2nd Amendment is all about. I beg to differ. If you read my prior posts I say the 2nd Amendment has nothing at all to do with hunting and everything to do with a balance of power. When I say balance of power I am talking about tyranny.
As for winning against a tyrannical government. Prove we cannot win. In a survey conducted of soldiers for just such a scenario, a majority of them said they would not fire on U.S. citizens. 85 million gun owners is quite a force. This is quite impressive considering there have never been more than 500 known IRA members at any one time!! I think if those blokes could keep the nation of Britain at bay for all those years then we could make quite a dent ourselves. Take Chechnya's rebels as another example. A rag tag ban of Muslims is still keeping the Russian army at bay. A rag tag band of rebels in a place called Afghanistan eschewed the Soviet Army!!! A few dozen poorly armed Jewish civilians kept the mighty German Army at bay in the Warsaw Ghetto for nearly a year. A citizen force defeated a British Army in our war for independence. A very lightly armed band of Al Quaeda fights is still keeping the American Army at bay in Afghanistan and Iraq. So you are very, very wrong on this count.
Are you a gun owner? If not then how do you know that semi automatic wouldn't constitute a good hunting or self defense weapon. They have been doing just such for about a hundred years. This seems to be one of those "made up" issues by hypocritical liberal Dems (like Rosie O'Donnell) for the purpose of making a problems where there is not one. Rosie by the way "yelped" as you say for the confiscation of handguns. A short while later it was learned here bodyguards carried, yep you guessed it, semi-automatic handguns!!! I don't put much stock in what an anti-gunner says. They are usually hypocrites.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Maybe you're just bonkers
Hey, you're right! So what if he lost his wife and child -- He's got lots of money now! Hey, yeah! Koresh really showed 'em, huh?
No, I don't think Weaver or Waco are good examples of how you can win by deciding for yourself what the law is. And if you think that your cause was strengthened by either event, I think you've got serious perspective issues.
I never said I was or was not "anti-gun" or "pro-gun." (but your post is placed oddly so maybe you weren't addressing that rant to me). In any case, I don't think of myself as either pro- or anti-guns. Not sure what Rosie O'Donnell has to do with any of the foregoing discussion. Looks to me like you're setting up strawmen and are more interested in whipping yourself into a lather than following a discussion.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Randy Weaver didn't decide
Randy Weaver didn't decide for himself what the law was. The government decided for themselves what the law would be. They rewrote the rules of engagement, which is highly, highly illegal for law enforcement to do. Len Houruchi, the "highly trained" FBI sniper was not held accountable for shooting Randy's wife. Randy did the next best thing - he went after the govt. in civil court. Didn't you say in an earlier post that you believe gun owner should get liability insurance if they shoot your kid? Are you after money, lots of money? LOL!!!! You say you don't know much about Rosie O'Donels situation. I believe you know very little about the Randy Weaver/Waco situations as well. Why post on something you don't know much about?
In the case of Koresh, who by the way ran every day from his compound into town and could have been picked up peaceably, showed what happens when a government gets out of control. The fact remains that 87 men, women and children were incinerated. Not one weapons violation was ever found or recorded. Not sure how you classify Koresh or Weaver. How about enlightening us.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Re: Liability Insurance.
Brunette wasn't the one who said that, I was. I can understand you confusing us, though - we liberal ladies all look alike.
I have to carry a minimum amount of liability insurance in order to legally operate my car in NC. That's because my car is potentially a dangerous weapon. I don't see why it's such a bad thing to ask gun owners to carry a similar type of insurance in order to use their guns. It's not infringing on your freedom; it's just protecting me and my family from having to pay the medical bills if you shoot my eye out. Or whatever. You get my point, I'm sure.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
other objects
Ok Linda, what about knives, baseball bats, matches (they cause arson you know), backyard swimming pools and half filled 5 gallon buckets? All those kill kids. Why not regulate them also (especially backyard swimming pools which kill more kids than do guns). Regulating a basic right is a slippery slope.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Backyard swimming pools are generally covered under
homeowners insurance.
As for knives, baseball bats, matches, and half-filled 5 gallon buckets, you show me actual evidence that they kill more people than guns do, and I'll buy your argument.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Prove they don't
James Rivers
James Rivers
Can't prove a negative, James.
You're ducking the question because you don't have a better argument.
Why should we not require gun owners to carry a minimum of liability insurance?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Your ducking the question
Linda,
Again, you have no proof and operate only on emotion. For someone who knows next to nothing about firearms, you make some pretty serious assumptions concerning firearms. Like I said on the wolf posting (which you have been proven wrong), I won't do your research for you. If you don't believe what I say then prove me wrong. Like most liberals you are unable to do that and thus operate on the emotional level. To wean you off your futile and ridiculous stance I will once again demonstrate the fallacy of posting based on emotion.
In 2003, for the United States, the Centers for Disease Control reports that 28 children under age 10 died from accidental gunshot wounds.
Contrast that against bathtubs and five gallon buckets.
In 2004 over 90 children age 10 and under drowned in bathtubs. 30 children under age 5 drowned in five-gallon plastic water buckets.
Take the top ten greatest hazards to children by "Careful Parents" an organization devoted to keeping kids safe. (http://marshallbrain.com/cp/) They are in rank order:
Top 10
Tylenol
Alligators
Pot on the stove
Cigarette butts
Honey
Dogs
Rip currents
Windows
Balloons
Mercury
Nowhere on the page were firearms even mentioned!!!!! Now why aren't firearms mentioned given your polemic rants to the contrary? LOL!! The answer lies in the fact that many other devices or animals are far more dangerous to kids than guns.
Professor and firearms researcher John Lott sums it up best by saying: " With some 90 million gun owners and about 40 million children under 10, it is hard to find any item as commonly owned in American homes, as potentially as lethal, that has as low of an accidental death rate."
Now my dear Linda it us up to you to prove me wrong from here on out. The usual one line witty quips are getting old. You may not agree with what I say, but if you can't prove it wrong then why post? LOL!!!
James Rivers
James Rivers
Rivers without a paddle
"Careful Parents" is a book, it is not an organization. It is written by Marshall Brain, the man behind How Stuff Works and other projects that use people's imaginations to teach. The list is an author's top ten of hazards, it is not a definitive top ten and it is not ranked as you claim.
Making sweeping insulting generalizations to respond to commenters:
and pulling random text from the internet to
bolsterundermine your "case" is a sure sign of desperation.Quit while you're behind. Go clean your guns, re-read the instruction manuals and brush up on your reading comprehension before pulling the trigger again.
The second amendment give you the right to bear arms. It doesn't give you the right to shoot. The first amendment give you the right to free speech but it doesn't give you the right to shoot your mouth off.
We live in a society where people can hold opposing points of views without having to prove each other right or wrong.
A bit touchy
Gregflint,
You seem a bit miffed that I trouced Linda (again) with facts and websites that show half empty five gallon buckets and swimming pools kill more kids than guns. You, as many misguided liberals, hate it when you are proven wrong time and time again so you do what you did - operate on emotion and say a lot about nothing. Just what is your point? Is your point that Linda indeed won't answer to my post? Or is it that you guys are beaten and you want me to quit? Or maybe you don't exactly know what you are trying to say.
As for opposing viewpoints. Practice what you preach. If you don't want to own a gun then great - that's your right. Many of you on this site, however, wish to take that right away from others, and this is the real issue (maybe you should brush up on YOUR reading comprehension or lack of it). LOL!!! Until you can explain yourself, what you believe in, and why (like I have throughout this thread) then you hold little credibility. Or maybe you are one of those cheerleader types like Robert P or Linda who are afraid to engage in a meaty dialouge concerning guns. Which is it or you don't know? LOL!!
James Rivers
James Rivers
Red herring
Switching to kid gun deaths is a favorite NRA red herring because it ignores injuries and because it's young adult males that get killed and injured by guns in the large numbers.
At this point we can shut off comments James or Betsy.
When someone comes out supporting the whackos at Waco and saying that grabbing your gun and shootin' some folks is the way to protect your vote - I don't think we need to go any further.
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
I didn't say I supported
I didn't say I supported folks at Waco. Why do you call them wackos? Do you have proof of that? What do you know of Waco. Like Brunett, enlighten us. How do you respond to 87 dead men, women and children? That ok with you? Another one line quip driven by emotion does nothing to improve your perforance (or lack of it). LOL!!
James Rivers
James Rivers
Oh James Rivers.
What does Rosie O'Donnell have to do with this?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Pop 2nd amendent History Quiz for James! You failed!
1.This is quite impressive considering there have never been more than 500 known IRA members at any one time!! I think if those blokes could keep the nation of Britain at bay for all those years then we could make quite a dent ourselves.*James
Wrong answer! No doubt you are using M-5 view of history. The Irish revolution had been going on for many centuries and over 400 thousand Irishman died in it's fight for freedom from the British elite Tories.
2. Take Chechnya's rebels as another example. A rag tag ban of Muslims is still keeping the Russian army at bay. A rag tag band of rebels in a place called Afghanistan eschewed the Soviet Army!!!*James
Wrong Answer! The Russia army that try control the Chechnya's Muslins was under force and vastly weak from it's past Empire ventures. In short, you had a farm team trying to play in the Big leaques with bush leaquers.
3.A few dozen poorly armed Jewish civilians kept the mighty German Army at bay in the Warsaw Ghetto for nearly year.*James
Wrong answer! The SS simply seal the area off and let it burn. The SS was vastly weak and spread thin on the Eastern Front against the Soviet Hords.
4.A citizen force defeated a British Army in our war for independence.*James
Wrong Answer! It was not a citizen Army, but a highly trained regular army and French Navy in the end that defeated the Greatest known army of that time. You need to stop reading neo-con reverse federalist history of the American revolution.
5. A very lightly armed band of Al Quaeda fights is still keeping the American Army at bay in Afghanistan and Iraq. So you are very, very wrong on this count.*James
Wrong answer again! Since the ancient times of Alexander The Great, and over history including the Brits and a host of Indian tribes and the Mongol Hords, Not counting the former Soviet Army, Afghanistan is the toughest place to fight a war on the planet. The Soviets were defeated by our CIA and Stinger missiles to so-called Al Quaeda army which did not exist at that time.
History is not your strong point since you use standard genric establishment control myths as your source.
This seems to be one of those "made up" issues by hypocritical liberal Dems (like Rosie O'Donnell) for the purpose of making a problems where there is not one. Rosie by the way "yelped" as you say for the confiscation of handguns. A short while later it was learned here bodyguards carried, yep you guessed it, semi-automatic handguns!!! I don't put much stock in what an anti-gunner says. They are usually hypocrites* James
And stop beating up on Rosie as a excuse for your NRA program answers. Rosie is a great American understands the Constitution more than you do on civil rights and the principles of Liberty. Besides, she fiqure out that 9/11 was a inside job like many, many folks like Jesse Ventura who is the greatest supporter of the 2 nd amendent in American and I believe Mexico now.....Shape up man and stop acting like a brain dead program Republican.
Oh Max!
I think it's too late for poor Mr. Rivers.
He got so upset ranting about Rosie O'Donnell that he blew out the line connecting his inner-tube, got thrown out by some surly locals, and is off now looking for another internet cafe.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Oh Bru! Oh James! Waiter! More Romania StarBucks Coffee please!
found an internet cafe and can continue our discourse. Here in Bucharest I inquired about gun control. The European Union is trying its best to have Romania live by its gun control laws. Romania is resisting so far. The peasant population has guns and are not willing to give them up. Interestingly enough the government doesn't seem all that concerned that peasants own weapons. Perhaps they know the peasants would go a long way in repelling another communist takeover* James
Mr Rivers! Are you aware that communism failed 18 years ago and most Romanias couldn't care less about it or even heard of it now. Are you on a mission for the CIA and work yourself into a Communist Coffee House cell?
Gun control in Romania
MaxeyBoy,
So you are an expert on how Romanians feel on guns. I am here talking with them about it, and you profess to know something more? Most of the Romanians I talked with say Romania is pretty liberal with weapons now that Communism is over. Citizens are allowed to purchase and own weapons for self-protection and hunting. A few years ago near the town of Braslov, high in the Carpathians, it was rumored that many of the peasants owned high capacity machine guns. The government did an exploratory turn in program and were shocked when the peasants began turning in all manner of machine guns left over from WWII. Tommy Guns were common as were German made machine guns. Now if guns are such a problem as you mistakenly indicate then why weren't all those weapons causing problems all these years? They weren't. Just like they don't in the good ole USA. One other thing about Romania - it is popular in Romania for citizens and foreigners alike to hunt big game. Romania is home to the largest wolf population in Eastern Europe. Brown bear, elk and wild boar are all popular animals hunted there.
I am here in Budapest right now and will be sure to ask about guns here also. Perhaps you would do well to research a little before running your mouth. LOL!!!!
James Rivers
James Rivers
Romania Sword Control by James Rivers?
Gun control in Romania
MaxeyBoy,* James
Stop calling me MaxeyBoy! I am highly trained human male trained in the Art of Kung Fu and Brazil toe kicking. You must be some old Republican Queen on the make or either you are slapped happy from a bad night at some Gay Bikers night club.
So you are an expert on how Romanians feel on guns. I am here talking with them about it, and you profess to know something more? Most of the Romanians I talked with say Romania is pretty liberal with weapons now that Communism is over. Citizens are allowed to purchase and own weapons for self-protection and hunting. A few years ago near the town of Braslov, high in the Carpathians, it was rumored that many of the peasants owned high capacity machine guns. The government did an exploratory turn in program and were shocked when the peasants began turning in all manner of machine guns left over from WWII. Tommy Guns were common as were German made machine guns. Now if guns are such a problem as you mistakenly indicate then why weren't all those weapons causing problems all these years? They weren't. Just like they don't in the good ole USA. One other thing about Romania - it is popular in Romania for citizens and foreigners alike to hunt big game. Romania is home to the largest wolf population in Eastern Europe. Brown bear, elk and wild boar are all popular animals hunted there.
I am here in Budapest right now and will be sure to ask about guns here also. Perhaps you would do well to research a little before running your mouth. LOL!!!! *James Rivers
If you are in Romania, than I am on the planet Mars with a Alien Lizard Rock group on tour. Stupid fool! Don't know the first weapon control law was in Romania when the ancient Romans ruled those screw up mongo Barbarians 2000 years ago. The Romanias called it " the "irrumator" Sword and Dragger Control law"
And stop trying to be expert on Romania history, they lost in WW2 to the Russians after being con by Hilter.
Maximum trash
Maxey Boy,
You explained nothing, giving only excuses for the performance of various military units and governments against lightly armed citizens. Here we go again so I can clarify it for you again. Also, try not to rewrite history any more than you already have.
1. There have never been more than 500 identified IRA members. How many are you saying there are? You gave no stats. MI5 is a pretty respectable organization, and running counter to a nations own intelligence agency's estimate is not embedded in common sense. The fact remains that fewer than 500 IRA members kept the nation of England at bay.
2. You say the Russian armed forces were understrength and weak. They had tanks, artillery, a standing army, training, and many, many more resources than the lightly armed (mostly semi-automatic rifles). If you say the Russian were bush league then the rebels were in pee-wee division. The end result is a poorly armed, poorly trained, non-professional force of rebels staved off a Russian Army. By the way, the rebels are still giving the Russian Army hell these days. The Russian Army is pretty strong right now, and the Pee Wee leauge is the same as it has always been - lightly armed.
3. The SS vastly weak? Whoa there. The Russians were giving them problems on the Eastern Front, but the SS was by no means weak. It was still the strongest, most professional fighting force on the planet at that time. Again, an army with tanks, artillery, bombs, etc. was stopped cold by a few dozen very, very, very poorly armed peasants. The SS did burn the Warsaw Ghetto to the ground - in testament to the fact it would have been impossible to suppress a few dozen lightly armed Jews by trying to shoot it out with them. Does the fact that those Jews, unlike no others, withstood the strongest army on the planet for a year with hand me down weapons not register with you. Yes they were burned out and lost, but that is not what we are looking at here my misguided friend.
4. The defining moment of the Revolutionary War was the over the mountain march to King's Mountain. This march of untrained mountaineers with their Kentucky Long Rifles gave a blow to the British that Washington's trained army never could - a victory against larger numbers (trained numbers). After the mountaineers got done with Major Ferguson and others at King's Mountain, Washington was able to maneuver and finally surround the Brits at Yorktown. This battle is often referred to as the "Prelude to Yorktown". Layette and the French, no doubt, aided us in critical moments, but it was the untrained, freedom loving patriot who solved the riddle of banishing the British Army from our continent. When you skip over facts with poorly framed generalizations it hurts your cause and lends credence to your opponents facts and assumptions.
5. About all you said in this trail off commentary is Afghanistan is a tough place to fight. Where isn't a tough place to fight. If you are saying the terrain is the reason, and not the lightly armed Al Queda fighters, then think again. The above examples show that a lightly armed force can stave off a superior force. Why not say the British lost the Revolutionary War because they found it too hard to fight Francis Marion in the swamps or the over the mountain men at King's Mountain. So with that being said, a lightly armed band of gun owners should be able to defeat an overzealous entity here in the United States if they stick to the Rocky Mountain, Ozark and Appalachian Mountains? LOL!! Your own pedantic argument has come back to haunt you.
And I am crazy and wacko. Let me get this right. Rosie is a great American, 9/11 was contrived by the Bush Administration, and Mexico is an authority on something. This is the best yet. Folks like you ensure I will be owning guns for a long time!!!
How is Rosie a great American? Is being a hypocrite being a great American? Rosie says I shouldn't own a gun, yet she is guarded by body guards with guns. She lives in a private community patrolled by security guards with guns. And I am the problem? You folks are tasting defeat and reacting in a very emotional, disconnected way. Maxey, you make no sense. Please explain how Rosie is a great American.
9/11 is a conspiracy. I will simply say this: Prove it. If I am brain dead then you don't have one.
James Rivers
James Rivers
James drove off Kings Mountain to Cowpens as a Tory Pig
4. The defining moment of the Revolutionary War was the over the mountain march to King's Mountain. This march of untrained mountaineers with their Kentucky Long Rifles gave a blow to the British that Washington's trained army never could - a victory against larger numbers (trained numbers). After the mountaineers got done with Major Ferguson and others at King's Mountain, Washington was able to maneuver and finally surround the Brits at Yorktown. This battle is often referred to as the "Prelude to Yorktown". Layette and the French, no doubt, aided us in critical moments, but it was the untrained, freedom loving patriot who solved the riddle of banishing the British Army from our continent. When you skip over facts with poorly framed generalizations it hurts your cause and lends credence to your opponents facts and assumptions.* Senior Moment James
Listen your Tory sucking hypocrite! I am not going to answer all of your stupid questions and answers, unless you pay me 100 dollars in Gold Coin per question to straight out your Red State fascist brain. Now pay up or go to the nearest payday loan office.
King Mountain did not change the Revolutionary War you dumb F###. It was Cowpens and that Great American General Danial Morgan who chase the redcoats from the Carolinas........And other thing, The only reason the Mountain boys kick the Tories butt at King Mountain since the only Brit Commander Major Ferguson didn't use his first repeating rifle in the world....
9/11 is a conspiracy?
Maxey Boy,
You explained nothing, giving only excuses for the performance of various military units and governments against lightly armed citizens. Here we go again so I can clarify it for you again. Also, try not to rewrite history any more than you already have.
1. There have never been more than 500 identified IRA members. How many are you saying there are? You gave no stats. MI5 is a pretty respectable organization, and running counter to a nations own intelligence agency's estimate is not embedded in common sense. The fact remains that fewer than 500 IRA members kept the nation of England at bay.
2. You say the Russian armed forces were understrength and weak. They had tanks, artillery, a standing army, training, and many, many more resources than the lightly armed (mostly semi-automatic rifles). If you say the Russian were bush league then the rebels were in pee-wee division. The end result is a poorly armed, poorly trained, non-professional force of rebels staved off a Russian Army. By the way, the rebels are still giving the Russian Army hell these days. The Russian Army is pretty strong right now, and the Pee Wee leauge is the same as it has always been - lightly armed.
3. The SS vastly weak? Whoa there. The Russians were giving them problems on the Eastern Front, but the SS was by no means weak. It was still the strongest, most professional fighting force on the planet at that time. Again, an army with tanks, artillery, bombs, etc. was stopped cold by a few dozen very, very, very poorly armed peasants. The SS did burn the Warsaw Ghetto to the ground - in testament to the fact it would have been impossible to suppress a few dozen lightly armed Jews by trying to shoot it out with them. Does the fact that those Jews, unlike no others, withstood the strongest army on the planet for a year with hand me down weapons not register with you. Yes they were burned out and lost, but that is not what we are looking at here my misguided friend.
4. The defining moment of the Revolutionary War was the over the mountain march to King's Mountain. This march of untrained mountaineers with their Kentucky Long Rifles gave a blow to the British that Washington's trained army never could - a victory against larger numbers (trained numbers). After the mountaineers got done with Major Ferguson and others at King's Mountain, Washington was able to maneuver and finally surround the Brits at Yorktown. This battle is often referred to as the "Prelude to Yorktown". Layette and the French, no doubt, aided us in critical moments, but it was the untrained, freedom loving patriot who solved the riddle of banishing the British Army from our continent. When you skip over facts with poorly framed generalizations it hurts your cause and lends credence to your opponents facts and assumptions.
5. About all you said in this trail off commentary is Afghanistan is a tough place to fight. Where isn't a tough place to fight. If you are saying the terrain is the reason, and not the lightly armed Al Queda fighters, then think again. The above examples show that a lightly armed force can stave off a superior force. Why not say the British lost the Revolutionary War because they found it too hard to fight Francis Marion in the swamps or the over the mountain men at King's Mountain. So with that being said, a lightly armed band of gun owners should be able to defeat an overzealous entity here in the United States if they stick to the Rocky Mountain, Ozark and Appalachian Mountains? LOL!! Your own pedantic argument has come back to haunt you.
And I am crazy and wacko. Let me get this right. Rosie is a great American, 9/11 was contrived by the Bush Administration, and Mexico is an authority on something. This is the best yet. Folks like you ensure I will be owning guns for a long time!!!
How is Rosie a great American? Is being a hypocrite being a great American? Rosie says I shouldn't own a gun, yet she is guarded by body guards with guns. She lives in a private community patrolled by security guards with guns. And I am the problem? You folks are tasting defeat and reacting in a very emotional, disconnected way. Maxey, you make no sense. Please explain how Rosie is a great American.
9/11 is a conspiracy. I will simply say this: Prove it. If I am brain dead then you don't have one.
James Rivers
James Rivers
James Rivers
James hates Rosie because of her Sexual beliefs?
How is Rosie a great American? Is being a hypocrite being a great American? * Rosie Gay hater James
Listen Fool! Another outbreak like that! And I will have Jesse Ventura kick your Rosie inside job butt. You do understand that Willie Nelson is Jesse's sidekick since they both claim it was a inside job....
9/11 is a conspiracy. I will simply say this: Prove it. If I am brain dead then you don't have one* James
Knock yourself out Brainless and I want a report on my desk in the morning on why you are a sock puppet special ops dude from Alien Lizard HeadQuarters sneaking around this site to prove what big Blackwater promoter you are.
http://www.loosechange911.com/films.shtml
I can't stans it no longer - my .02 cents on the .02 amendment
First guns do not make a country safer. The USA demonstrates this quite well. Our death by gun rate tops the list.
Japan had 34 murders by gun in 1995, roughly the same as Durham, NC. Just a reminder here, Japan has about 125 million inhabitants while Durham has about 200,000.
The idea that an armed populace is somehow feared by the government might have been valid in the USA for the Greatest Generation, but since then we have become fat and lazy. A trained platoon of Blackwater goons would only be limited by ammo in the number of armed citizens they could wipe out. The Viet Cong, Soviet & Norwegian patisans and our Revolutionary ancestors were a much tougher people used to deprivation and hard toil. Also, plenty of countries with very lightly armed populations exist, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, England, France, without their governemts taking undue advantage. Do you seriously think that Bush/Cheney worried for one second about armed Americans confronting the government over the most costly and foolish mistake this country has ever made? (Iraq)
I invite you to scroll down to near the bottom of this data site to see gun deaths for children under 15 years old. That should make any sensible person cringe.
Alvin York applied to be a conscientious objector. He didn't want to go kill Germans.
In some comment Mr. Rivers mentioned his "God given right" to own guns. I am surprise that he got away with that statement. Mr. Rivers, are you serious?? I do not think the Book of Heston is approved canon. If God has anything to say about killing, "Thou shalt not kill." sums it up fairly well. I do not recall anything in the bible relalting to a right to kill five human beings in five seconds from 500 yeards. (like an assault rifle can)
I would like to say that I have nothing against true subsistence hunting or "well regulated" gun ownership as per the seocond amendment. Hunters do play a role in maintaining healthy prey populations but that is only because predators have been wiped out in many places. Left alone Nature will find a balance. The reintroduction of the gray wolf to Yellowstone has had far reaching benefits both to natural and human interests in the area.
For me it's a matter of direction. Do we as a nation wish to add to the 200-300 million (including about 77 illion handguns) guns already out there and become more like Somalia, South Africa or the Middle East or do we wish to head toward a more enlightened future with guns becoming less prevalent in our society due to strictly enforced regulations and governmental buyback programs. I have lived in Japan and spent a week in South Africa, and I know in which environment I'd prefer to raise a family.
Person County Democrats
Environmental Defense Fund
Cell phones will be to the 21st century what tobacco was to the 20th.
Statistics
I agree with some parts of your post, but I think you need newer statistics than the ones cited in the first paragraph. Although I couldn't find any recent studies along the same lines as that one, other studies have shown a decrease in violent crime since it peaked in 1993. The study you cite was done in 1994.
Not that we're in as good position as we could be, but our homicide rates today are significantly lower than quite a few countries like Brazil and Russia. I wish I could say we were lower than some countries with better economic stability, but that's not the case.
The data in the link below is from 2001
Scroll down to the table. It's not much different.
Link
Person County Democrats
Environmental Defense Fund
Cell phones will be to the 21st century what tobacco was to the 20th.
Thanks
But a few more points I'd like to make:
- I don't like the use of gun-related suicides in studies because it's been shown that people will simply commit suicide in other ways, noted in this article.
- Whatever Finland is doing, we need to be. If they have more households with guns (by percentage) and yet still have less than 1/7th of the amount of gun homicides as we do, they must know something we don't.
- As I previously mentioned without going in-depth, I believe that homicide rates are more based on economic situation than anything else. The majority of the gun crimes in the US occur in poor inner-cities such as Detroit and DC. This article compares Finland and the US by noting that the bottom 10% in the US purchase 1.8% of consumer goods while the bottom 10% in Finland purchase 4.2%, about 2.3 times as much.
2nd Amendement in Moses Stone?
In some comment Mr. Rivers mentioned his "God given right" to own guns. I am surprise that he got away with that statement. Mr. Rivers, are you serious?? I do not think the Book of Heston is approved canon. If God has anything to say about killing, "Thou shalt not kill." sums it up fairly well. I do not recall anything in the bible relalting to a right to kill five human beings in five seconds from 500 yeards. (like an assault rifle can)* PCD
Sure the book of Heston approve wholesale killing for the wayward children of Israel. Good Grief man, any religious fool knows that when Moses came down from the mountain with the 20 commandents and found the Children of Israel dancing around the Golden baby cow and partying like crazy. He lost his cool and toss the 20 commandments at the drunken pot smoking Israel partying children and wipe out 40 thousand of them with half of the tablets. Now do you understand why Moses ended up with 10 commandments and wholesale stoning of sin?
You make some good points...
...many of which I already knew of, or agree with, and think further discussion of would be relevant and enlightening.
Look, I can't imagine any responsible, intelligent citizen not being concerned about illegal/irresponsible gun use and shooting deaths. It's obscene. So are deaths caused by drunk drivers and a variety of other tragedies caused by irresponsible or criminal behavior. There are places in the world where guns are commonplace yet they don't have the problem we have. I just don't think the idea that banning everyone from owning a gun because of the actions of a few is a reasonable and fair solution. Obviously some disagree.
As to the toughness of our people...maybe you're correct, but I hope not. There are those, Democrats and Republicans alike, who are all blustery about patriotism and the law, but refuse to share the responsibility for protecting our nation in any way other than talking about it. It's Congress's fault they're allowed to do that. Of course Congress won't fix it until they absolutely have to because it might mean someone in their family might have to make a sacrifice. Sacrifice and shared responsibility is for the little people...not Congress and other politicians (with a few exclusions, of course, like Webb's son, etc.). Our troops have performed magnificently. It's the citizenry that's supposed to support them that hasn't done their job well enough.
I didn't comment on Mr. River's post. He stepped in the poop...let him extricate himself or go under on his own I thought. As to God given rights...I guess that depends on one's beliefs. I don't agree with Mr. Rivers. Owning a gun has nothing to do with God.
John Edwards drew connections between poverty, disease, war, and the destruction of our environment. I'd add to the list poor parenting and folks that don't give a crap about their neighbors or anything else unless it directly impacts them. I suspect the last two contribute directly to many of the US gun death related stats you mentioned.
Sorry you can't "stan" it anymore. But at least you made your case without being rude or sarcastic or without portraying yourself as a know-it-all. I like that.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Stan Bozarth
Muahahahaahaha~~~~
What wouldn't I do right now for a picture of that dog that rode with Snidely Whiplash/Dick Dastardly in the "Wacky Races" cartoons of yesteryear ~
yrs,
Muttley
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
God didn't kill?
Nearly every part of the United States with very liberal gun laws sees crime rates equal to that of Japan or other socialist countries. The problem is, racist anti-gun liberals such as yourself have created what are known to criminals and psychopaths as "gun free zones". These zones are great killing grounds in that everyone within these zones are defenseless!! Washington DC is a great killing zone. Cook County, Ill. is another. Placing guns in the hands of law abiding civilians has been shown, time and time again,to lower crime and violence.
I disagree with you concerning the socialist countries that you mentioned not taking advantage of their people. In England, since the handgun ban went into effect, the violent crime rate has skyrocketed to unprecedented levels. Officials in England are at a loss of what exactly to do. Never mind they disarmed the law abiding citizens and created another, yep you guess it, GUN FREE ZONE where thugs armed with guns, knives, and screwdrivers wreck havoc on anyone they want. Forget about protecting yourself with a gun. If you do then you are the one who goes to jail, not the poor criminal!! Australia. Now here's a good one. Australia confiscated guns from its citizens similar to England. Similar to England their VIOLENT CRIME RATE TOPS THAT OF THE US. If things weren't bad enough in socialist Australia, the government has decided to wield its racist powers against, and I would never have guess this one in a million years, the Aborigines. The Aborigines were singled out for child abuse; the end result being Aborigines in the Northern Territories can own Zero guns, Zero alcohol, and Zero porn. Now I am not advocating that porn is necessarily a good thing, however I would never advocate the singling out of a group of citizens based on color for some stupid law. Those Aborigines, or an Australian for that matter, has not recourse to go along with it. Imagine if that were to occur at this very minute in the US. No way Jose!!! To add injury to insult, one of the Australian politicians instrumental in discriminating against the poor Aborigines was arrested for public drunkenness outside a New York City strip club last year!!!! Talk about hypocrisy!!!!!!!! And to even go FURTHER with this one - Australia now has the ability to bar admission to anyone coming into Australia based on CHARACTER. If they don't like your looks, attitude, political persuasion or anything else they can ban you. Ask Snoop Doggy Dog how that feels!!! And they aren't out of control? How do you know they won't take it a step further ( I hear they want to start sterilizing Aborigine girls). In other words, nothing is in place that allow the common citizens of that screwed up country to stop them.
As for the God Given thing. Why is it surprising that God wouldn't want me to defend myself against a criminal or out of control govt. Does this mean God thinks the Revolutionary War is wrong? Or that we defeated Hitler? You say God did not advocate killing. I beg to differ. As a Christian who reads the Bible I can say God killed wholesale at times. Yes, the very hand of God killed people, not to mention the Christians he ordered to kill others. Remember Sampson, one of the old testament heros? He killed 500 Philistines with the jaw of an ox. God wiped out the first born sons of non-believers. Many, many other example abound. God and guns go together like tacos and hot sauce. I firmly believe God would want me to protect me and my family against any threat. Would you not use deadly force to protect yourself or your kids? And if you did, do you say that God would disapprove? If the "Book of Heston" is not approved canon then I guess you are a racist who thinks Martin Luther Kings March should never have taken place. Mr. Heston, let me remind you, marched with Mr. King when doing so was very, very unpolitical correct. Heston is not a good one to pick on - you will surely lose that one (like the God comment)
The hunters who paid for the Wolf to be reintroduced have the right to keep their numbers in check. If not the numbers of elk and deer will decrease to the point there are none left to hunt. With no hunters, no license or fees will be paid (already happening in Idaho) and wildlife management agencies will become underfunded. As for leaving nature alone, great. Tear down your house, move to a communal dwelling in the city so the place where you live can return to the natural balance.
To become more like Somalia or South Africa all we have to do is follow your prescription of more gun control. The common folks living in Somalia are not allowed to own weapons. Because of this, government sponsored militias run rampant in that country. They rape, pillage and torture innocent civilians who have no recourse except to submit. So no, adding more guns into the hands of citizens will never drive us closer to fascism. So your well intentioned enlightenment is really wishful thinking at its worst. Perhaps if we were to disarm Americans the way the Aussie Govt. has disarmed ordinary Aussies, our black could once again be discriminated against like they were in the 60s. Would you like that? You seem to advocate that based on what you wish and hope for. In addition, I don't think God would think too much of that.
I have lived all over the world myself. I know that I cannot wait to return to the United States each and every time. I was once robbed in Mexico by the police. I have seen the effects of strict gun regulation in places like Cairo or Tegucigalpa. There are many, many places where you just don't go in those countries. And what about Switzerland? They have the highest rate of gun ownership in the world. They are required to keep fully automatic weapons in their homes. They have an incredibly low crime rate which goes against everything you have said!!!!!! I wouldn't mind raising my family their (in a place with its priorities straight).
James Rivers
James Rivers
Pure fallacy
Nearly every part of the United States with very liberal gun laws sees crime rates equal to that of Japan or other socialist countries. The problem is, racist anti-gun liberals such as yourself have created what are known to criminals and psychopaths as "gun free zones". These zones are great killing grounds in that everyone within these zones are defenseless!! Washington DC is a great killing zone. Cook County, Ill. is another. Placing guns in the hands of law abiding civilians has been shown, time and time again,to lower crime and violence.
I disagree with you concerning the socialist countries that you mentioned not taking advantage of their people. In England, since the handgun ban went into effect, the violent crime rate has skyrocketed to unprecedented levels. Officials in England are at a loss of what exactly to do. Never mind they disarmed the law abiding citizens and created another, yep you guess it, GUN FREE ZONE where thugs armed with guns, knives, and screwdrivers wreck havoc on anyone they want. Forget about protecting yourself with a gun. If you do then you are the one who goes to jail, not the poor criminal!! Australia. Now here's a good one. Australia confiscated guns from its citizens similar to England. Similar to England their VIOLENT CRIME RATE TOPS THAT OF THE US. If things weren't bad enough in socialist Australia, the government has decided to wield its racist powers against, and I would never have guess this one in a million years, the Aborigines. The Aborigines were singled out for child abuse; the end result being Aborigines in the Northern Territories can own Zero guns, Zero alcohol, and Zero porn. Now I am not advocating that porn is necessarily a good thing, however I would never advocate the singling out of a group of citizens based on color for some stupid law. Those Aborigines, or an Australian for that matter, has not recourse to go along with it. Imagine if that were to occur at this very minute in the US. No way Jose!!! To add injury to insult, one of the Australian politicians instrumental in discriminating against the poor Aborigines was arrested for public drunkenness outside a New York City strip club last year!!!! Talk about hypocrisy!!!!!!!! And to even go FURTHER with this one - Australia now has the ability to bar admission to anyone coming into Australia based on CHARACTER. If they don't like your looks, attitude, political persuasion or anything else they can ban you. Ask Snoop Doggy Dog how that feels!!! And they aren't out of control? How do you know they won't take it a step further ( I hear they want to start sterilizing Aborigine girls). In other words, nothing is in place that allow the common citizens of that screwed up country to stop them.
As for the God Given thing. Why is it surprising that God wouldn't want me to defend myself against a criminal or out of control govt. Does this mean God thinks the Revolutionary War is wrong? Or that we defeated Hitler? You say God did not advocate killing. I beg to differ. As a Christian who reads the Bible I can say God killed wholesale at times. Yes, the very hand of God killed people, not to mention the Christians he ordered to kill others. Remember Sampson, one of the old testament heros? He killed 500 Philistines with the jaw of an ox. God wiped out the first born sons of non-believers. Many, many other example abound. God and guns go together like tacos and hot sauce. I firmly believe God would want me to protect me and my family against any threat. Would you not use deadly force to protect yourself or your kids? And if you did, do you say that God would disapprove? If the "Book of Heston" is not approved canon then I guess you are a racist who thinks Martin Luther Kings March should never have taken place. Mr. Heston, let me remind you, marched with Mr. King when doing so was very, very unpolitical correct. Heston is not a good one to pick on - you will surely lose that one (like the God comment)
The hunters who paid for the Wolf to be reintroduced have the right to keep their numbers in check. If not the numbers of elk and deer will decrease to the point there are none left to hunt. With no hunters, no license or fees will be paid (already happening in Idaho) and wildlife management agencies will become underfunded. As for leaving nature alone, great. Tear down your house, move to a communal dwelling in the city so the place where you live can return to the natural balance.
To become more like Somalia or South Africa all we have to do is follow your prescription of more gun control. The common folks living in Somalia are not allowed to own weapons. Because of this, government sponsored militias run rampant in that country. They rape, pillage and torture innocent civilians who have no recourse except to submit. So no, adding more guns into the hands of citizens will never drive us closer to fascism. So your well intentioned enlightenment is really wishful thinking at its worst. Perhaps if we were to disarm Americans the way the Aussie Govt. has disarmed ordinary Aussies, our black could once again be discriminated against like they were in the 60s. Would you like that? You seem to advocate that based on what you wish and hope for. In addition, I don't think God would think too much of that.
I have lived all over the world myself. I know that I cannot wait to return to the United States each and every time. I was once robbed in Mexico by the police. I have seen the effects of strict gun regulation in places like Cairo or Tegucigalpa. There are many, many places where you just don't go in those countries. And what about Switzerland? They have the highest rate of gun ownership in the world. They are required to keep fully automatic weapons in their homes. They have an incredibly low crime rate which goes against everything you have said!!!!!! I wouldn't mind raising my family their (in a place with its priorities straight).
One last thing. What type of assault rifle can kill 5 people at 500yards in 5 seconds? I think you don't know much about long range shooting. Even our very best Marine snipers wouldn't be able to come close to that feat!!
James Rivers
James Rivers
You have saved me a lot of trouble.
So it's ok if God did it? Then you are putting yourself on the same level as God, ok. Well far be for me to be so presumptuous as to debate with a deity.
Saves me the tedium of pointing out the ignorance, idolitry, inconsistencies and idiocy of your ramblings. This line of yours stands out:
You've snorted one too many lines of black powder. Give it a rest.
Person County Democrats
Environmental Defense Fund
Cell phones will be to the 21st century what tobacco was to the 20th.
cherry picker
persondem,
With this being your only commentary concerning my comments, I can only believe you agree with everything else I said!!!! Is this true? Or do you not wish to engage on topics that you know are safely in the "winning column"?
One of your fellow detractors asked if God would think it ok to kill people. I responded by saying that "God killed wholesale at times". Your twisting this around (liberals are excellent at this as they have no sound arguments of their own)serves only to showcase your ignorance.
How about going through the "tedium of pointing out the ignorance, idolatry, inconsistencies and idiocy of my ramblings". Please do. I think if you could have you would have. But, like many others on this post, you resort to contrite remarks that add nothing of value to your side of the argument except to highlight your own glaring idiocy. I would include inconsistencies here, but you haven't posted anything of substance so I am unable to do that. As for ignorance, you lack of knowlegde speaks volumes. LOL!!!
And what lines of yours stand out? Do you have any thoughts going on in your head that have a modicum of originality? Or do you swallow what the liberal professor gave you hook, line and sinker? You may not agree or like my lines, but they surely trump what you post (or don't post as the case may be).
James Rivers
James Rivers
persondem, With this being
persondem,
With this being your only commentary concerning my comments, I can only believe you agree with everything else I said!!!! Is this true? Or do you not wish to engage on topics that you know are safely in the "winning column"?
One of your fellow detractors asked if God would think it ok to kill people. I responded by saying that "God killed wholesale at times". Your twisting this around (liberals are excellent at this as they have no sound arguments of their own)serves only to showcase your ignorance.
How about going through the "tedium of pointing out the ignorance, idolatry, inconsistencies and idiocy of my ramblings". Please do. I think if you could have you would have. But, like many others on this post, you resort to contrite remarks that add nothing of value to your side of the argument except to highlight your own glaring idiocy. I would include inconsistencies here, but you haven't posted anything of substance so I am unable to do that. As for ignorance, you lack of knowlegde speaks volumes. LOL!!!
And what lines of yours stand out? Do you have any thoughts going on in your head that have a modicum of originality? Or do you swallow what the liberal professor gave you hook, line and sinker? You may not agree or like my lines, but they surely trump what you post (or don't post as the case may be).
James Rivers
James Rivers
James Rivers
Again for your perusal
Persondem,
So you don't get away with your liberal, cherry picking ways, here is the post again. Please go through, in tedium, and pick it apart - if you can. LOL!!!!!
Nearly every part of the United States with very liberal gun laws sees crime rates equal to that of Japan or other socialist countries. The problem is, racist anti-gun liberals such as yourself have created what are known to criminals and psychopaths as "gun free zones". These zones are great killing grounds in that everyone within these zones are defenseless!! Washington DC is a great killing zone. Cook County, Ill. is another. Placing guns in the hands of law abiding civilians has been shown, time and time again,to lower crime and violence.
I disagree with you concerning the socialist countries that you mentioned not taking advantage of their people. In England, since the handgun ban went into effect, the violent crime rate has skyrocketed to unprecedented levels. Officials in England are at a loss of what exactly to do. Never mind they disarmed the law abiding citizens and created another, yep you guess it, GUN FREE ZONE where thugs armed with guns, knives, and screwdrivers wreck havoc on anyone they want. Forget about protecting yourself with a gun. If you do then you are the one who goes to jail, not the poor criminal!! Australia. Now here's a good one. Australia confiscated guns from its citizens similar to England. Similar to England their VIOLENT CRIME RATE TOPS THAT OF THE US. If things weren't bad enough in socialist Australia, the government has decided to wield its racist powers against, and I would never have guess this one in a million years, the Aborigines. The Aborigines were singled out for child abuse; the end result being Aborigines in the Northern Territories can own Zero guns, Zero alcohol, and Zero porn. Now I am not advocating that porn is necessarily a good thing, however I would never advocate the singling out of a group of citizens based on color for some stupid law. Those Aborigines, or an Australian for that matter, has not recourse to go along with it. Imagine if that were to occur at this very minute in the US. No way Jose!!! To add injury to insult, one of the Australian politicians instrumental in discriminating against the poor Aborigines was arrested for public drunkenness outside a New York City strip club last year!!!! Talk about hypocrisy!!!!!!!! And to even go FURTHER with this one - Australia now has the ability to bar admission to anyone coming into Australia based on CHARACTER. If they don't like your looks, attitude, political persuasion or anything else they can ban you. Ask Snoop Doggy Dog how that feels!!! And they aren't out of control? How do you know they won't take it a step further ( I hear they want to start sterilizing Aborigine girls). In other words, nothing is in place that allow the common citizens of that screwed up country to stop them.
As for the God Given thing. Why is it surprising that God wouldn't want me to defend myself against a criminal or out of control govt. Does this mean God thinks the Revolutionary War is wrong? Or that we defeated Hitler? You say God did not advocate killing. I beg to differ. As a Christian who reads the Bible I can say God killed wholesale at times. Yes, the very hand of God killed people, not to mention the Christians he ordered to kill others. Remember Sampson, one of the old testament heros? He killed 500 Philistines with the jaw of an ox. God wiped out the first born sons of non-believers. Many, many other example abound. God and guns go together like tacos and hot sauce. I firmly believe God would want me to protect me and my family against any threat. Would you not use deadly force to protect yourself or your kids? And if you did, do you say that God would disapprove? If the "Book of Heston" is not approved canon then I guess you are a racist who thinks Martin Luther Kings March should never have taken place. Mr. Heston, let me remind you, marched with Mr. King when doing so was very, very unpolitical correct. Heston is not a good one to pick on - you will surely lose that one (like the God comment)
The hunters who paid for the Wolf to be reintroduced have the right to keep their numbers in check. If not the numbers of elk and deer will decrease to the point there are none left to hunt. With no hunters, no license or fees will be paid (already happening in Idaho) and wildlife management agencies will become underfunded. As for leaving nature alone, great. Tear down your house, move to a communal dwelling in the city so the place where you live can return to the natural balance.
To become more like Somalia or South Africa all we have to do is follow your prescription of more gun control. The common folks living in Somalia are not allowed to own weapons. Because of this, government sponsored militias run rampant in that country. They rape, pillage and torture innocent civilians who have no recourse except to submit. So no, adding more guns into the hands of citizens will never drive us closer to fascism. So your well intentioned enlightenment is really wishful thinking at its worst. Perhaps if we were to disarm Americans the way the Aussie Govt. has disarmed ordinary Aussies, our black could once again be discriminated against like they were in the 60s. Would you like that? You seem to advocate that based on what you wish and hope for. In addition, I don't think God would think too much of that.
I have lived all over the world myself. I know that I cannot wait to return to the United States each and every time. I was once robbed in Mexico by the police. I have seen the effects of strict gun regulation in places like Cairo or Tegucigalpa. There are many, many places where you just don't go in those countries. And what about Switzerland? They have the highest rate of gun ownership in the world. They are required to keep fully automatic weapons in their homes. They have an incredibly low crime rate which goes against everything you have said!!!!!! I wouldn't mind raising my family their (in a place with its priorities straight).
One last thing. What type of assault rifle can kill 5 people at 500yards in 5 seconds? I think you don't know much about long range shooting. Even our very best Marine snipers wouldn't be able to come close to that feat!!
James Rivers
James Rivers
James Rivers
To be for, or against gun control does not mean
one is for or against government.
I have never seen any reasonable Pro-Gun advocate call for absolutly no parameters on the ownership of guns, neither have I ever read reasonable Anti-gun advocates who call for the abolishment of all gun ownership rights.
For the most part, both have agreed that , within the parameters of the Constitution, there can be a way forward in responsible and adequate measures in addressing the fact that there are millions of guns in private hands in America.
I do not think anyone has called for an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which would restrict any boundries at all regarding gun ownership, nor an interpretation which would grant the government absolute authority to restrict ownership of any kind. Consequently, the extreme arguments from either side are not only ridiculas, but irrelevent to the argument.
To construe the pro-gun person to being anti government is also skewed. The pro-gun person believes he/she is defending the Constitution, but not just th second amendment, but the spirit of the document and the motives of it's authors.
The Anti-gun person believes in the authority of the constitution as well, but also believes our society has grown from the USA of 1775 and has evolved to the point where the interpretation should fit into some of the mores of America today. Both good citizens and both persons who love America.
I do not like the reality of having to identify with one group or the other, but that is a fact in our America today. That being the case, I then am identified as a Pro-Gun person, even though it does not define my position at all. Am I getting too deep in the weeds here?
Marshall Adame
Thanks Marshall
I appreciate that clarification. I didn't read you that way earlier, which is what made me so curious. I didn't *think* you were an asbolutist.
But I'm sure you can appreciate how the argument gets muddied. People do cite the Second Amendment when denouncing efforts at gun control. Mr. Rivers started the conversation off in that manner by the title he chose, though his appreciation of guns seemed attached to hunting activity rather than to any anticipation of forming a militia.
In fact, though Mr. Rivers is (as he told us he would be) out of pocket for a while, his remarks regarding the conditions for his support of the NRA do suggest that he would resist ANY limits. And again, the argument gets muddied because when I initially inquired about how those limits are drawn (given that the principle advanced for ownership assault rifles is the 2nd Amendment), I interpreted your remarks as dismissing the point by noting that there are alternative prohibitions in place for ricin and nukes. That's why I came back to it.
At least it isn't uninteresting!
But we do come back to the question of what the purpose of the Second Amendment was and whether it is applicable to the country in 2008 as opposed to the fledgling republic established in the late 18th century.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Applicability
I'd say the Second Amendment is applicable to the individual as long as the State and private military contractors can themselves bear arms.
Should we repeal the Third Amendment as well? When we finally do get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, Blackwater's going to need something to do. Perhaps they will be part of a bold new initiative to increase the security of the homeland by quartering "security officers" in the homes of immigrants from Middle Eastern or majority-Muslim countries.
Let's not overlook the militarization of our police forces, either.
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
In pocket
I found an internet cafe and can continue our discourse. Here in Bucharest I inquired about gun control. The European Union is trying its best to have Romania live by its gun control laws. Romania is resisting so far. The peasant population has guns and are not willing to give them up. Interestingly enough the government doesn't seem all that concerned that peasants own weapons. Perhaps they know the peasants would go a long way in repelling another communist takeover.
I would resist any limits on my 2nd Amendment rights. Would you resist any limits on your other Constitutional Rights? The argument is not muddied but very, very clear. Also, where is the law that says I can't own a nuke? The 2nd Amendment has always been about owning weapons that won't allow a government to become overzealous (like Australia for instance - read above)in its interactions with the citizens of a nation. Guns are a great counter balance just as we have talked about. What are your thoughts on abortion and the Patriot Act?
James Rivers
James Rivers
Talk about muddying waters
Brunette,
You are again saying things that did not occur. Re-read my initial post and you will see I included a "balance of power" in the initial post. Nowhere do I talk about forming a militia. Who said you needed a militia to achieve a balance of power? A militia might be a result of widespread gun ownership, but isn't an end result.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Thanks Marshall
I appreciate that clarification. I didn't read you that way earlier, which is what made me so curious. I didn't *think* you were an asbolutist.
But I'm sure you can appreciate how the argument gets muddied. People do cite the Second Amendment when denouncing efforts at gun control. Mr. Rivers started the conversation off in that manner by the title he chose, though his appreciation of guns seemed attached to hunting activity rather than to any anticipation of forming a militia.
In fact, though Mr. Rivers is (as he told us he would be) out of pocket for a while, his remarks regarding the conditions for his support of the NRA do suggest that he would resist ANY limits. And again, the argument gets muddied because when I initially inquired about how those limits are drawn (given that the principle advanced for ownership assault rifles is the 2nd Amendment), I interpreted your remarks as dismissing the point by noting that there are alternative prohibitions in place for ricin and nukes. That's why I came back to it.
At least it isn't uninteresting!
But we do come back to the question of what the purpose of the Second Amendment was and whether it is applicable to the country in 2008 as opposed to the fledgling republic established in the late 18th century.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Clarification on Assault Weapon
The assault weapon ban is an example of legislation that was completely ill-conceived. To be sure, the assault weapon ban did not ban "assault weapons." It ban weapons that looked like "assault weapons."
The Assault weapon ban did not ban any weapons, it just make buying the "cool looking" ones harder to find. The fact that a bayonet mount being one of the qualifications for being listed as an assualt weapon should tell you something.
Delicate Balance
James Rivers,
Thank you for posting your thoughts on this issue and for encouraging such a lively discussion. I know that the original intention of your post was to find information regarding Roy Carter's stance on gun ownership so I will attempt to give a *brief* summation of what I understand his ideology to be, and then I will include ways for you to directly contact him and his staff.
One of the main reasons why I support Coach Carter is because he believes the federal government has a sacred responsibility to uphold, not take away, constitutional freedoms.
Regarding gun ownership, he believes our government must uphold the constitution without loosing sight of our duty to protect citizens from the misuse of weapons. Mr. Carter understands that this is a delicate balance. He believes we need to continue to keep weapons out of the hands of those who are likely to misuse them (i.e. convicted criminals), and supports gun-safety programs that are built through the cooperation of local authorities and gun owners.
If you are truly interested in learning more details about Mr. Carter's ideas regarding this issue (or any other), then I strongly encourage you (and everyone else) to contact him and/or his staff directly. Coach Carter is always happy to talk with voters and his staff is just as accessible. He is thoughtful, caring, and genuinely concerned about what is on the hearts and minds of the constituents in NC-05. He really believes in putting people above politics and knows that the first step in being able to represent everyone in the district is to listen to them.
You can find contact information for the Roy Carter for Congress Campaign on the contact page of his website, http://www.roycarterforcongress.com/CONTACT.html
All the best,
Amy aka BoilerGirl
RoyCarterforCongress.com
I'm an idealist without illusions. JFK
Thank you
Thanks Boiler Girl,
I will use the link you provided and see what I can come up with. I will get back to others on this post to see how things work out.
James Rivers
James Rivers
Doesn't anyone have a silver bullet?
Put this puppy out of our misery already, please.
Progressive Democrats of North Carolina
Progressives are the true conservatives.
Oh, come on.
I don't find it that bad, actually. If you ask direct questions, you get direct answers. I try to stay away from dogma with friends like James Rivers (who is a Democrat just like me) and see if we can find common ground. There's a little bit. We both like the outside.
And don't be shooting puppies, loftT, or I'll have to ask to see your carry permit. :-P
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Silver bullets are for werewolf pups ;}
as this monster surely is.
Progressive Democrats of North Carolina
Progressives are the true conservatives.
nah, not a monster.
Just a different kind of Democrat. Like my neighbors, loftT. They're basically ok. They just think a little differently than a lot of us do. But at least they're not R's.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Monstrous and Preposterous
Rivers lost me when he touted the Randy Weaver and David Koresh episodes as examples of victories for the gun lobby.
And though I SWORE I wasn't gonna do this, I'll point out that the accusations of hypocrisy against Rosie O'Donnell are just plain idiotic.
She opposes the unrestricted ownership of firearms. One cannot logically extrapolate from that position that she doesn't think security guards should have weapons. She has never suggested that bodyguards are unnecessary or a bad idea. Since her life and that of her children was threatened by lunatics who scream Second Amendment Rights while breaking every law of human decency, hiring security was not unreasonable or hypocritical. Nor is it in conflict with any statement she has ever made about unrestricted ownership of firearms.
But logic isn't Mr. Rivers' strongsuit, as his asking you to prove a negative demonstrates.
At any rate, I wouldn't have posted to this thread had I not seen your comment and been interested in what you had to say.
Mr. Rivers' longwinded rants have created a huge lag on this thread anyway, so that accessing it is hardly worth the trouble of noticing that he's just wading deeper into a zeal based on emotion rather than analysis.
I suppose the one point this thread has truly reinforced is that the label "Democrat" or "Republican" doesn't automatically signal an ideaological committment to the platforms or trends of either party. As a Democrat in the mountainous section of the state, it is likely that Mr. Rivers votes Republican rather consistently.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Well, I wouldn't hazard a guess as to what his voting habits are
But your points are well taken. Call it opposition research. I leave it alone now. :)
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Lost
Brunette,
I am surprised you weren't "Lost" when the other members of this site labeled, stereotyped, and got downright nasty. Seeing as how discrimination and racism don't seem to bother you then I guess the Randy Weaver and David Koresh episodes wouldn't bother you much at all. What do you know of those "episodes", and how is the very fact they occurred not resounding to the increased need for vigilence? So I guess you agree with the Patriot Act then don't you?
Your saying the accusations of hypocrisy against Rosie are plain idiotic is plain idiotic in itself. She opposes the right to keep and bear arms (as you too seem to). Of course she never suggested armed bodyguards are a bad idea - she wants and needs them. But you and me - the targets of her anti-gun rhetoric - shouldn't somehow be able to own a gun. Yes, Brunette, that my dear is pure hypocrisy (even for you folks with the blinders on). If someone threatens your life then why shouldn't you have the same rights as Rosie O'Donnel? Not quite sure how you reason this out, but it doesn't make any sense. She advocates a ban on handguns. Yet her bodyguards have handguns. Hmmmmmmm and who were you saying is short on logic?
What 2nd Amendment lunatics who break every law of human decency are you talking about? Give us some facts and figures or were you being a bit emotional?
And what meaningful analysis have you provided for us here Brunette? Aside from cheerleading, I see nothing that would indicate you have provided any analysis on anything except an emotional foray into a subject area that showcases your general lack of common sense and logic.
As per my voting preferences, they do happen to correspond to common sense and logic. In the case of the 2nd Amendment - my voting record is all over the chart. I commonly write in candidates who I believe will support the all important 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. At this point, I believe Roy Carter will not support my 2nd Amendment rights, and therefore I won't vote for him.
Since you seem to be quitting this site, I will leave you with some mind food. Brunette, it is ok to have an original thought or two. The long winded threads I have provided on this site are all original thoughts; I posit you would find it hard to see them duplicated anywhere, anytime. Following the logic of others leads to all manner of dire situations if all you do is follow. Thinking for yourself is a mind skill that many like you find rather difficult in times of political correctness. But doing it is sort of liberating. Take this thread for instance. I started it, and I finished it and silenced all (except the cheerleader crowd)along the way. I didn't do that by following others. So, my little grasshopper, take a cup of Java and free your mind..............
James Rivers
James Rivers
Anyone else??
Looks like this little party is wrapping up my dear friends. Now that you see the light concerning the 2nd Amendment, I suppose you will vote in favor of pro-2nd Amendment candidates.
James Rivers
James Rivers