A lost Bob Wire Classic™
Gun Rights From a Different Angle
Guest column written by Bill "Billy Bob" Wire, previously unpublished.By Billy "Billy Bob" Wire, 8-10-10
 |
|
 | |
| My second cousin Bill "Billy Bob" Wire, reacting to a question about gun rights. | |
|
Hey, folks, how you doing? Billy Bob Wire here, sitting in for my second cousin Bob, who asked me to write a little something from a gun owner’s point of view for his blog today. (He’s only my second cousin by marriage, but we recently found out we have the same granddaddy. Go figure.) See, my cousin Bob ain’t what you’d call a ‘gun enthusiast.’ That poor ol’ boy just don’t know much about firearms. So, he called me up at my home in Sula, Montana last week, to see if I’d provide what he called an ‘alternative viewpoint.’
I told Bob that I’d be happy do it, but I didn’t have a whole lot of time on my hands just then, on account of I had to make several trips into Hamilton, and a drive up to Kalispell, to get my hands on as many assault rifles as I could. See, it was the day after the tragic election, and you probably know that Barack Hussein Obama is a big anti-gun nut. Voted on all kinds of gun bans and stuff when he was a Senator in Chicago. Well, you can bet your camo underpants that he’s gonna probably pull that same weepy liberal crap once he gets into the White House, so I figure I better get right with Jesus, and buy all the guns I can.
Hell, it don’t even seem to bother Barack Hussein Obama that he’ll be trampling all over our Second Amendment rights. It says right there in the Bible, that all Americans have the right to bear arms and create a militia.
(We actually have a kick-ass militia in Darby, although most of us had been booted out of the Freemen and lost our drivers licenses on account of drunk driving, so we had to arm our militia with paintball guns. We might not be able to kill any insurgents when they come through the woods, but buddy, we’ll make ‘em easy to spot.)
Anyways, I know how Barack Hussein Obama kept saying through his whole campaign that he wasn’t gonna take anybody’s guns away. Well, not without a gun, he ain’t! You see what I’m getting at? Everyone needs to have a gun. It ain’t to start fights or rob people or anything like that. It’s for self-protection, pure and simple. If everyone had a gun on them at all times, there wouldn’t be no more of these school shootings, for one thing. Can you imagine? One of them outcast brainiacs comes into MY classroom and pulls out a nine out of his overcoat, well, I’d say hold it right there, Dim Sum, while I blast you full of freedom holes.
That’s why I keep no less than four loaded stoppers in my bedroom. My missus, Janie “Taut” Wire, keeps a Smith & Wesson police service revolver under her pillow. Used to belong to her daddy, who was a cop in San-de-damn-iego in the sixties. He passed away a while back, and knowing that her daddy’s gun is in the bed with us while we’re getting busy, well, it gets a little weird. But it’s a small price to pay, because the day will come, my friends, when some drugged-out crack head will climb over our concertina wire fence, disable the Brinks electronic security alarm, jimmy the six deadbolts on the front door, outsmart the motion detector system, and break down the steel door to our bedroom so’s he can rape my wife and shoot my dog. Well, bring it on, Mr. Crime Doer, ‘cause I’ll be waiting here with my fully chromed Sig Sauer P229 and a mile long boner.
Now, I’ve been keeping up with all the news during this last couple of years, mostly Guns ‘n Ammo magazine and Fox News, just to make sure I’m getting a wide variety of perspectives. Evidently, there seems to be some question among laymen (people who don’t own guns), as to why somebody would need a semi-automatic assault rifle, like the AR-15, or maybe a sleek Uzi. My answer to that question is, are you effin’ shitting me? Because it FEELS good, you moron! Listen, a lot of us gun owners ain’t got a whole lot going for us, but when we go out to the quarry and blast the shit out of a dirt pile with enough lead to make our own personal Yucca Mountain, well, there just ain’t a feeling like that in the world. Hell, just thinking about it puts a lump in my shorts.
And them flash supressors and silencers and 500-round clips? If you’re a hunter, I don’t have to tell you how crafty them elk and deer have been getting. If you want to make sure and hit your target within 50 feet of your truck, you have to even the odds a little, that’s all.
You know, I might not have any idea what the First Amendment, or the Fiftieth Amendment, or any of them other Amendments is about, but by God, the Second Amendment is the one I recite every night when I’m saying my prayers. If the last eight years have taught me anything about living in the U.S. of A., it’s that fear and paranoia are healthy and necessary, and there ain’t no way I’m facing our bright new future without a shit load of automatic weapons.
I pledge allegiance to the NRA, and the United States of America. In that order. Anybody who don’t think that’s patriotic, well, they can speak with my attorneys, Mr. Winchester and Mr. Remington.
[Bob Wire will return in September.]
Join the Bob Wire Appreciation Society
Stumble It!
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
I've attempted in the past to engage gun enthusiasts in a conversation. It usually goes something like this: Me: "Why do you feel it's important to own a handgun or assault rifle?" Them: "Because it's my Second Amendment right."
That's not a reason, and it doesn't answer a very direct question: What motivates you (as a human, not an NRA member) to own handguns and assault rifles, devices that are expressly designed to kill humans as efficiently as possible?
Still awaiting a direct, honest answer. Not "because I can."
Bob,
When those gun owners answered your question about gun ownership with, "because it's my Second Amendment right." they gave you a valid answer based on an understanding of the Constitution.
Those you were debating didn't feel the need to craft an insulting, belittling overly-verbose response, they kept it simple - they did so based on the assumption that you understood the reason the founders put that right into the Constitution.
They gave you credit where perhaps none was due. Since I have observed your lack of understanding of their simple statement of reason, I will expound upon their most-correct answer.
To fully understand one's right to bear arms, it should be measured alongside the Declaration of Independence. This would help the reader gauge the true meaning of a militia, the concern the founders had for tyrannical rule, and for what the 2nd amendment was intended.
Simply put, the second amendment, located in the bill of rights, is intended to insure that we may not lose the other rights afforded to us by either invasion, crime or tyranny.
Those who choose to invoke that right and even gave you a concise reason as to why they do so are not dense, silly people such as the main character in your satire. They are Americans and yes, they own guns because "they can" - it's their right.
Some would posit that it is also their responsibility. Criticizing someone for their answer, solely because you failed to understand its meaning is self-critical.
So that's your motivation for owning guns? Does that mean that, because the First Amendment provides for freedom of the press, you're going to run out and start a newspaper?"
You mean this one?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The 2nd Amendment is specific to gun ownership, the 1st is freedom of speech, religion, expression if you will.
So would I run out and start a newspaper? Probably not, but I might post a terribly insulting satire on gun ownership, or blog, or freely assemble/protest. In fact, other than the insulting satire, I have done all of the above.
Overall, not funny or accurate and a bit offensive. I own a few guns, each tailored for a specific purpose, but I'm not an NRA member, nor a member of any other gun rights/gun control organization. I feel that your understanding of those who vigorously support the 2nd Amendment is woefully lacking, and you approach it as a "I see no use for guns, therefore no one else has any use for them" issue. If you haven't been given a "reason," then it's either because you don't accept their reason as being valid or you simply aren't really trying to find an answer--because you already have 'your' answer. Regardless, I'll give you some reasons, since you feel that simply having the right to do something isn't good enough.
As a human, I know better than to place full trust in other humans. When the going gets tough, there are very few people that you can trust not to look out for themselves first, at the expense of those around them. This applies to any situation, be it political or a real survival scenario. Even in the best of times, we still have humans preying on other humans, either for profit or for pleasure. In the worst of times, such as after a natural disaster or in lawless regions, this human behavior of looking out for yourself and "to hell with everyone else" is amplified. In either of these times, those charged with keeping order (law enforcement) are rarely, if ever, there when the chaos starts, and the first minute/hour/day is left solely up to the victims and the perpetrators. In that short window, you can have everything taken from you by people who don't care about you, but for themselves. Your family, your home, your life, gone to satisfy the desires of someone else.
But what if you could do something about it? What if simply by making it known that you will not be a victim, you could avoid all that heartache, pain, and loss? Doesn't your family look to you for protection? Are you not their provider, their caretaker? Isn't it your responsibility, your duty, to protect those that you love and those that depend on you to live? If you don't think so, then you should probably tell you wife and children that you won't try to help them, and that they should just wait for 911 to show up. At least that way, they won't be under the disillusion that their father actually cares enough to protect them, and they should have a backup plan.
If you do want to protect them, then how best to do it? Naturally, you avoid dangerous situations as much as possible, do everything you can to not make yourself a target, but what if it does happen? Do you call the police, hide, and hope for the best? Or will you be a parent and defend that which you hold most precious? Most importantly, HOW will you defend? What could possibly put you on the same level as one, two, three large male attackers, possibly armed? If only you had something that was easily accessible, could be held in the palm of your hand, and could be pointed at the threat to make it go away. You might not even have to use it--just letting the threat know it may sustain significant injury or loss of life by attempting to victimize you could deter it.
Luckily, such things do exist. Handguns level the playing field. It doesn't matter if your young, old, male, female, built, or scrawny, you will still be able to defend yourself with a handgun at a second's notice, so long as you know how to use your firearm and you practice. Simply displaying a handgun often makes would-be attacks decide to find a softer target. It's called a Show of Force, and it's a principle that's used world-wide by every civilization. And if the threat persists, then it does so at its own peril. This isn't to say that handguns aren't abused and used improperly. When people willing to break the law are banned from having them, they will frequently find ways of obtaining them and they will use them as tools to aid their criminal ways. When people who want to stay right with the law are banned, they remain defenseless and become victims. We've seen this everywhere such a ban has been enacted.
It doesn't have to be guns, Bob. The guns are just a means to an end. It could be a device that lets you set people on fire with your mind, or pill that you could take that let you fling people across the room with telekinesis, or a damn board with a nail in it. It doesn't matter, so long as it's the most effective means for me to defend myself and my family, and ensure that they are given the best shot at life that I can provide for them. As it happens, guns are the most effective means ("expressly designed to kill humans as efficiently as possible") that we have today. You know it, I know it, and all of our politicians, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who are packing heat know it. Maybe in 100 years someone will be having this argument over the right to keep and bear photon cannons, but it will still be the same exact principle.
I'm loathe to get into "assault rifles," because first I have to explain to you the difference between that term and the "assault weapons" term that you're confusing it with. Civilian ownership of "assault rifles" is prohibited, unless you get permission and a permit from the federal government, which you have to renew regularly. It's not easy. "Assault weapons," on the other hand, such as the AR-15's most people are familiar with and even the civilian model of the AK-47 are not the same as assault rifles, as they are not "select fire weapons." They fire in semi-automatic, one shot per pull of the trigger, only. Real AK-47's fire in single shot/fully automatic, and M-16's (the military equivalent of the AR-15) can fire in single shot, 3-round burst, or full auto. You can't go down to the gun store and buy any weapon that functions like that. The Assault Weapons category also includes modern handguns that hold over 10 rounds and shotguns that can adjust their butt-stocks to properly fit your arm length. For reference, I own a rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol that, for one reason or another, all classify as an "assault weapon." Now that that's out of the way, we can move on to the reason.
The rifles in question are the most technologically advanced firearms that fulfill nearly every role conceivable. A semi-automatic rifle can be used to do everything a hunting rifle can, plus be useful for any form of tactical situation at any time of day against any type of target, with the correct ammo. With my semi-auto chambered in .308 I can take down a buck to feed my family or protect my land/house/country from any human threat short of an armored vehicle. The semi-automatic rifle such as the AR-10/15 is a versatile firearm that can generally be outfitted with any number of attachments, making it useful in daylight, darkness, poor weather, or harsh terrain. A magazine capacity of 20 or more rounds ensures proper redundancy for any situation, regardless if you need one round to drop a deer at 500 yards, three rounds to drop an intruder at 2.5 yards (ideally I'd be using my shotgun or handgun, however, for my neighbor's sake), or 20 rounds to keep the mob from looting your house and burning it to the ground. Bottom line: it is efficient and useful in any situation. It's BETTER than a handgun, because it's more accurate, holds more ammo, and generally has more power. The only drawback is that it isn't easily accessible like a handgun.
Those are my direct, honest, human answers, Bob. Not nearly as succinct as "because I can," but I also had more time to answer than the people you may have asked. I own these weapons, not because I want to use them, but because I'm prepared use them protect my family, myself, and my fellow man against the realities of this world using the most effective means possible. End of story.
I'm not going to go into all of the reasons our fore fathers felt we needed firearms, most notably of which was to keep our government in check, because that would be my 'political' reasons for owning such weapons, not my "human" reasons. Needless to say, they are just as lengthy.
Ryan
I don't know this Bob Wire guy at all, just stumbled on this. I am reading Sol Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and this smug and superior (implied) type of diatribe is right out of the left's playbook. Belittle anyone with an opposing view, rather than participate in an honest discussion. This isn't even good satire. It's just insulting, crude and not particularly clever.
I hope that Bigskybum is being a troll. If that is his opinion on the freedom of speech. I am amazed and, well, speechless.
<sarcasm>He should be prohibited from contributing on the internet.</sarcasm>
I happen to think guns are part of the problem, whereas some people think they are part of the solution. It's a tired old debate, and the main problem is that the people I disagree with are armed, and most seem to be looking for an excuse.
Clarification: when this post was first written, it was just after Obama had been elected, and there was a major run on assault weapons (yes, I know the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon. Take your AK-47 hunting much?). The column was my response to the knee-jerk fear that many in the gun culture had that Obama would soon be knocking on their doors to take away their guns.
The mood of pervasive fear and paranoia that had been cultivated by eight years of Bush/Cheney was at full froth, and I was trying to hold a mirror up to the panicked class of gun nuts who thought the apocalypse was upon them because a liberal/Democrat/black/Chicago man had been elected president. If you're a responsible gun owner and reasonable person, you wouldn't really see yourself in this caricature, I would hope.
But if you need weapons for their "tactical" capabilities and protection from "armored vehicles," I'm more worried about people of your ilk than my own government.
Aw hell, Jonathan Swift never had to use any gawdamm emoticons.
On a different note, I have taken my SKS hunting. (It uses the same ammo as an AK-47, so I would say they are pretty similar.) A round from an SKS works pretty well against a wild hog.
There was legitimate fear based on statements that Mr. Obama had made in the past that he would in fact be gun grabbing. He's very opposed to guns and people who like to "cling to their guns and religion." I'm honestly very surprised he hasn't done it yet. At this point I can only conclude he is waiting for his (non-existent) lame duck second term to start.
So anyways, are they part of the problem? It so happens that right now, there are people saying that Islam is the problem and they can't build a mosque in Lower Manhattan or in Tennessee. And they can say that all they want. But should they decide that they can elect people that can do something about it, well, we should all hope that the Supreme Court would correctly interpret the first amendment. So it is fine for you to say that guns are part of the problem. Its your First Amendment right to do so. But without any sort of Constitutional Amendment your words are moot. As hopefully are the anti-Islamic folks' words.
I ran across your article here, and while I am definitely on the pro-(responsible) gun ownership side of things and I think your article reflects the very fringes of gun ownership, I also have the crazy opinion that obvious satire in an article does not an evil freedom-hater make. I can see why some people would be offended, however it would be nice to see people recognize that the purpose of satire is to typically take something to the edge of reason to make a point.
I thought I would, however, post MY reasons for owning guns. I bought my first gun simply because I thought it would be fun to take to the range and target shoot. And it is. With the exception of only my brother, the many non-gun owners that I've taken to the range to introduce shooting to have thoroughly enjoyed it, including several urban, New England females...not exactly the pro-gun demographic of choice.
Over time, though, I began feeling that it is personally important to me to own a gun in the rare case I ever need it for protection of myself and my loved ones. I'd hope most reasonable people would agree that the chance of being the victim of a home invasion or other crime is pretty slim.
However, I own a fire extinguisher, fire alarms, and fire insurance...and I don't expect my home to burn down. I have car insurance and I wear my seatbelt, and I don't drive expecting to get into an accident. Similarly, although the chance of waking up to the sound of a breaking window is not likely, if I ever did find myself face to face with someone willing to do violence to myself or my family, NOT having the means to protect them is a horrifying mistake that I will never have the chance to do right again. And unfortunately, the type of situation that arises where one might need to defend himself or herself with a gun is a situation that will be over with before the police have a chance to respond - and they're not required to put themselves in harm's way to save me even if they do arrive in time.
As far as the Second Amendment goes, I recognize the EXTREME remote possibility that sometime in a future I don't perceive to ever happen in my lifetime, there could arise a tyrannical government out of the republic that I hold dear and have sworn to defend. If someday that does happen, the individuals of this country who still love freedom and liberty and the values of which this country was founded have the means to at least have a chance of restoring it. Some people think even acknowledging a sliver of a chance of that happening as being on the fringe of reason...but that's what the Second Amendment was drafted to protect in the first place, by men far wiser and more insightful than many of us, and who saw the need play out in their own lifetimes.
Thanks.
Nobody talks about guns for the wonderful pieces of machinery and art that they are. The elegant simplicity of Mr. Kalishnikov's 1947 assault rifle, the AK-47. Or the Winchester Model 12 shotgun. Today's Savage 93R .17 cal. stainless thumbhole stock bolt action. Or a reproduction of a rolling block rifle gunsmith made and oh, so pretty! Guns can be works of art, and all you need to do is visit Holland and Holland, to see a brace of 20 gauge shotguns, new, with a $250,000 price tag. Anything pre 1900 by Winchester is worth lots of money, and some are six figure collectors items.
I think guns and shooting at targets is just fun. An exercise in hand eye coordination, and having a steady hand. Every bit as fun for me, as playing any video game or watching any tv show. And I don't think I need to be hassled, licensed, watched, minded by government because guns can have lethal outcomes. Autos do every day of every year. Have fatal outcomes. Today it was Sen. Ted Stevens who got to address his mortality in a plane accident, something he had experience with. This time he didn't live. He was headed for a fishing trip, and it very well could have been a hunting trip. Transportation killed him, as it does so many. We will die, all of us. What is wrong with having some fun along the way? Guns provide a lot of entertainment, and if you think only of them as machines for mayhem on the streets, quit watching television. It appears that a whole lot of murders now are stabbings. That, and shaken babies. Grown men killing babies because they are inconvenient noise makers. Sad, really. But, calling me a "gun nut" is a sad commentary on our country, as well. I am an Oregon State Beaver nut. I am an art movie nut. I am nuts about my grandkids. I also own more guns than I really need. I buy them, but seldom sell one. Gun hoarder?? Perhaps. Maybe that is what we have. Gun hoarders. Sort of like the people who save string, paper bags, jars, rubber bands, and collect salt and pepper shakers. None of it is about revolution, defending the castle. I have two cans of magnum super huge bear spray for that. A nice use of peppers four times as hot as habeneros.
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx
"Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?"
Can you demonstrate one time or place, Bob?
Have you read some of the more lucid comments here? I'd wager no. Certainly some are more confrontational and less reasonable, but there's plenty or reasonable answers to give anyone with a differing opinion at least the HINT of why individuals feel the way they do.
Your comment is what's generally most embarrassing: the deliberate ignorance of accepting the validity of someone else's opinion based on your own unwavering bias. I'm just glad we remain in a country were MY fellow citizens don't have to be forced out of making their own choices on how to live their lives, partake in recreation, feed their families, or defend their loved ones based solely on the opinions of someone else.
No, I can't demonstrate one. But I can easily find many instances where a child or teenager has accidentally been shot to death by a handgun that was found in their house.
That one sentence says more than anything else in your original article or any of your replies to other posts. For the record, no child, teenager, or adult has ever been shot to death by any handgun or long arm unless someone pulled the trigger through negligence or intent to do harm. To say otherwise as you did is an attempt to demonize an inanimate object in order to make banning that object easier to accomplish.
I can find instances where a child or teenager has been accidentally killed in a car crash (several orders of magnitude more than are ever killed in gun accidents). Should we ban cars?
I can find instances where a child or teenager has been accidentally drowned in a bathtub. Should we require child locks on bathroom doors?
Any cost/benefit analysis will suffer when only the costs are considered. Only the intellectually dishonest would stoop to such a tactic. Of course the original post doesn't exactly scream "intellectual honesty" in and of itself, now does it? So I suppose that shouldn't really be surprising.
Bob,
You misinterpret my words. I said a semi-automatic rifle was so versatile, it 'could' be used for tactical situations. To that category, I include any situation where you face human opposition that may be armed, such as an intruder in your home at night. I also said it 'would not' protect you from armored vehicles. I never said anything about 'needing' personal protection from them. If an armored vehicle, for whatever reason, was bearing down on me I'd grab my family and try and get away, because the problem (whatever that may be in this scenario) has escalated beyond what a single man can hope to defend against. The 'armored vehicle' reference was more of a literary flourish to explain the wide range of uses of semi-automatic rifles and where that usefulness stops. Hope that clears things up for you.
Ryan
What has been the trend of accidental shootings over the last 70 years and what are those totals? Geez they go from over 2,500 a year to 642 the last year reported by CDC (All ages, over 1,000 children at the peak to less than 200 children under 18 in 2006).
Who was responsible for organizing the Large programs for actual training on firearms safety? Yeah, pro gun organizations. I have sat in on the anti gun versions. All they teach you is, oh, gun bad, dont touch as you will surely commit a violent act. That's not informative education, they are only teaching fear.
Next, since 1981 our population has increased from 229 mill to over 304 mill. (US Census)
At the same time, gun onwership has increased (your satirical farse states that clearly) along with licensed concealed carry (ATF 8 mill today) and relaxation of gun control laws.
All while our violent crime rates have fallen to 1981 totals, and violent crimes involving a firearm have dropped, including the number of murders and injuries.(FBI UCR, CDC)
Don't forget that goverment agencies, e.g. the USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment annual report 2009 clearly identifies that career criminals/gang members commit 80% of violent crime in the US each year.
Even separate police studies, most noted Chicago in the 1990's and the annual NYC Firearms discharge report show that 76-80% of shootings, both shooter and injured were involved in a criminal act at the stime of the shooting, or that the shooter had a long felony record.
Funny how that broader perspective and the law abiding gun owner isn't the problem.
Have you promoted any legal system reform where serious crimes are not bartered down and known rapists, killers and such go free? No our liberalized court system is broken.
Good example, reference the USDOJ again. They are quite a reputable data source afterall. They have recorded the effects of the Brady Background Check since 1994. This annual report USDOJ Background Check & Firearm Transfer reprot shows the following.
Since 1994 99 million checks.
1.67 mill valid rejections
58% of rejections were felons
Since 1994 to to day, the number of felons attempting to buy from a licensed source (only thing Brady Check covers) has reduced by 68%.
Number of prosecutions between 2000-2008 13,024 or 1,500 average per year.
Now to put the effectiveness in a more detail perspective, you must then refer to another USDOJ report from November 2001, a survey they performed in 1997 "Firearms use by Felons".
This showed that felons acquired their firearms 80% from theft,street or private sales, 12%from retail stores, 2% from gun shows for a total of 14% from licenesed sources.
But hey, since the number of felons attempting to buy from a licensed source has reduced by 68% since 1994, this means approximately 14% x the remainder 32% = 4.48% of felons attempt to buy from a licensed source.
Oh yeah, lets not forget that less than 1% of those felons as noted in the USDOJ report are prosecuted each year or referenced 4.48% x 1%= .048% of felons are prosecuted and the remaining 99.952% are not prevented from acquiring a firearm from an unlicensed source.
Were you to factor the FBI UCR violent crime rate of murders by firearm (3.2 per 100k 2008) against the 1,500 prosecuted felons each year, reduced to 80% as dont want to gorge the number falsely, then factor in against the number of injuries as per CDC/Hospital databases (70k plus), we see this law may prevent 1 death and 8 injuries per year at how may 10's of millions of dollars and infringement upon law abiding citizens?
Speaking of unlicensed sources, do you remmeber in 1994 when the ATF went draconian on the rules and fee's to become a licensed dealer? See prior to 1986, the TAF would successfully prosecute a person who as a collector sold more then one firearm a year. So prior to 1986, many collectors and such acquired a Type 1 FFL licnese and became of business out of their home.
1986 Gun Owners Protection Act destroys the ability of the ATF to prosecute for the BS they committed against gun owners.
The ATF changed their rules, increased their fee's by 40 times, made a paperwork error a felony, etc, etc, etc. As a result,70% of the 245k licensee's didn't renew their licenses. So much for keeping records of gun sales.
We can however go to multiple web sites, Keep & Bear Arms, Armed Citizen, KC3, American Rifleman, and over the last 3 years, can easily count 80 defensive gun uses per month, and over 500 lives saved.
So based on this perspective of only a small portion of the facts supplied by GOVERNMENT sources, why again are you portraying an inanimate object as part of the problem?
Oh yeah, why don't we further demonstrate some realities.
Here are some known mental illnesses. Do they resemble any minority groups rants and raves?
Fetishism - a belief that an inanimate object has supernatural powers enabling in this case a gun to load, target and pull it's own trigger thereby committing a violent act.
Schizophrenia - a belief that an inanimate object can project voices, telepathy and just by being near a person can influence them to automatically commit a violent act.
If you believe those to be true, well we hope a friend or family member commit's you to treatment as schizophrenia has indeed been proven to be a public health risk.
Have you ever seen an actual medical study that proves removing an inanimate object from the vicinity of a mentally disturbed person bent on killing others or themself will change the brain wave of that person thereby preventing violence? No, sorry Bob, such an actual validated medical studyof this doesnt exist.
Here is another reality.
The JAMA Journal of American Medical Association reported in 2001 that the 700k doctors in the US killed 44k-98k people per year due to medical malpractice or .065 to .14 per doctor.
Review of CPL revocation data from Florida & Texas (two largest sources) shows that of those license revoked, and the over 1.7 million licneses issued, an average of .000045 people were killed a year. this trend is consistent in any other state you wish to check. Also a lovely report by the VPC Violence Policy Center showed over a 3 year time frame 137 deaths supposedly by cpl licnesee's. All of course without the actual details of the incidents to support their claim (they never provide such data).
Wow .065 or .14/.000045 = 14,000 to 31,000 times more likely a doctor is to kill you than a person licensed to conceal carry.
Funny how when you review any city or country that bans guns, their violent crimes involving a firearm dont drop, thereby destroying any foolish more guns equals more crime causality BS.
Funny how the US Supreme Court has ruled 10 times that the government is not liable to protect the individual,and the best police response times are 4 minutes, with an avergae 15-20 minutes.
Guess it is foolish to plan and prepare for a possible attack by being armed? After all it is utter foolishness to have life, car, home owner, or medical insurance right? It is even more foolish to practice for auto accidents, fires, tornado's, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, etc, etc, etc?
The problem isn't the guns in law abiding gun owners hands, it is all the other variables especially those not mentioned which you haven't addressed in any fashion.
Those like David Nielsen (*great* data, btw) and Ryan can rationally give definitive reasons why anti-gun hysteria is dishonest, false, and based significantly more out of emotion ("guns are made to kill people, so they MUST be bad all the time") than fact.
Yet, those like Jay Greene up above, who offered NO legitimate argument, and even spit in the face of any attempt to draw back the curtain to actual, no-kidding, rational thought, and responded with another meaningless comment, will NEVER let their opinion even slightly accept the fact that someone on the pro-gun (pro-individual choice and liberty) side could have something right to say. That's what's actually frustrating. Bob was just putting a piece of satire out there to generate discussion. Yeah, most people commenting disagree with many of his opinions or insinuations, but he had different arguments or thoughts to make in reaction. In turn, those were responded to. Maybe he'll think about the issue in a slightly different way than before...maybe others of us will see another side. Whatever.
But those others won't. They'll shut out any attempt to provide another side. They'll maintain that the only safety in the world is that provided by omnipotent protecters instead of oneself, and the only way you could believe otherwise is if you skipped an evolutionary step and your neanderthal brain has convinced you that the boom stick is just a fun loud thing to conk over your wife's head in between shooting deer and fawning over the Confederate flag.
I'm not saying YOU can't make the decision to rely on the police in your time of need when seconds make the difference in life or death. I'm not saying YOU can't decide that the sport that tests hand-eye coordination, steadiness of the hand, and muscle control is just not for you. I'm not saying YOU can't opt to never own or touch a firearm in your life. But this country was founded on libertarian principles that state my life is also mine to live, and unless I infringe upon yours you can't do the same on mine. And for the time being, the people who choose to misuse and abuse a tool for criminal purposes don't get to determine whether I'm allowed to use it lawfully or not. So live your close-minded life; fortunately you can't force me to change how to live mine.
Guns owners are disrespectful of authority. A failure to rely on authorities is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. The mere fact that they gather together to talk about guns at gun shops, gun shows, shooting ranges, and on the internet means that they have some plot going against us normal people. A gun owner has no right to associate with another gun owner.
Therefore, to help ensure our right to happiness and safety we must ban and seize all guns from private hands, and forbid NRA-based criticism towards people who are only trying to help. Searching the homes of all NRA members for any guns and pro-gun literature will go a long way towards reducing crime. If we need help doing this we can invite people like the Australians and Norwegians to help rummage through people's property.
Common sense requires only uniformed soldiers, police, and other agents of the state have access to firearms, and think of all the money we can save by just taking away the guns from private owners and giving them to the military and police. No person should be able to challenge this by writing to Congress or the President. If they do they should be forced in court to admit to it and then fined a hundred million dollars for each time. Subjecting them to torture will probably change their minds.
Making it mandatory that church ministers preach against guns or else they can't get licensed will certainly force the church folk onto our side.
People who don't like all this prove they are on the side of the killers with the guns and should be put in jail along side all the gangbangers and other gun nuts. Letting them sit in jail for a few years before they are charged will give the government plenty of time to find something wrong in their lives. Anything they say, write, or express should be held against them to prove their guilt. We should bring all of them here to Chicago to be tried by Mayor Daly as judge, and we should allow only mothers who have lost children to gunfire to be on the juries. Any attorney who tries to defend them should be arrested also. If we don't get the right verdict the first time we can just keep trying them until we do.
No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder and should just leave crime prevention to the Police who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime's completion. Women using a gun in self-defense interferes with and makes the attempted crime a "non-event," which unnecessarily complicates the Police investigation. Any woman who does this should be put in jail for interfering with an investigation.
If someone still really, really thinks they have a need for a gun in their home for protection then the Army should just force them to host and feed some armed soldiers.
Those who claim that the 2nd amendment was given to us because we might someday need guns to use against an oppressive government forget that Constitution has strong internal safeguards to protect our freedoms. So there!
Long live our Constitution!
Was there an overreaction when anti-gun Obama was elected president? If the price of ammo is an indicator, then YES!!
Why I have a handgun, in a nutshell: "I'd rather have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it." I've never needed it so far, thank goodness.
Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
Ruling: There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.); (No duty to protect) = Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss;Cf. Reciprocial obligations.
Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981)
Ruling: (O)fficial police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection … this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen … a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order.
Castle Rock v. Gonzales (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005) 366 F.3d 1093, reversed.,
-In this case, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Here's some backstory:
"In 1999, Gonzales obtained a restraining order against her estranged husband Simon, which limited his access to their children. On June 22, 1999, Simon abducted their three daughters. Though the Castle Rock police department disputes some of the details of what happened next, the two sides are in basic agreement: After her daughters' abduction, Gonzales repeatedly phoned the police for assistance. Officers visited the home. Believing Simon to be non-violent and, arguably, in compliance with the limited access granted by the restraining order, the police did nothing.
The next morning, Simon committed "suicide by cop." He shot a gun repeatedly through a police station window and was killed by returned fire. The murdered bodies of Leslie, 7, Katheryn, 9 and Rebecca, 10 were found in Simon's pickup truck."
Ryan
It is not that they do not know the facts, but in their mantra, to even respond to the facts, which is in itself an acknowledgement the facts they deny exist, they then weaken their own position as they will then have to address those facts as part of any solution.
People like Greene have an agenda, and every day they voice the fantasy their agenda is, multitudes of gun owners put forth a varying degree of level headed facts, satire and sarcasm in response and for the most part, those who are not pro or anti gun, are now looking into those issues and finding the truth as they know it. Otherwise how could anyone account for the poll's over the last 16 years showing gun control to be fading?
No Greene isn't stupid, he is a minority agent of an agenda we as the majority of Americans just will not accept.
Bob, well that remains to be seen, would love to see a counter story to his satire. Don't care if he still doesn't like a gun, just that he admit that he really need's to start looking at other parts of the necessary solution to violence reduction.
I as a gun owner care about what you can prove, not what you feel. Prove we law abiding gun owners are such a real risk, prove you can protect me and mine 24/7, prove you can reduce violence simply by laws, prove that bans stop immoral actions and activities, prove that we are all untrained and higher risk than the police, do those things and then as I see it, we gun owners would not have much leverage to fall back on would and have to reconsider individual gun ownership, will have to see when all that happens as apparently hell will have frozen over.
Our reactions to Greene and their few minions are in fact an effect of their training. If the anti gun forces hadn't attacked our right so callously, would we have then grown to be so effective in countering their claims, uh no. So when Greene and his few friends whine and complain about what gun owners present and the fashion it is presented in, guess they should be looking in the mirror for who is responsible and kicking themselves in their own arse eh, lol?
To answer your question above, I own firearms because the gentlemen (and I'm sure a few ladies) who established the United States of America and then set up the Constitution, set things up for a reason. The framers weren't trying to pander for votes and get elected. They had already been picked to accomplish a very important goal -- trying not to waste a perfectly good Revolution.
It has not escaped my notice that for the most part, Americans have fought wars to expand or protect freedom. The best examples of that are the Revolution, the Civil War, WW2, Korea, even Vietnam and the sandbox wars.
Even in the case of the imperialist wars, it is probably safe to say that the "colonies" wound up better off than if Americans had never come ashore, even if the improvement was only marginal, or only temporary.
Therefore, I feel it is not only our right to exercise those rights enumerated in the Constitution, but our responsibility as citizens, heirs and trustees of our inheritance, to exercise those rights. Keeping our entire body of civil liberties well-regulated and healthy is our duty. Atrophy of any part weakens the whole.
Guns and deaths for people under 18 is actually two demographics: one of 15 years of age through 18 years of age, and the other newborn to 15.
The highest numbers of deaths by far are in the older demographic. Half of them are suicides. A disproportionate number of the remainder is youthful mayhem, gang banging, and 15-18 not being an indication of having learned much before that age.
The younger deaths are some suicides, some random acts of violence, and way too many accidental finding of a gun, and not enough common sense to leave the damned thing alone. Youthful curiosity, too much violence with no meaningful results on television, video games, cartoons, and just plain old "playing guns" as childhood play.
A goodly portion of the under 15 deaths can be attributed to parental carelessness, which also proves that even after 18, you can still be dumber than a bucket of rocks. All the deaths are tragic, and all are unwanted, not planned, and truly accidental due to how stuff lines up for a predetermined end. A damned shame, a terrible tribute to parental neglect.
I would suggest education as the means to lower the deaths, and I would be willing to suggest that education would be a far more effective path than banning guns. This country can't keep tens of millions of illegal aliens from crossing our borders, can't keep traffic running at the posted speed, can't stop thieves and dope dealers, so how in the hell would we think that we could ban guns and actually have guns not be everywhere? Added to that, we don't have the resources and treasure, right now, to put bad people out of society for enough time to protect the rest of us. Why would we think that violations of gun laws would result in any decrease in gun possession. All the people we really don't want to have guns would, and the now gunless, law abiding population would be easy prey. That unknown, whether the homeowner is or is not armed, is a deterrent. An armed populace does reduce person on person crime.
But kids still continue to die. They find ways to access the gun, and find ways to shoot someone or themselves. Two in the paper today: one in WA where the kid shoots his face off and lives, and another in NY where one twin shot and killed the other. Both tragic. Both not needed. And both an indictment of parental guidance and control not being there. Kids get hurt, die, and become crippled because parents don't pay attention. Perhaps it is because all too many parents are not capable or qualified for the job, but sperm meeting egg is not a product of IQ testing, a parental readiness testing. Kids have no say on who mom and dad are, and how well they will be taken care of. The State tries, always after the fact, and mostly fails at huge cost to the rest of society. Americans spend an inordinate amount of tax money on non-qualified parents, parenting, and at risk kids. We do do a lot. We long ago threw Darwin out the door, and adopted the secular view of taking care of people, which ought to just piss off the science types.
I would suggest education as the answer. Of course, this in a country that now is lucky to have half the kids who start first grade graduate from high school by age 18. Add to that the huge bias against males in the K-12 public education methods and philosophy, and we are ending up with males with no idea of how to act so as to survive as reasonable, productive and happy citizens. The total extirpation of competition, of "king of the mountain" kind of behavior, the kinds of things that boys act as opposed to how girls act, from time immemorial by natural selection, has now given us the "metrosexual", the techie geek, but mostly the "drop out." Our collective misunderstanding of the differences between sexes in a public venue like education, means that gangs provide a much better social structure, nurturing environment, than school for an adolescent. The 15 year old wannabe gang banger gets an outlet for aggression, has access to success, money, because his mind is working in concert with others having the same level of development. The deal with differing brain development between boys and girls, but both expected to achieve the same goal in the same setting, has produced a prodigious drop out rate, and in the graduating class of 2010, University, College, USA, saw the divide between male graduates and female graduates approach the 2:3 ratio of 40% male and 60% female. Or, 50% more female graduates. A finite number. Public education is slowly demeaning males to where the guns issue might be threatening to the female and male demographic. I would say "You earned it. The result you wanted is here."
The problem is not guns. The problem is education. And the real problem is that education, public education, is less today than 20 years ago, and still falling, and still failing. We cannot solve the violence problem in our country by a forced exile from education of males. The education establishment will not allow gun education to take place in schools. The attempt was made with the Eddy Eagle deal. A total failure to gain traction. We lost common sense as a basic tool of intelligence two generations ago. You have to remember that I was educated at a time when every college freshman a public universities has to pass a swimming test, and a physical fitness/strength test. And then your PE (mandatory) choices were based on if you passed or did not pass the swimming and fitness/strength test. Down the road, those were declared "discriminatory" and eliminated. The issue was people drowned a lot, and you are a better student when physically fit. No more boxing in PE. No shooting clubs in high school. No handwriting, penmanship classes. The values and expectations from education changed, and boys got demoted, and we should expect more young male violence. So the gun deaths in the 15-18 year old demographic will reflect kids who find life hopeless, the kids who feel better about themselves by gang membership, and it will reflect the dangerous games boys will play because we failed to allow them to be male in school. Live with it!!
The other, younger, gun accident demographic is representative of poor parenting, a result of taking boys out of the education scheme. If an accidental gunshot death bothers you, how about the plague of shaken baby deaths most often at the hands of young fathers or young men having to care for an infant with zero understanding of what it is about? Every day the news reports deaths of toddlers and youngsters. They drown in pools, lakes, and in buckets of wash water. They accidentally strangle in cribs and from curtain pulls. People run over them with cars, and kids can find a new way to die every day if nobody cares, and nobody is closely monitoring their safety. A three year old shooting someone is the result of parental neglect, no common sense in the household, and just bad luck. Take away all the guns, and kids will still die when the crooks decide to shoot up some enemy and random bullets whiz about the neighborhood, sometimes killing sleeping kids or others accidentally in harm's way. Gun legislation will never take away that threat. I read the story about the new husband, in some "...stan" country, who grabbed an automatic assault rifle to fire off some celebratory shots last week, and it began shooting when he grabbed it, and shot a half dozen wedding guests. Maybe the bride, too. I can't care about stupidity. And it is stupid people who are behind almost every accidental gun death. Not stupid laws. Laws can't make people act reasonably. Laws can't make criminals no so. All laws do is complicate law abiding lives, most of the time at great cost. If only we enforced the one we have. If only we were not trying to put square pegs in round holes. If only.......and the old hook tender told me "Hummer!! You can wish for a better setting, but you gotta know you can wish into one hand and crap into the other, and I know which one will fill up first." Which was his way to tell me to quit my bitchin' and do the best I could. He also told me it was "climb over railroad cars, and under lines." And maybe he was the one who said "Never turn you back on the chokers or a Greek." Logger lore. Ribald common sense lessons. I am still alive, and maybe because of common sense lessons, and having parents with common sense.
So is that pathetic response the best you can do? Let's hear some sexual innuendo's at least after all, all you have is an emotional rhetoric to fall back on, ROTFLMFAO, pathetic. Let's see you continue to prove our point's everytime you respond or don't respond, ROTFLMFAO, yeah, it is almost not a challenge anymore to yank your chain soooooooo easily.
Hey tell ya what, there are a few web sites where progressives with no morals tend to gather. Yet we all go there and wow, same thing happens, they insult, demonize, rant and rave with nothing to support their childish ranting's.
You should frequent the Alternet, Discus, Washington Post, NY Times blog sites to name a few so you wont feel so lonely in the isolation ward at Belleview General. But unfortunately the data beating with facts about this issue will continue there as well, sucks to be you.
Sane people base their positions on raw emotion, hyperbole and bigoted stereotypes.
Didn't you know that???
Only wars exceed the fruits of NRA's fixation on Amendment 2.
Jay Greene, I know that David Nielsen, Ryan, AND myself all made literate, well-reasoned, thought-out arguments that show very clear reasons now why that time is NOT long passed, and why it is perfectly valid for several reasons today.
You're dismissal of it, and continued inability to present ANY compelling argument whatsoever other than just a personally-held opinion, only does a great deal to strengthen the argument of those who actually have obviously reasonable things to say.
Read the dissents carefully. The individual rights interpretation was 9-0.
And if you don't think this is in the legal mainstream, check out what Larry Tribe has to say.
No, we do not deny the deaths occur so too you must admit 80% of all violent crimes in the US are committed by career criminals and not law abiding gun owners.
We are in fact doing our part when necessary to reduce violence and ridding the world of a few of these bad guys. What useless laws and solutions have you committed to supporting that will affect only the criminal elements?
But then again, Columbia and 3 or 4 more countries have more murders each year than the US, but then again, the overall number if deaths in the US is a factor of the size of our country being the 3rd or 4th most populous in the world so non sequitor point irrelevant to supporting your position. By the way, why is it that there are 23 to 24 other countries that have higher murder rates than the US, BUT HAVE GUN BANS?
Did we forget to mention the Haynes vs US, Supreme Court ruling in 1968? You know, the ruling 8 to 1 in favor of Haynes that states, no felon was legally liable to follow any law that would require them to violate their 5th amendment right. Say, doesn't that essentially mean that around 85% of all gun control laws don't legally apply to felons. Oh my it does, so again, what is your point?
What other inane and irrelevant point that does nothing again to support your position do you wish to fling out against the wall in the vain desperation something will stick?
Oh wait, forgot to mention a few tidbits, this on a personal note.
In the early 1980's, left the Marines for other opportunities. Moved back near my parents, and one day, mom asked me to pick some groceries up and drop them off during lunch break. As I walked in the door, I could hear all 5" 1" 100lb's of dynamite that is my mom raising hell with someone. She yelled, there is a man breaking into the sliding door. Dropped the groceries and pulled my custom 4" SW 29 .44 mag and introduced an approximately 6'3" 300 plus lb monster to the business end as he stepped thru the broken door.
Amazing what my experiences in the military, especially those with bullets snapping by you has on your discipline and control, it focuses you. Such that I gave the intended crook a choice to a count of three as I began to squeeze the trigger. He chose wisely as I do know I have never seen somebody that size, turn whiter than a ghost, and crap themselves running at a dead sprint that Jesse Owens would have had trouble catching up to. Being as I have always had contacts and relations in local police forces, and the laws at that time, I knew that to follow the big lug with the rather crappy pants would have put myself in the wrong and put them in a position where they could have felt cornered or pursued potentially resulting in a unjustifiable incident in the opinion of the court then, so no license plate other than a physical description.
Now what exactly would that idiot have been charged with, oh thats right, misdemeanor damages. Would those charges have been bartered down, uh, yeah. Know how that was figured? Got to look at some mug shots when my b-in-law let me look. Shoulda seen the felony rap sheet on that guy, mostly violent asssaults, those kinda guys have good lawyers.
So explain again Jay how the police and the government were there to protect my mother? Or is it in your opinion the crook has an inalienable right to commit the crime and we should be forced to accept being a victim eh? Not on my watch which even though we lived ina supposedly nice area, occured three other times in the last 20 years!
Funny how the same government agency identifies that 75% of all violent crimes, never get reported. See USDOJ National Victimization annual report 2008 where 4.8 million violent crimes were not reported. But hey since Canada has a similar study corroborating that percentage of non reported crimes, what again is your point?
Isn't it funny how the anti's only point to the number of criminals killed in self defense and love to try and minimize those numbers.
Yet let's see them refute that only 3-15% of all gun incidents result in shots fired.
Let's see them prove the crooks are better shots than the cops who average 15% of shots fired hitting their targets with a random maximum of 25% (Virginia State Police & NYC Fire discharge reports).
Of course since the anti's claim we civilians are so poorly trained and incapable, then they must agree we only hit a mximum of 10% of the time what we aim at right, of course not must be more like 5% based on Jay's opinion! What is there oh 30-35 million reitred military veterans in the civilian population today that magically forgot everything after they left the service right?
Lets remember that of those killed justifiably, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 371 individuals, and private citizens justifiably killed 245 individuals.(FBI UCR 2008)
Since we already know that injuries occur at an 8 to 1 ratio (CDC & Hospital databases) then 8 x 245 = 1,960 injuries + 245 deaths = 2,205 injuries total by defensive gun uses by civilians in 2008.
Lets see since we arent as good a shots as the cops (snicker, snicker) 2,205 = 5% of incidents where shots hit, multiply by 20 to equal the total where shots were fired so 2,205 x 20 = 100% or 44,100 incidents where shots were fired which equals a maximum of 15% of the total incidents.
Well then we must calculate how many incidents involving a firearm so 44,100/15% = 1% = 2,940 x 100 = 100% or 294,000 incidents.
Wow, what happens when we calculate that % of incidents at 3%?
44,100/3% = 1% = 14,700 x 100 = 100% or 1,470,000 incidents.
Funny how that is the same number of defensive gun uses the Clinton Adminstration admitted occurred every year in 1997.
So what is it Jay, are we civilian gun owners better shots or worse shots than the cops? If you claim we are worse shots as you claim we are, the higher the number of incidents climb!
All this, just from government data again.
Why is it that the police werent there to protect the law abiding citizen and they had to kill those 245 people justifiably and injure those 1,960 others eh?
So how many of those 371 justifiable police shooting were suicide by cop eh? More than a few,care to bet that the number of justifiable killings taking out suicide by cop is identical between civilian and police, why is that Jay?
As to your opine on settled law, well regulated when actuallty referenced to the letters, writings, and drafts of what became the US Constitution meant well trained and disciplined and no matter how you try to spin it, that wont change.
Of course in a true philisophical argument, your claim can be interpeted that prior to the formation of a militia, no single individual possessed a firearm and or used it in defense of themselves, family, friends etc right? Yeah, that sounds kinda stupid but it is what your lamely attempting to point out.
Oh darn, there is that dumb thing about english sentence structure called independent and dependent clause. You know the structure that a complex sentence is constructed from? You see an independent clause can actuall convey a complete thought and stand as a complete sentence by itself.
"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The we have the dependent clause which is not a complete sentence and can not stand by itself. Being that the founding fathers were spare with their words, can you show any other right where the dependent clause carries priority in the BOR or US Constitution over the independent clause?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"
Yeah, sad how then the militia does not exist with out individuals who owned their own weapons which they used for self defense and food gathering long before any law was written.
Oh darn, forgot to mention that if you looked at the original drafts of what became the second amendment (see Karpeles Museum, CA, on-line) you would see the original draft was clearly a collective right. Why is it then that they changed that to what exists today if the founding fathers truly wanted no individual right to bear arms? Funny how no single anti gun supporter has ever, ever attempted to even answer that particular qeustion, ROTFLMFAO, because they CAN'T!
NewWest.Net encourages robust and lively, but civil participation from our readers. By posting here, you agree to the NewWest.Net terms of service. You agree to keep your comments on topic, respectful and free of gratuitous profanity. Contributions that engage in personal attacks, racism, sexism, bigotry, hatred or are otherwise patently offensive will be subject to removal."
Isn't the article itself a violation of this policy? Just sayin'
You probably didn't realize the irony of what you did...but it's a good one. See, while obviously the English language hasn't changed, obviously, there WERE meanings that were understood differently a couple hundred years ago than they are now.
Specifically, if you look at a contemporary dictionary around the time when the Constitution was drafted, "well-regulated" didn't mean "strongly controlled by the exact strong government we're writing a Constitution to someday protect against." It meant essentially "well-trained" or "well-disciplined." Which is significantly different than the idea you have.
Also, while the definition hasn't changed, many peoples' understanding is incorrect: the "militia" refers to everybody - NOT a National Guard that was founded over a hundred years later. And while you may not want to recognize the fact that YOU are very likely a member of the "unorganized militia" as it's defined in the U.S. Code (and very similar to how it was understood back then), that doesn't change the fact.
So while again, there are some folks that would love to hand over their own natural-born rights to self-protection and defense (and their freedom to do as they please as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else) to a body of people they FEEL protects them better than they can themselves, and will eagerly display misguided ideas of what the actual meaning of the Second Amendment is in order to do so, to anybody that actually cares about preserving some semblance of free-will that argument will fail; for we make an actual effort to understand.
Now, my comments up above deliberately gloss over the Second Amendment to describe the several reasons why own can own firearms OUTSIDE the Bill of Rights, since it's brought up, there's something to think about:
The Bill of Rights was drafted after arguments between the Anti-Federalists and Federalists of the possibility of the government taking too much control. The Bill of Rights is codified as a set of *pre-existing* rights (pre-existing simply by existing as a person, as an individual) that CANNOT be taken by the government or anybody else. You aren't GRANTED protection against unreasonable search and seizure, or unjust punishment, because of the kindness of that piece of paper. You OWN that protection as a human being - just like you OWN the ability of self-defense against a tyrannical government (or, of course, the freedom to worship as you please, speak your opinion as you please, etc.).
Now, why, in the middle of a document that celebrates individual rights and freedoms to an extent rarely seen before in the history of the world, would the people who JUST finished fighting a bloody war to unchain themselves from the unjust rule of a tyrannical king, THEN just slip in a little tiny amendment that had nothing to do with individual rights, but handed MORE power over to the government they were potentially there to protect against? It doesn't make sense historically, or logically.
But...since my arguments are based on reason and the ideas of personal responsibility, accountability, and freedom - they will probably fall on deaf ears of those who simply feel that guns must necessarily be evil because they really don't understand them.
Geez, maybe we should call the ambulance for Jay, Garcia, and such as apparently they have bled out from banging their heads against the wall of facts and logic as we havent heard from them in several hours. I hope they are all right as I truly do appreciate the humour they bring to these one sided demonstrations!
Propaganda is propaganda.
Almost
I'm not attacking an individual person. I'm attacking an entire class of people.
Class, what class, oh thats right CITIZENS. Since there is no legal , documented by Federal or State Constitution class of citizens in the US based on rights, what myopic BS are you pertaining to Rusted Wire? Your elitist underpinnings are showing Bobbie!
Here's something to consider, words. Words are more dangerous than any weapon known to man. They enable a small minority like anti gunners to present their fictional stories. They allowed propaganda by the big businesses wanting to exploit the west and force the native American Indian's off their lands. Word's were used to develop the propaganda the Nazi's used to demonize the Jew's and non-aryan races leading up to WWII. Words of extremist religions who promote Jihad, etc. etc, etc, etc, etc. The one common thread throughout those who used these words so effectively, is they were governments and those openly supporting said governments, except for a few religious fanatics.
Funny how words have enabled so many wars and conflicts based on religion as well. How many hundreds of millions have died because words enabled the victims to be marginalized and demonized so that in human perspective they were beneath decent human standards and therefore unworthy or life or rights?
Since words of themselves are so dangerous and such a public health risk, there is sufficient evidence that all thoughts and idea's must be banned and only government sponsored propaganda shall be allowed. Oh wait, your article is government approved, oh never mind. Kinda limits your artistic leanings to childish satire, again your article is proof of such. Lets control words and thoughts just like they attempt to do so with 20,000 gun control laws and see how you like them apples, after all, words are proven so much more dangerous than law abiding gun owners.
If indeed you claim to be attacking those somewhere between 50-80 million Americans, all of whom are voting age and gun owners, geez, doesn't say much for your intellectual abilities to openly pick on people who are armed, does it?
See, unlike the reasonable people on this blog who use words (yes even you anti's), every group has it's fringe elements, those who do believe that action first is the only solution.
You claim they are crazy, they may be, but that doesn't prove they are stupid. You think the government is the only ones with a list, lol?
But hey, how many anti gunners are there? How many politicians will actually stand up and declare their position? Bet it is less than 5,000 of those in the US. Then add in those organizations with no members like the VPC, Brady Center, CeaseFire, Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU, some media organizations and so called intellectuals, and you are going to have a hard time getting towards that 1 million members.
So when contemplating the unthinkable, we see 50-80 million gun owners and what 1 million anti gunners? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the results if revolution were to occur.
Don't even try to portray the 3 million military and police, in the five branches, spread throughout the world of which 2/3 rds are support functions would in any way be capable of countering such an incident as frankly, those poor technologically backward Al-Queada and Taliban should all have been dead almost 8 years ago right? Then we have those 30-35 million retired military personnel who must surely have forgotten everything they ever learned (snicker, snicker).
Lest we also forget the US Civilian population propensity to hate any real viewings of collateral damage and the resulting restrictions and micro management by politicians of any war scenario our forces are involved in. Yeah we see how the US civilian population would accept all that collateral damage inflicted by superior firepower and technology eh? Yeah we are so effective at stopping illegal immigration and illicit drugs as well, lol! Nor would any other countries take advantage of such turmoil and not smuggle in assistance, training and weapons to such rebels as they surely do not do anything like that in today's civilized warfare eh? Of course you can guarantee a significant portion of military and police personnel would not defect to the rebels side eh?
See people like Ryan, Navy Dan, Jack, myself have the discipline and willingness to talk first. But we cant promise you we can control much less have any influence on the fringe elements much longer with reason and logic. See, you anti's just keep attacking and taking, so what will be the spark that sets off a cascade of events? What will be the 21 st centuries Battle on Concorde lawn and the ride of Paul Revere?
Maybe you anti's should let us see your short term and long term plans so we could warn you what not to do and that way no one would have to worry of the anti's doing something utterly stupid.
It really is all up to you.
If the meaning of the 2nd amendment was that only the militia had the right to keep and bear arms,then it would have been written like this.....
"A well regulated militia,being necessary to the security of a free state,the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
That is NOT what it says is it? No, it says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed"
Everywhere else in the Bill of Rights that the words "the people"are used,it means just that ...the citizens,not some unspecified subset of the population.
Not to mention the Supreme Court has already determined that the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right that the government may NOT infringe upon. And the fact that back in the day when that law was written, every male old enough to raise a gun to shoot it was considered part of the militia.
Because I like to hunt, It helps to feed my family,I like to target shoot,it is great for testing skills,and improving eye-hand coordination.
I have a handgun for several reasons, target shooting,for protection from enraged grizzly bears,in the cases when bear spray just does not slow them down,and yes,just in case someone decides to break into my home. I live where it takes any police officer at least 45 minutes to an hour to reach my property,so if there is someone breaking into our home,calling the police is not going to do much good to stop the crime.
The A-R platform rifles are some of the most accurate,and easiest rifles on the market to customize,with the multitude of scopes,sights,slings,bipods,laser sights,are available in more than
one caliber,and there is no shortage of parts available for these rifles,in the case of a part wearing out or breaking.
They are not "assault rifles" or machine guns as so many anti-gun people attempt to classify them.
It is far more economical to shoot one of these rifles in.223,
than it is to do your target shooting with the higher calibers generally used for big game hunting,30-06 .308 etc. A-R rifles are available in .308 which is a big game round,and in many parts of the country,a lot of people do hunt deer,hogs,coyotes and other varmints with these rifles.
Some people,in the states where legal even hunt with handguns.
Personally,I do not hunt with an A-R platform rifle, but a lot of friends do.
I hunt with the same bolt-action rifles that I purchased when I was younger because that is what I shoot the best with.
I have the same handgun I had since I bought it while still in the USMC. A 1911 .45 I have rifles in .22, .243,.270,30-30,30-06,
.308,and 45-70. I have 20,16, and 12 gauge shotguns.
My wife,and our daughters all hunt and shoot,and can shoot all the firearms we have,along with their own rifles,handguns, and shotguns. The girls all live with their own families,in various states,and they all still hunt and target shoot.
There is an answer other than "because I can"
I know, I was going to post links to Heller,and some other cases, but I have some things to do, I will add more to this discussion later.
Think about that. Of the legions of local, state, and federal law enforcement professionals who get paid to put themselves in harm's way, it is citizens who account for 1/3 of justifiable homicides.
Justifiable - meaning that it was determined that the citizen could reasonably expect their life or the lives of those around them were in immediate danger from another person willing to harm or kill them.
So, those of you who think the notion of being able to defend yourself is archaic and unnecessary, what would YOU have someone do in that situation? If the police aren't immediately there to intervene in these 1/3 of justifiable homicide situations, and it's quite reasonable to expect that the other outcome is loss of life, significant injury, sexual assault, etc....should the victims who did not bring that upon themselves just consent to be attacked? That's how we should live our lives? That's the noble stance that you, in your anti-self defense, guns-are-inherently-evil world will take?
There are an estimated 800.000-2.5 million self defense uses of firearms per year. If I remember correctly, the lower number was that cited by the Centers for Disease Control...not necessarily a bastion of conservative though. So even if the lowest number is the most accurate, you're looking at many times more legitimate self defense uses of firearms than criminal uses against innocent people.
But...because you have decided it doesn't FEEL like guns should be useful, it doesn't matter what facts, or data, or reasoned arguments say. You'd rather HOPE the police will be there to protect you. You'd rather HOPE that nothing will really ever happen to you or your family. You'd rather TELL others that since you don't think their sport of choice is right, they can't do it.
You think you are doing some kind of noble good, expelling the evil guns from the clutches of citizens. But that's not the way it really works. YOU are the modern day tyranny who rejects pleas of reason and overwhelming fact simply offered to you by the research and concern of others, and you continue to attack the free choices that those who differ from you may make.
Here's the best part: it doesn't MATTER what the Second Amendment says. Even if you interpret it the polar opposite way that I do, and wholeheartedly embrace the most arguable "a well-regulated milita" part of it, and completely ignore the clear "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It doesn't even matter. Why? The Bill of Rights was written to explicitly protect an individual's pre-existing rights. So, if you want to interpret the 2nd Amendment as meaning only well-controlled militias are allowed to touch guns...well, ok. That means that the 2nd Amendment reemphasizes the fact that government can't touch it.
Okay. Well, we live in a country where our founding document was created for the principle purpose of limiting government's power to rule over its citizens. There is nothing that states the government has the right to control a citizen from owning a gun. We may have, over the past century, had Supreme Court justices that rule according to their personal feeling and not the Constitution's meaning, and legislators that mince the words, and pervert the spirit of the thing, just because they can spin a few phrases to *maybe*, *possibly* mean what they want it to. But that doesn't make it honorable, true, or correct.
So, the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to take MY ability to defend myself or my loved ones away. What does that mean? Well, it means that they can't. Whether it's codified specifically in the 2nd Amendment or not....they can't. And because of that, it is MY responsibility to make sure I don't hurt somebody else, because then I'm affecting THEIR rights to live as THEY want to. I am perfectly willing to accept self-accountability, and that's what we do in this country, in theory and historically, despite what it seems in the current times.
If you don't like the idea that I may have the ability to kill someone who invades my home, if you don't like the idea of being the ant in the fable of the ant and the grasshopper, if you don't like the idea of taking care of yourself and your own, and accepting the responsibility of your own action or inaction in life...then go somewhere else that doesn't embrace those ideals.
Awesome. Look forward to seeing what else you have to say.
@Hunters are cowards
You would prefer we shoot them with low powered rifles and let them bleed out all over the place, in massive amounts of pain the entire time? Shooting the animals is humane. It helps keep populations down so they don't starve to death.
Tools for survival is what guns are. Why they are. The need to possess a survival tool has not gone away, despite our sophisticated social structures around the world. Before guns were knives, and any configuration of them. And before sharp stuff were blunt instruments, the things you see forensic pathologists referring to today as the cause of death in many cases, as simple as a stone. Cordage. Strangulation by rope or wire. A plastic bag over the head. So many ways to end a life. So many ways to attack someone weaker than you. And thus, a gun as personal protection is not unreasonable. A gun to do a random or pointed act of violence is not a reasonable use of a gun. But who, really, is in control of knives, stones, cordage and plastic bags? The old history of mankind as being the history of man's inhumanity to man is still with us, and banning guns does nothing to staunch the flow of blood in the streets. Millions have been killed in Africa in my lifetime with large knives. Probably more than with guns. Humans are cruel to each other. In a world of great medical advances, food growing advances, there is still a demand for life sustaining materials greater than available, and people will be doing harm to each other for the foreseeable future to gain a share of the wealth, guns or not. Our ingenuity will ensure that.
Let me preface by saying I've never been hunting and I don't intend to go hunting. However, would you then consider the innumerable amount of people that work in the industries that kill cows, chickens, turkeys, pigs, and any other type of animal that we commonly eat cowards as well? They're killing animals...and not with their bare hands.
Now, if anyone wants to live a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle and make that decision, that's perfectly fine. However, we exist as omnivores. You can't argue that is isn't against our nature to not eat meat.
So, why is a hunter, who goes out and does the same thing - only on his own - a coward? Is it because he uses a gun? Does that mean that hundreds of years ago, those who hunted with bows and arrows were also cowards, because they used the tools of the time to better hunt? Or those who used spears before them? Many animals were created with significant strength, speed, stamina, agility, keen senses of sight, smell, hearing, and so on. Humans were created with a mind that could use tools for its survival. Calling hunters cowards simply because they use guns (and therefore any tool that isn't a hand or nail) is a blatant denial of everything that nature has created. That's simply illogical.
Now, you can say that it's unnecessary to hunt in this day and age. Well, that may be true for most people. However, even if YOU live 4 miles from the nearest grocery store, reachable in 10 minutes by car, it doesn't mean everybody does. There are countless remote areas of this country and the world where people can't rely on the goods and services of a supermarket. And even so, is there really much of a difference between the hunter who shoots a deer and stocks his freezer with venison for his family, and the factory manager at a slaughterhouse who butchers cows for mass consumption?
The point of overpopulation is true as well. Now, there's certainly an argument to be made that people CAUSES the overpopulation of certain animals by their methods of building, construction, and thereby removing natural predators from an area. However, that's not the discussion here. The fact remains that there ARE wide swaths of animals that starve and suffer to death because there's not enough resources to go around.
Again, there's this instance where emotion is used as a substitute for rational thought. It FEELS wrong that people should kill animals. But in the same way it FEELS wrong that a coyote should kill a rabbit, and it FEELS wrong that a hawk should swoop and kill a field mouse, and it FEELS wrong that a mountain lion should chase and rip apart a deer. But just because something FEELS wrong to those who choose to not accept the fact of existence doesn't mean it IS wrong, and then we must therefore compel others into action against their will because they don't feel the same thing as we do.
The human race survives because of its ability to think, envision tools, and use them successfully. The tools of a natural predator are its speed, claws, and teeth. The tools of a human to protect against this and to feed itself is a spear, bow and arrow, and then gun. If you choose to disown the human species and how you were able to get to this point, that's okay, too. You have an option: die out. That's not meant to be threatening, that's not meant to be coy or mean-spirited, it's meant to demonstrate the way of life for millions of years.
One last thing: suggesting that guns should be made illegal because people hunt with them is akin to suggesting that baseball bats should be illegal because occasionally someone beats another person to death with one. You can't invalidate an entire concept, or an entire type of tool because of it's misuse (or perceived misuse in the case of hunting). Should we say that the game of baseball has no place in society because someone kills another with a bat? That can't possibly be reasonable. Similarly, saying that because you don't like hunting no one else should be able to target shoot or have a means of defending oneself against someone who's bigger, armed himself, and willing to hurt you is absurd.
By the way, my girlfriend ABHORS hunting...which makes it fortunate that I have never hunted. I don't even discuss the idea of hunting with her, because she gets upset. However, it never crossed her mind to outlaw guns because she doesn't like hunting, and the first time it ever came up she completely acknowledged that her emotions on the subject aren't entirely reasonable and that there are valid reasons to hunt. However, it still upsets her. That's fine. That's human. But demanding other people change the way they rightfully live because of one's own emotions is simply unjust.
You know we don't see eye to eye on this issue BUT I thought this piece was damned funny.
As one of those irresponsible gun owners who gets hammered drunk and shoots shit up, I can at least see your point.
But I have half my retirement wrapped up in rifles and handguns and ammo. I even upgraded my Hunter S. Thompson to a 500 Mag last spring just to make sure when it's time, I'll be properly equipped.
I ask you, if I didn't have my arsenal to test fire, what else would I do when I'm drinking? Drive maybe ...
As opposed to the factualities of NRA assaults--eh, squeak?
"I say ban guns so hunters can't use them to kill animals. Let the gutless cowards we call hunters try to go out there in the wild and kill animals with their bare hands, not shoot some animal from a safe distance away with a high powered rifle. You hunters would starve to death if it weren't for your guns doing the killing for you, gutless cowards."
For one, the article was not about hunting.
For two, hunters are far from cowards,and we do have the right,whether you happen to like it or not to pursue our sport.
I also hunt with a bow,and I hunt with rifles,and with shotguns.
These are the most humane ways to make quick,clean kills so that the animals do not suffer.
Do you travel into the backcountry, in winter weather,by horseback,then go farther on foot, to pursue your sport? Do you constantly pick up bags of trash from forest service lands,wilderness area lands,state hunting lands,all left by those who ARE NOT hunters?
Do you camp outside in the backcountry for a week or more at a time? In the winter weather? snow?sleet?freezing rain?blizzards?
Since you want to call hunters cowards, can YOU survive in the wild with no food? Could YOU kill an animal for food for susvival with YOUR bare hands?
If not, then it is YOU who are the coward!
I've seen no credible evidence to contradict the notion that more people are killed by guns in the U. S. than all other <b>peaceful nations in the aggregate.
Then I take that statement to mean you have never heard of ,or checked the numbers of firearms related deaths in countries like say, Somalia? Yemen? Iraq?(not while US forces were there) Afghanistan? (Same as previous) Mexico? Columbia?
In Mexico alone more people are killed by firearms used by the drug cartels than all firearm deaths in the US.
You just took a blind guess that you were correct,and no one would refute your statement.
Remember the "Blood diamonds" issue? Besides the amputations,there were more firearms deaths involved than
in the US in that instance too. How many civil wars have left countries with no effective governments,and the populations subject to local "warlords"?
If you think the gun "problem" is so bad here, why don't you try living in Somalia? or even closer Mexico?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
I have seen at least once on ABC,NBC,CBS,and CNN a photo of a browning .50 caliber belt fed machine gun,being shown with various officials from the US Marshalls Service, Border Patrol,
and ICE,during talks about "US guns used in Mexican gun crimes",in every instance they call the Browning a "rifle" leading those who do not know the difference to just assume that anyone can walk into a gun shop, and walk out with a .50 cal. machine gun.
As for the US guns being used in Mexican gun crimes,that one was proven false by the stats from the US government. The claim was 90% of the guns came from the US the actual number was 17%.
Another instance of the anti-gun groups using deception,and skewing of the numbers.
DHS officials separately question the statistic involving the origination of weapons as currently presented by GAO," DHS said. "GAO asserts that, 'Available evidence suggests most firearms recovered in Mexico come from U.S. gun dealers, and many support Drug Trafficking Organizations.' and fuel Mexican drug violence. Using the Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) eTrace data, GAO determined that about 87 percent of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced from fiscal years 2004 to 2008 originated in the United States. DHS officials believe that the 87 percent statistic is misleading as the reference should include the number of weapons that could not be traced (i.e., out of approximately 30,000 weapons seized in Mexico, approximately 4,000 could be traced and 87 percent of those—3,480—originated in the United States.)
That is 17% of the weapons seized by Mexican authorities.
The guns are not coming from US gun shops, mainly military weapons are being used.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/02/world/la-fg-mexico-gunbattles2-2010apr02
Yet the anti-gun people still insist that all the illegal guns in Mexico come from US gun shops. (Most recently used by Dennis Henigan)
Just an example of the tactics being used by the anti-gun groups.
Despite all the hype and hysteria on this thread, the legal system is going to spend the next 100 years and beyond sorting out which firearm restrictions are unconstitutional because, once again, the 5-4 majority opinion included the statement that "the ruling was not to be taken as an indication that all firearm restrictions are unconstitutional".
The 5-4 ruling was in relation to the DC gun ban, the justices agreed 9-0 that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
Bob, What will you do if they kick in your front door tonight?
Are your ideals worth your children's lives?
I'm going to go ahead and assume by the name-calling that usually prefaces the comments of someone who remain deliberately shut off to the facts of responsible gun ownership that you haven't read the vast majority of the posts that already precede yours.
Thanks for the fact-free, content-free post.
As an aside, since you're so concerned with the agony associated with firearms, why don't you post your baseless diatribe on articles regarding car accidents, fires, water, tall things, toxic substances, items that suffocate, and the environment...all these things cause more accidental deaths to children than firearms do.
Or maybe take up your cause against evil doctors and nurses: Medical mistakes kill 400,000 people per year or about 286
times the rate of all accidental firearm deaths.
Oh, and less than 1% of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders...so the vast majority of the suffering and agony you're talking about is involving criminal-types who are dealing with violence as a choice.
And clearly you didn't read some of the earlier posts that address the vast amount of suffering and agony (from those who are innocent and exist as honest, law-abiding citizens) that is *prevented* by the lawful use of firearms. But, people like you choose to simply not acknowledge the GOOD that firearms in the hands of the law-abiding can do because it doesn't fit the worldview that you THINK makes sense.
If you truly cared about peoples' suffering or agony, you wouldn't take the most effective means of self-defense a person has away from him or her.
(That reminds me of something I saw while training as an EMT...a state police officer came in and had some pictures of crime scenes, one involving a woman whose estranged boyfriend came to hurt her. She locked herself in her room, called the police, and was on the line as they responded. However, by the time they got there, the boyfriend was able to break through the door and bludgeon her to death while she was still on the phone with 911. But I'm sure that was nothing compared to the suffering he'd have to deal with if she shot him with a legally owned weapon. But hey... hypocrisy's not a pretty game to have to face in the mirror).
Yet again we see no data which again proves everything I (and many others) have stated to date from government facts to be oh darn REAL FACTS which none of you posers has refuted any portion, what pieces of work you few are.
My, My Horst, maybe you should look in the mirror and yell at yourself. It was you anti's that created the legislative arm of the NRA. It was you anti's by your action, lies and rhetoric that trained them to be so offensive and attack. It's an old saying but true, the best defense, is a good offense.
Hat's off to the anti's for helping to secure our rights by training the NRA and all the pro gun factions in how to fight as dirty or dirtier than they, especially when we use all those wonderful facts.
Yet here poor widdle Horsty Worsty wants to cry because he is being forced to eat the cake he and his few anti's baked. Let's all have a pity party for Horst, all together now, AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Uh, where was any of my data pulled directly from the NRA site so non-sequitar point that has no relevance to the discussion again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again............................
I'll give you a wave when I see you travelling by in the cattle car, on your way to the concentration camp.
My guess would be more than a few of the posts here spouting numbers, either got a taste of war (which always seems to be brought on by greed and government promoting that kind of greed, regardless of the loss of life) or they've lived in or are now living in areas where poverty and substance abuse (also by the way, encouraged by government - otherwise it would of been addressed years ago)
Fact is - guns are designed with one thing in mind - to kill things and in the wrong or ignorant hands, they kill hundreds of thousands of people every year.
Yes, the deck is suppose to be stacked so you can aid or protect "loved ones" when you own a firearm, but how many people die every year as a result of that kind of "friendly" fire?
I am not exactly sure what you mean by posts here getting a taste of war. Now, war often being a symptom of government promotion of greed, and poverty and substance abuse being encouraged by government are interesting topics. And I don't disagree with you. However, that isn't the purpose of the discussion.
And you're also correct saying that guns certainly ARE designed for the purpose of killing. However, bows and arrows are designed with the purpose of killing. Yet, we DO have very legitimate sporting purposes for both. It may not be everyone's cup of tea to test their hand-eye coordination, stamina, concentration, and physical fitness (yes, at higher levels of shooting sports physical fitness is necessary), but there are plenty of people who enjoy doing so.
Additionally, there ARE people who die every year accidentally, or from friendly fire. But those numbers are overwhelmed by the positive uses of firearms to protect. One can make the argument that if even one loss of life isn't worth it - but then to maintain the integrity of such an idealistic argument, one would also have to be even MORE strongly opposed to cars, swimming pools, public beaches, household cleaners, and ladders high enough to fall from.
Here's some somewhat related resarch:
*******
You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%
(British Home Office - the lead government department for drug policies, crime, police, and others)
Of the 2,500,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% (192,500) are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when the woman was unarmed.
(Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, U.S.
Department of Justice)
The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with guns. Men also benefit from using guns but the benefits are smaller, 1.4 times more likely to receive a serious injury.
(National Crime Victimization Survey, Department of Justice)
Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired.
(National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply)
90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type! -- in all these instances, taking away the best means of self defense from law abiding citizens is condemning them to the actions of a morally void person
(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1998 )
Less than 1% of firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime. - So yes, guns can be used for evil purposes, but why should we ASSUME that the norm is for guns to be used to kill, when that's clearly not the case?
(FBI Uniform Crime Statistics)
95% of the time police arrive too late to prevent a crime or arrest the suspect. -- In these cases, what should an innocent person do? Should they not be able to protect themselves because of the 1% of the time guns are used for criminal purposes?
(U.S. News & World Report, June 17, 1998)
Fewer than 2% of all unintentional injury deaths for children in the U.S. between ages 0-14 are from firearms. - Again, more die from cars, burns, falls, poisoning, drowning, suffocating, and falling
(Injury Facts, National Safety Council)
Firearms in private hands are used an estimated 2.5 million times (or 6,849 times EACH DAY) each year to prevent crime; this includes rapes, aggravated assaults, and kidnapping. The number of innocent children protected by firearm owning parents far
outweighs the number of children harmed.
(Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University)
Medical mistakes kill 400,000 people per year or about 286
times the rate of all accidental firearm deaths. This translates
into 1 in 6 doctors causing an accidental death, and 1 in 56,666
gun owners doing the same.
(CDC report 1993)
Less than 1% of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders.
(Journal of Quantitative Criminology)
The rate of gun accidents is so low the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission doesn't even mention them in their annual safety reports.
********
So, I know that was a bunch of numbers. But the point is, guns are not nearly as dangerous to everyday law-abiding citizens as everyone would be lead to believe. They are obviously much more significantly dangerous to gang members and criminals.
Listen, I understand a desire to bring the world to an ideal place where guns don't HAVE to exist, and therefore NO one would die from them, especially in tragic accidents. I'm not saying that isn't something that everyone could righteously want. The fact is, guns exist. We can wish they didn't, but that's not the case. While they do, they are simply the best, most effective way to defend yourself against an attack. Clearly for the vast majority of the population, that attack will never happen. But you only get to make that mistake once if it does. You and your family only get to make that mistake once if it does. And report upon report upon report proves that, while in most everything in life, there IS risk involved, but the risks associated with gun misuse has been DRASTICALLY overblown by those who just don't like the idea of guns to make it seem like they're just not worth it to protect oneself. Well, up above shows differently.
I appreciate your reply, and I really believe that your opinions come from a place that legitimately wants to help people - but to truly help people, you HAVE to be able to give them a fighting chance if someone who's intent on doing evil ever shows up. And they always do somewhere. Unfortunately, I know wholeheartedly that the comments you mention above are misguided - comments that are understandable and out of a desire to make society around you better, but misguided nonetheless.
Navyman - its the " chance if someone who's intent on doing evil ever shows up" part that troubles me.
I'm closing in 60 years and over those years, I've lived just outside of some pretty big cities like New York, San Francisco, Dallas, Columbus (Ohio) and Washington, DC.
At no time in my life, did I feel the need to arm myself with anything other than my wits because I'm more than aware of the fact that a. that gun, in a split second, could be turned against me and b. that gun too often, ends up stolen and is used to threaten or kill other people.
"mountain hunter, I would really like to see you try to survive in the wild with no gun. I would love to see why try and kill some animals with no gun in your hand. Chances are you would starve to death"
As a graduate of quite a few US military survival "schools", and a 6 year tour in the USMC, I would have no problem at all surviving for any length of time without a firearm,not too hard to make a spear,a bow and some arrows,a snare, a deadfall trap,catch some fish,there are many ways to survive,and capture and kill animals for food without the use of a firearm.
You are the one who called all hunters "cowards" I asked you if YOU could do what YOU suggested,and kill an animal without a gun,if not, then that makes YOU the coward,not me.
A rifle is the most humane way to insure a quick,clean kill,with the least amount of suffering to the animal. My family has had land in NW Montana since the early 1800's,and all of us have hunted,fished,and done a lot of target shooting. Do you suggest we go back to driving entire herds of bison over the edge of cliffs?
Should we club the animals? beat them over the head with rocks?
If you do not like hunting, then do not hunt, it is real simple.
Whether you personally like it or not, we have the right to hunt. Hunting license fees,and extra taxes we pay on ammunition,and the rest of our outdoor gear pay for the majority of the wildlife conservation efforts in this country,not just in Montana,in the entire U.S.
Care to see which one of us could survive in the backcountry the longest?
@Nancy, I'm glad you have been safe, feel safe, and certainly hope you remain safe. But remember the story of the woman in the house I listed above...that's not an isolated incident. The numbers I cited aren't anomalies where the bad people just stop the following year. Like I said, it doesn't happen to the vast majority of the people. But you know that IT DOES HAPPEN. It still doesn't give anyone the right to take away the ability to protect against it. That would be like saying, just because you've never felt like you were in harm's way of a fire in your house and therefore choose not to own a fire extinguisher, that I shouldn't have the right to own a fire extinguisher. Fire extinguishers have been misused. Fire extinguishers have caused vandalism and even death. But their lawful, life-saving uses FAR OUTWEIGH the wrongful ones.
As far as the last couple statements, I think a few of my researched points discounted part a. I mean, you're right that a gun COULD be turned against you, but I demonstrated that that's FAR less likely than you successfully using it to protect yourself if needed.
And as far as b., yes, there will be guns stolen. There are guns stolen from police as well - many hundreds in fact. So should I just be a willing victim of the criminals who steal them? (I also continue to acknowledge that I firmly believe I will probably never be the victim of such crime...I'm not paranoid walking down the street like someone's about to jump out of every corner, I just choose to acknowledge that bad people exist, and would take advantage of me if presented the opportunity if I happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time). However, your comment "too often" is based out of your opinion. How you feel about it. It's not based in fact. And while you can opine that even ONE gun stolen is "too often", and that's certainly a defensible position, it in no way allows one to remove MY right to defend myself. Again, I intentionally selected the researched points that I put above because it still very clearly shows that guns are far, far more likely to be used justifiably by the law-abiding than by the "bad guys."
The most frustrating part is that almost every anti-gun person I've discussed this with either has no actual facts, or very generalized "facts" that are essentially meaningless. And it simply doesn't matter how many paragraphs, sources, citations, studies, facts, and coherent, reasoned arguments I can make - it really all boils down to the fact that they just don't like it. That's it. Even if I could prove without a shadow of a doubt that there has never been an innocent person killed with a firearm, and that if you own a gun you will never be the victim of a crime in your lifetime, there would STILL be the same people trying to find a way to rationalize taking them from the non-criminal, law-abiding citizen.
Jack replies: It's funny that you never see people like this demanding that tennis be played with acorns and bare hands, swimming only be done in lakes, rivers, and mudholes, and football be played with a real, live piglet instead of a pigskin filled with air.
Jack replies: Again... no data... no actual information... just pure emotional venting. Makes him feel good so it must actually ~be~ good.
Jack replies: My paternal grandfather shot himself on purpose with a 12 gauge shotgun. Ever see the wound from one of those?
My maternal grandfather was shot and killed in an act of negligence by two of his boys, my uncles. Ever watch a man die over two months time suffering in tremendous pain the whole time?
My brother-in-law missed killing my sister with a gun by just a minute or two, so he called her and blew his brains out while she listened over the phone. Ever hold a sister in your arms for hours at a time over months?
I was held up twice, once with the gun held to my stomach by an obviously drug-crazed thug who didn't bother to disguise himself. When he took me to the back room I can tell you that I thought I was going to be dead real soon.
Have I and my family done enough witnessing, suffering, recognizing, or associating for you?
But the big difference between me and you is that I know each and every situation I outlined was the CHOICE of an individual, and the actions of people. The firearm had nothing to do with it other than as a tool. My father built many a home with a hammer. The other day we had a woman in the county killed with a hammer.
You draw the connection here.
Jack replies: Again, confirming everything that was previously said about the anti-gunners and their absolute lack of being able to effectively defend a logical position.
You successfully ignored several of the points I tried to make with you that involved actual thinking reason, instead of (again) emotion. Here's a tip for a favorable outcome in a discussion - address reasonable counter-arguments that defeat your point if you actually have valid responses to them. It's stunning that no matter which person I'm talking to, whatever their own niche argument against guns, they have to deliberate escape acknowledging legitimate points to continue repeating the same failed points of their own.
I mean, you repeat the same modus operandi of painting some picture of gunowners or hunters as faux men who only want to prove how tough they are. Like I said before (and I repeat it because clearly you didn't see it the first time), I'm not a hunter. But that isn't the reason the vast majority of hunters do what they do. Your "point" about a mountain lion versus a man is ridiculous as well. Actually, I addressed that same kind of thing from your original post - again ignored. Oh, and most hunters do NOT kill just to stuff an animal. Many of them are extremely concerned with protecting wilderness and the environment, and sustainable animal populations and the well-being of wildlife. That doesn't make sense to you because you refuse to acknowledge another side.
It's insane. Most of you don't care about an actual reasoned debate. It's blatantly displayed again and again right here. You don't care to use logic when you can use conjecture and emotion. You don't care to actually understand another point of view; you only care to reinforce your own hateful worldview. And you certainly don't consider it as hateful, but you are judging other people because they are different from you, and no matter the evidence that's put in front of you over and over again, it's like it never happened. All you care to do is make your best attempt to order others how to live, and to sit and judge them. Absolutely insane. I'd ask anyone who cares to take the time or patience to read through this entire thread...break the posts down into the anti- and pro- sides. Now, look to see the amount of responses that deal in rational thought, legitimate data and facts, and legitimate discussion and debate. Then look to see which side resorts more often than not to some kind of name-calling, baseless assumptions, empty rhetoric, false and unprovable accusations, and an utter lack of legitimate evidence to back up their points.
It may be surprising to anyone who's been following this thing, but I'm almost without words to describe my feeling of helplessness when it comes to realizing the numbers of people who are wholly unable to recognize anything outside their own worldview - and will ignore whatever they have to in order to perpetuate their agenda of information suppression and control of others' life decisions.
Guns are a man made machine that can do many things but never can make a moral judgement. It is configured to explode a cartridge when the trigger is pulled, and send a bullet down whatever trajectory the barrel offered. The gun has no conscience, nor does it have any human ability to think, rationally or otherwise.
So this discussion about guns is really not about guns, but about assholes calling each other out. Moral arguments are made. Statistics brought to bear. The issue is that no matter what mechanical means, blunt instrument or sharp blade you chose, the intent is to take property, a life, inflict pain. Guns or no guns is not really the crux of the problem. Assholes are. And assholes can and do wear police uniforms, military uniforms, and most often have the blessing of the tyrant in charge. Most murders in the world are committed by persons of the same ethnicity by their own kind, in a power struggle to see who survives. Tens of millions have been killed in my lifetime by their own government, their own citizens, in some institutional insanity. Joseph Stalin offed over 20,000,000 of his own people. Pol Pot more than a million. Adolf Hitler, at least 6,000,000 and most likely a lot more. The Japanese murdered over a million Chinese just because they could, and Mao and his communists killed millions more Chinese just to cement his power and the power of government. Some asshole from Libby with a rifle is not the enemy. He or she is just an asshole with a gun, and most likely will never shoot at or kill a human no matter the situation. But a cop with a hardon for you can do just that, and a crooked police department can take out anyone they want. Our Founding Fathers knew that. They knew that the cops, the State Police, the military, were the biggest threat, and so they wrote the Second Amendment to address just that situation. And that is why we have never had to fight our own on our own soil, over who is going to control us. We did fight the Civil War, over 600,000 casualties, to forcefully hold the states together as a Union, because the South felt slighted economically and needed to hold on to cheap labor to survive economically. The South got into that war without enough guns, and not enough people to make them, shoot them, grow food, and keep their States running, and suffered for the lack of adequate weaponry. A lot of the time, the most people with the best weaponry win. We are finding out that a few can fight many with better weapons and weapons systems. We are also finding that better armed and better trained will not necessarily prevail.
Inanimate guns are not the problem. A growing chasm between government and the governed could be. A growing chasm between those who live well and those who do could be. Seeing that 40% of college grads are male and 60% female, gender equality could be a growing problem. High unemployment coupled with a dead housing industry and the flight of value from most people's greatest investment could be a problem soon. Guns are not the problem. Guns are a diversion from all the real problems. Black kids in jail is a problem. Teenage girls bearing children out of wedlock is a problem. Obesity is a problem. If guns come into play it is not because the gun is the problem. Some other problem in society drives people to arm themselves.
I met a woman today who talked about never going on a hike in forest lands without a handgun. Never. Two cougars close in can do that to you. I cruised timber armed, always. You never knew when you were going to trip over drip tube, and when you did, bad shit was close at hand. A Mexican drug cartel dope grow guard pulled a gun on cops onto his grow, and they took him out, yesterday near Medford, Oregon. That 30,000 dead Mexican deal has crossed the border and is here now. People are getting more concerned every day this economy continues to tank.
A kid I know who inherited a little farm from his grandfather, who raised him when mom took a hike, and he said "Grandpa told me how bindle stiffs, bums, fruit rats, would knock at the back door and do anything for a meal. Split wood, spade a garden, just something for a sandwich. Earn a meal. Then he told me that the next time, Son, it will be different. They will come from town and take what they want. If you want to keep anything, you will have to defend your property and your life."
Those are not crazies. Those are not people who want a gun to go shoot up the place. Those are concerned citizens who know they do have to take care of themselves, because government no longer can, and really, never could. Police work is mostly after the fact. It is your duty to do what is necessary before the fact to preserve life, liberty, property, and your pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution recognizes that truth. There is no reason to fear law abiding citizens who are armed. They are not the enemy. Nor is the gun. The enemy is fellow humans who have no regard for your property, your life, or your prospects in life. Many or most are armed, legally or illegally. Society's protectors will get there after the damage has been done, mainly to get those responsible so society can extract retribution. Big Whoop.
Jack replies: Good news... certainly. You just put your finger directly on one major reason why the gun control movement is failing and falling.
We pro-freedom folk love more than the 2nd amendment... we love the 1st one also... because it gives the world an opportunity to see for themselves who amoung us are fool and charletans. People like anti-hunter and the other posters here are worth more to our side then thousands of NRA commercials.
\
Imagine a fence-sitter out there reading thru this thread... after they finish can you imagine any possibility that they are going to want to stand by the side of absolute losers -- folk who make no attempt to have a rational discusson... indeed...who go out of the way to avoid a rational discussion.
Forcing them to artiuclate their bankrupt ideas over and over again is a brilliant move on the pro-freedom side.
Again, there's this instance where emotion is used as a substitute for rational thought. It FEELS wrong that people should kill animals. But in the same way it FEELS wrong that a coyote should kill a rabbit, and it FEELS wrong that a hawk should swoop and kill a field mouse, and it FEELS wrong that a mountain lion should chase and rip apart a deer. But just because something FEELS wrong to those who choose to not accept the fact of existence doesn't mean it IS wrong, and then we must therefore compel others into action against their will because they don't feel the same thing as we do.
And there's many people in 3rd word countries that are starving to death. You don't see people with guns going around putting them out of their misery to control their numbers and yes, these people are actually starving to death. Unlike the animals that are killed supposedly to prevent them from starving to death. Those examples you gave of animals killing another animals are done for the animal's survival, something most hunters do not do and anyone who knows what is going on KNOWS hunters nowadays do not hunt for SURVIVAL. They are not starving in the least bit. You are clearly out of touch with reality if you don't know that a good number of hunters kill for pleasure/fun/sport, yes, it is indeed true whether you want to deny this or not. Killing an animal with a high powered rifle is not a sport nor will it ever be a sport because you have the unfair advantage over the animal. An animal has to get real close to you to inflict damage meanwhile you can just stand there at a safe distance pull out your high powered rifle and just shoot the animal to death without doing any hard work at all.
I hope this is a joke you are trying to attempt. Guess what, I shoot animals, with a camera, not a gun. I admire and respect wildlife without killing it. Ask these hunters if they would care about nature and wildlife if they weren't allowed to kill it.
There are some things in having freedom that can never change, and any change will certainly, not probably or perhaps, cause the loss of that freedom. First amendment speech and second amendment right to pack and own a gun are two of those. Diminish those in any way, and all the rest of the document is worth far less. Those who will be able to retain guns, like police and citizens anointed by the powers that be, will have advantage over the rest, and will use that advantage for personal gain and will use that advantage to take more freedoms, more rights to pursue happiness, more rights of religious belief from the rest. That is just how it happens. Lord of the Flies in our dna. Ustachi Croatian storm troopers chasing Orthodox infidels and murdering them by the tens of thousands. The Catholic church as a perpetrator in the holocausts of WWII. At the least, Jews got their story out there. The tens of millions of other minorities, infidels, out castes, that were murdered have never had the media on their side. But at least there is a chance that can happen someday, after all the survivors are dead, and the witnesses are gone.
This we know: unarmed and in any minority, you are a target in this world. Everyone knows which streets you don't walk down, which neighborhoods you don't drive through at night, which dark and empty "open spaces" you never use in the dark. And that is here, with anyone able to own a gun at birth, and only if you are a convicted felon may that right be abridged. There are whole countries in the world where none are safe, ever. Almost a continent, Africa, is a case in point. And certainly, even charitable givers, people offering aid and medical care out of the kindness of their hearts are not safe in many countries. If the Pakistanis wonder why none are coming to their aid in their current weather related crisis, all you have to know is that there are elements in that country who believe killing aid workers will give the killers the most glorious afterlife available. And I guess they will have to take care of themselves and obtain that glorious afterlife by themselves. I will stay in the West, and be thankful for the protections from assholes of any political stripe the Constitution provides me.
Here's some fact-based math for ya.
Dave Fahrenthold of the WAPO wrote a scary story on all the ammo Obama helped sell. About the same time, Pew did a poll on voter self-ID that showed the country breaking 40 percent conservative, 40 moderate and 20 liberal.
Okay, so who bought all the ammo? Based on likelihood, conservatives bought a lot, some moderates bought a little, and liberals bought none. Broken down, every conservative bought at least 32 extra rounds for each liberal that didn't buy any.
So, Horst....maybe you shouldn't call us crazy. What if you're right?
No hard work?
Feed and care for horses year round.
Take care of the tack year round.
Work so I can pay vet and blacksmith bills, year round.
Make scouting trips to hunting areas-year round.
Care for,and set up large tents,a year round job.
Plan and pack for hunting trips.
Shop for food and all other camp needs.
Pay for tags for truck,horse trailer,hunting license fees.
Target shoot year round,to insure no animal is wounded,and has to suffer.
Pay for and maintain equipment to process game.
Pay for and maintain freezers to store processed game.
Pay extra taxes on ammunition which goes to wildlife conservation efforts,same as when I pay for hunting licenses.
Purchase and maintain firearms,which I pay more extra taxes on,which again go to wildlife conservation efforts.
After harvesting a deer,or an elk,field dress the animal,then drag it out of the woods,back to the camp,then process it partially,and transport it back to trailhead,after breaking down camp,packing horses,and loading gear into truck,horses into trailer,then make a trip to check the animal in with FWP.
Then drive home, unload and care for horses,unpack all gear,process and freeze the animal,then clean the rifle,before putting it back into gun safe.
No work involved????
"Ask these hunters if they would care about nature and wildlife if they weren't allowed to kill it."
Yes, I do care, and I support the conservation efforts of all animals, not just the few species which I hunt.
"That doesn't make sense to you because you refuse to acknowledge another side."
I acknowledge the other side,the problem is the other side is usually hostile, uses name calling,and refuses to accept that I have a right to hunt,just as you have a right to take pictures.
Hunters and fishermen/women have done far more for wildlife conservation than the "other side"ever has,or ever will.
And there's many people in 3rd word countries that are starving to death. You don't see people with guns going around putting them out of their misery to control their numbers and yes, these people are actually starving to death.
Jack replies: And ~that~ is the very best she can do, Dear Readers. Equating animals with people as if they are the same.
Seems there are a lot of people who disagree with that statement.
•12.5 million people 16 years old and older enjoyed hunting a variety of animals within the United States. They hunted 220 million days and took 185 million trips. Hunting expenditures totaled $22.9 billion.
•An estimated 10.7 million hunters pursued big game, such as deer and elk, on 164 million days.
•There were 4.8 million hunters of small game including squirrels and rabbits.
•They hunted small game on 52 million days and spent $2.4 billion on small game hunting trips and equipment.
•2.3 million hunted migratory birds such as doves or waterfowl
•1.1 million hunted other animals such as woodchucks and raccoons
http://www.fws.gov/hunting/huntstat.html
You still talk about how no one needs to hunt anymore, and that hunters aren't starving. I also agree that by and large, that is true. However, like I mentioned above, I don't see why you think it's morally superior to purchase ground beef from the supermarket after its been through the butcher factory than it is to, say, hunt pheasant and feed your family with it.
Are there people who hunt simply because they enjoy killing an animal for trophy? Yes, there are. I don't agree with that type of hunting. Admittedly, I don't have facts or numbers for this, but I really believe the people who do that are a much smaller population than people who hunt and actually use the animal for its food and skin. I say that only because in various articles about shooting that involve hunting I've run across, the vast majority acknowledge using the animal for food, etc. I'd also say there IS sport involved in hunting. True hunters are skilled in identifying and reading animal tracks, understanding animal behavior, trudging through difficult terrain, and avoiding being detected by an animal's superior senses of hearing, smell, and/or sight - in addition to the skills needed to accurate shoot a rifle. Now, if people are using those skills simply to kill animals and leave their carcasses, I don't support that action. I still think it's wrong to take a life like that simply because of pleasure. But, if it's along with legitimately using the animal to feed a family or to donate venison to the hungry (a popular program), I again don't see how that's in such a different league from anywhere else people get meat. By the way, I'm sure my girlfriend would probably really like what you stand for. I just don't personally agree with some of the logic you use to arrive to your conclusions.
@ jedediah, You seem to be the type of person who gladly ignores information, no matter how reasonable or accurate, if it conflicts whatsoever with your own feelings. You start off with namecalling - an extraordinarily common staple of the type of people I've seen more often than I can recount who don't have a real point backed up by logic to offer up - and then proceed to make a statement that is based on nothing except you.
I mean, in the one post in particular where I actually cited all my numbers, pretty much none of it was from sources that can with any integrity be called right wing crazies. The CDC and British Home Office are LEFT leaning, if anything. And the National Safety Council, FBI, BATFE, and Journal of Quantitative Criminology aren't on anyone's radar for being right-wing. The U.S. News & World Report probably tends to slightly lean right more often, but is mostly quite balanced.
Your entire point is based on nothing except your own willful ignorance. I'm probably the main person here who has listed sources of information, so I'm the about the only one your comment can definitively apply to, and I just showed how it's clearly false. I mean, I intentionally USED sources that COULDN'T be simply dismissed as blatantly right wing simply because I knew people like you wouldn't accept it. Of course, since logic is nowhere at the top of your list in priorities when trying to make a point, none of that matters to you.
Emotional rant -- check
Void of substance -- check
Name calling -- check
Another typical hat trick by another typical anti-freedom poster. It's almost like we pay them cash to prove we are right over and over again.
Probably learned that tactic from PETA
or Defenders of Wildlife
Or World Wildlife Fund
Or HSUS ( who's president's stated goal is that evryone become vegan)
Or The Center for Biologic Diversity
And she says I don't acknowledge the other side.
Yes, you did list sources,and everyone should agree, none
are considered right wing.
Thanks for putting forth the effort to list your sources.
If you had bothered to actually read my post, I have already been in a situation where what I was shooting at shot back, It was called the USMC, were you ever in the military,or did you choose not to serve your country?
"Mt. hunter, you did not answer my question. I GUARANTEE you you would not survive one day in the wild without one of your guns. I would also like you see you try and hunt without something that involves your trigger finger. You will most likely starve to death. I am not talking about any wild. I am talking about a wild in the middle of nowhere and a wild you are unfamiliar with."
Been there, done that. That is the idea when you go through a military survival course,you get dropped off,in the middle of nowhere,and have a specified amount of time to get to the extraction(pick up) point. They don't give you a gun,you get a map,a compass,and a canteen full of water,plus a knife.( now they get GPS)
As for the mountain lion thing,unlike the moron who was killed by the grizzlies that he thought he knew,and was safe around,I am not that stupid.
The other problem with your mountain lion scenario is that the mt.lion is armed, it has long sharp teeth, long sharp claws,and a bite force that is designed to break the neck of it's prey.
So, your little scene is far from based in any reality of a fair fight.
Other than that,I do not hunt just to "stuff animals", I eat what I hunt for,that is the idea. You just refuse to read what others post, or actually think about what they are saying,that is easy to see,due to your comment to me about only hunting so animals can be stuffed.
I think I am more likely to have to use the bear spray that I carry on some enviro-nazi,or whacko anti-hunter that I meet on a trail than I am on a bear.
No matter what we say, you insist we are wrong,and you are right.
What gives you the right to tell me what I can or can not do?
Painting with a really broad brush there aren't you?
I have lived in rural areas,and cities,I am currently in Ohio,due to having to come here for a surgery that could only be done by a certain Dr. who happens to be in Cleveland, Ohio. I am hoping to be home,and recovered in time for elk season.
I have family here,and have spent a lot of time in Cleveland so, that assumption is proven false,I survived far longer than 1 day in the city.
I have worked in a few cities,and been to a lot more when in the USMC,so your little comment is moot,and will be for most hunters.
All you use is your personal opinion,which you have the right to state,and all hunters have a right to consider the rantings of a liberal,enviro-nazi type.
All 12 million plus hunters,who still do more for wildlife conservation than "your side"
The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, commonly called the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, 9 provides federal funding to states for management and restoration of wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are generated by an 11-percent manufacturers' excise tax on sporting rifles, shotguns, ammunition, and archery equipment used in hunting, and by a 10 percent manufacturers' excise tax on handguns. The U.S. Treasury Department collects the taxes and transfers the money to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which may retain a portion of the funds for administrative services, then allocates the remainder to state wildlife agencies. States match Pittman Robertson funding with a 1/4 match ($1 of state money for every $4 of Pittman-Robertson funding).
Sales of hunting licenses and permits adds far more money for wildlife conservation.
How much do you contribute?
The numbers of young hunters are actually increasing now in many states.
The decline in tag sales is not due to less hunters,it is due to two things, 1 the economy,a lot of hunters can not afford the trips to other states now,and the second reason is the decline of some game species,in some areas,due to wildfires,and wolf,mountain lion,and bear predation.There is a third reason,some states,Idaho for one, priced their non-resident tags so high that it hurt sales.
Many states have seen an increase in the numbers of young hunters taking the various hunter safety courses required to obtain a hunting license.
Many hunting clubs,and sportsmens organizations are trying to introduce more young people to hunting.
My nephew,and several of his friends from school want me to teach them to hunt,and the officer from the Ohio DNR I talked to when they took the hunter safety course told me that this year,and last year,more kids were taking the course.
I think you will find that the number of hunters will go up this year.
"Another typical hat trick by another typical anti-freedom poster. It's almost like we pay them cash to prove we are right over and over again."
It is because they can not refute the facts presented to them,
which then makes them mad,and they post an emotional reply.
There is nothing else they can post,the anti-gun groups have no new distorted facts to publish,all of their mis-information has been proven false.
Membership is down in the anti-gun groups,the only "leaders"
they have now are mayor for life Bloomberg,and mayor Daly.
Bloombergs last few schemes were shot down by the politicians,
and Daly's new attempt at a gun ban is being decided in court.
But just because something FEELS wrong to those who choose to not accept the fact of existence doesn't mean it IS wrong, and then we must therefore compel others into action against their will because they don't feel the same thing as we do.
"We must therefore compel others into action against their will"
What gives you the right to impose your will on others?
Just because you feel that something is wrong,does not mean it is wrong.
You are simply trying to force your personal beliefs on others who do not agree with you.
Here is what they released in 07
Email Print U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — Feb. 1, 2007
NEWTOWN, Conn. — A new report shows 25 states performed better than the national rate in sales of hunting licenses, tags and stamps in 2005.
Altogether, national sales, the main funding mechanism for state conservation agencies, set a new record, topping $723 million. The 2005 figures, just released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, show total sales rose 2.8 percent from the previous year, while the number of customers slipped 1.4 percent, from 14.7 million to 14.5 million.
The total number of U.S. hunters, including both licensed and non-licensed, is estimated much higher than the 14.5 million acknowledged in the federal report.
The National Sporting Goods Association calculates 20.6 million active hunters. The Outdoor Industry Association's latest estimate surpasses 26 million. And in a new survey commissioned by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and conducted by independent firm Responsive Management, 19 percent of Americans, more than 50 million people, said they've hunted in the past two years.
Depending on local laws, non-licensed hunters may include:
• Young hunters who aren't yet required to buy a license.
• Hunters at wingshooting and other game preserves.
• Landowners hunting on their own property.
• . Lessees hunting on land where they reside.
• Active duty military on leave.
• Citizens who hunt only on free hunting days.
• Senior citizens no longer required to buy a license.
Since the economy went south,more people who live close to areas they can hunt are hunting. You also have to consider all those who do not need a license.
The 2006 report may not have had these figures,as USFWS
released this in 07.
The first 13 words are an absolute phrase (nominative absolute). This grammatical construct takes the form of an object which is not the subject of the sentence and a participial phrase. The remaining 14 words comprise the clause of the sentence.
Absolute phrases are non-restrictive and exist outside the grammar of the clause of the sentence. They do not act adjectively and do not create, modify, or limit the subject of the clause. Instead, they act adverbially through the verb and predicate of the sentence, providing background information about the action of the clause.
In this case the subject of the clause is "the right" which is modified to show it belongs to "the people" and then renamed as being that of "keep(ing) and bear(ing) arms".
The action of the clause is the prohibition against infringement.
Therefore, the first 13 words do not create, modify, or limit the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Instead, they give one reason why the right is not to be infringed.
The right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on participation in a militia.
All 12 million plus hunters,who still do more for wildlife conservation than "your side"
See, the difference between me and you hunters is that I want wildlife to be conserved so that people can witness wildlife. You people want to conserve wildlife so it can be shot. Now, tell me I am lying. Are you really going to act like pulling a trigger is a hard task? I've seen 10 years old hunt with guns, so please, don't act like it's this hard sport. Hunting a sport? Hunting is a sport for cowards.
Mt.hunter, I have no doubt in my mind that someone like you would literally starve to death if you were in some remote place where it was just you and you had no access to guns. Catching animals and killing them would be a task you are incapable of doing. You would be dead meat without one of your guns and I be
By hunters are cowards, 8-14-10
believe deep down you know this. And to assume killing is a sport, really makes me question your sanity. Hunting was meant to put food on the table. I don't see where the sport comes from when you are basically all you are doing is pulling your trigger finger. Maybe people like you like to call it a sport because you were terrible at real sports.
Can't you read? Yes, I can survive in the wilderness,anywhere,without a gun.
I eat the meat from the animals I shoot.
I bowhunt.
I completed the following US military survival "schools"...
Desert survival
Mountain survival
Winter survival
I would not be capable of catching animals and killing them? What planet are you living on? I have spent time outdoors for my entire life, I can track animals,I know how to make and set a snare,and many other types of traps,make a spear,a bow and arrows,that is part of survival.
I played soccer,and football in high school, and was 1st string.
Your saying "someone like you" when you have no clue who I am,or what I have done during my lifetime,shows you know nothing about me.
There is a lot more involved in hunting than pulling the trigger.
There are many hours spent scouting the area,and I already listed the rest for you,but it did not matter, you just continue with the personal attacks,and name calling.
Just because you personally do not like hunting does not mean the 12-20 million people who do hunt are wrong.
Regardless of your personal opinion,I will continue to hunt,as will the rest of the hunters.
We try to manage the species we hunt so there is a sustainable population, and we can harvest some each year.
Hunters contribute a few billion dollars to the state of Montana's economy each year.
You photograph wildlife that is there due to our contribution to wildlife management.
You will never force your opinions or views about hunting on me,and you have no right to do so. If you do not agree with hunting,then do not hunt,those that want to hunt,will hunt,and you still have no right to force anyone to stop hunting because you do not like the sport.
Once again,you do not answer the question could you survive, so that makes you the coward.
Or maybe you were no good at real sports.
Killing is not a sport,and I am not the one who assumed it was.
You are the coward,for refusing to consider anything said by others.
You want it your way, or no way, and you want to force your personal beliefs on others....who the heck do you think you are?
Who,or what gives you the right to tell others what they can and can not do?
Who says you are right,and I am wrong?
Hunting is a legal sport, if you don't like it, do not go in the backcountry during hunting season,or just mind your own buisiness,and let the hunters hunt,and we will do the same,and not bother you while youn are taking pictures.
Just so you know,it is illegal,and punishable by fines and jail time to interfere with a hunter who is legally pursuing game.
That law was enacted to protect hunters from anti-hunters.
I have passed on shots I would have taken when I was younger,too close to dark,too far from camp,etc.
There is much hard work involved,as you know, some
people will just never understand that,no matter how
many times it is explained to them,like the anti-hunter here,who calls all hunters cowards.
Just being outside,is good, the hiking is good,seeing animals
is good,it is all a part of the sport. Getting older does tend to make us wiser in some ways,like not taking the shot that will have us tracking,field dressing and quartering an elk in the dark,snow,rain,wind,sleet,or dragging it uphill for a couple hours.
Mickey, please tell me where I can get a whole butchered cow for less than $65. I'll go for that.
Jed, you are 100% right.
@jed,
I am unimpressed with your obvious and blatant inability to read ANY of the associated posts above yours for their actual content, because then you would have been able to see that what you wrote is not applicable to pretty much anyone on the side that supports hunting.
But, congratulations on being the next in a long and inevitable line of people who are completely incapable of substantiating their opinion with reasoned argument, or to comment in context of legitimately answering the points presented contrary to yours after having legitimately read and understood them.
I'm thinking maybe the reason those on the pro-responsible gun ownership side are so adamant, so well-informed, so thoroughly-reasoned, researched, and thought out, and so willing to put as much time and effort into repeatedly detailing the rationality of their side is because THEY are not the ones who decided in life they wanted to compel others to conform to THEIR way of living by force. THEY have to fight back with well-organized, documented, irrefutable answers in order to preserve the way THEY choose to live.
The ones who want to take the liberties away from me don't have to work as hard, because I have never spent a day in my life conjuring up an exhaustive list of emotional reasons made up of widely-unchallenged falsehoods and exaggerations to take something of theirs by force.
Thanks for the article Bob. Got alot of guardhairs up on the back of my fricken neck!
If you would have read an earlier post of mine, you'd see why even if you don't take the Second Amendment in its proper and historical context when it was written, it doesn't matter what it says. The Bill of Rights was adopted as an extra measure to reiterate what the government cannot interfere with or take away. The way our republic was founded, however, is on the principle that the government isn't allowed to impose its will unless specifically enumerated anyway. Even if the Bill of Rights didn't exist, we would STILL have the freedom of speech, freedom against unwarranted searches and seizures, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, freedom to possess arms, amongst obvious others.
However, that being said, your comment is again based on your opinion, presenting no actual lucid argument, and completely ignoring the many, many well-thought out discussions prior that give extremely valid reasons for gun ownership.
Ok. So therefore, whatever view one takes of the Second Amendment, the government has still no legitimate right to remove a free and law abiding citizen's ability to gun ownership. I guess now I don't see where the disagreement is.
Jack replies: psssst...mickey... he was posting about ~you~ and your contempt for the 2nd Amendment... not his.
Going back to his Dead Head deal , Jerry has been dead for 16 years . Dude you live in Missoula you are a bleeding heart liberal and dont know the Dead what ? You are like 60 years dude . Get with it or rather your blinders have been on for so long and its too late . You dont get it do you ? You consider yourself some tongue in cheek writer who writes for a 2 bit slanted e rag .
You think you are hip because you wrote about Lady GaGa because your kid likes it . Wait what you are breeding ?
Just because you are writer doesnt really make you funny or original .
I forgot this is New Worst, crap spewing , never do anything cool or fun , e rag . You losers might as well live in some big city , you dont even know about your backyard . Write about something other than road biking or guns control or real estate or wolves . Write about the west and all the cool shit around here , not some shit slinging I'm smarter than you fest .
Its hard to be a true original in 2010 show us your enlightenment , why you are smarter than me . Show me originality, how your life experiences in the West have made you a true free thinker outside party lines . Show us something cool , a 20 inch trout , a fresh powder line ,a backcountry road to a ghost town , anything other than what New West brings to the table .
Unite us rather than divide us . Quit playing the pawn of the puppet masters . The world is fucked as it is . You either add to it or subtract from it .
Signed
A guy who votes Republican , has no guns and has seen 25 Dead shows . Hows that for original ? FOOLz .
Cant fake originality .
Hmm....I'm having a hard time deciphering what that grammatically-challenged fella's point actually is. He's unhappy about something, he's a fan of the Grateful Dead, and... apparently writing a satirical article makes you a pawn of the puppet masters? I'll have to keep that in mind. I wouldn't someday want to have a great idea to write down using a sarcasm-based literary skill and suddenly find myself being manipulated by an unknown force out there somewhere.
I'll bet you had no idea the full impact of the world-fucking you were doing when you wrote this article? Well, don't worry, that guy's there to incoherently tell you all about it.
I am gu;essing you are:
1. A junior in lhigh school.
2. A sophomore in college. or
3. A first year grad student. Other people's opinions are your key to unlocking the world's mysteries, eh?
1. A junior in lhigh school.
2. A sophomore in college. or
3. A first year grad student. Other people's opinions are your key to unlocking the world's mysteries, eh?"
When you run out of facts, you just head for the old ad hominem.
"“Fighting dishonesty with dishonesty is sometimes the right thing for advocates to do, yes,”
They are so eager in their own heart to use dishonesty it makes them think everyone else is just like them. That's how they justify it so easily.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/13/liberal-blogger-matt-yglesias-advocates-lying-on-twitter/
Nope. Your attempts at mischaracterizing someone who disagrees with you in order to undercut a different point of view while providing no fact or reasoned argument of your own is the same exact M.O. that has not worked and will continue to not work. Of course, it seemed natural because it's far from the first time it's been done in this thread alone.
And it's not simply other peoples' opinions. If you'd take a look, there's plenty of facts and numbers throughout the thread. The main difference, though, is that some people resort to name-calling, emotional appeals based on feelings alone, and a desire to counter a legitimate discussion with conjecture and closed-mindedness.
The "peoples' opinions" you refer to in the context of my comment are the rational arguments and discussions, rooted in logic and critical thought. There is a world of difference between relying on actual reasoned thought to make a point (which I do), and relying on invective and a willful disregard for evidence while making an opinion, which is the precise thing I (and many others) have been trying to counter.
But again, as though it's from a textbook for anti-liberty, pro-controlling-others-who-don't-share-my-opinion ideology, you successfully avoided a rational discussion again, and went straight for incorrect conclusions about another person's character.
You made a quick comment that misrepresented what the vast majority of the discussion those people you disagree with said.
I pointed out that your comment doesn't make sense in the context of what others posted, and that if you would have really read and paid attention to their posts you could not draw the conclusion that these people simply "kill for fun."
Your response was to make a derisive comment about who I am and assume that all I must do is fawn over others' opinions. Meanwhile, all I did was indicate why your initial opinion putting down OTHERS' opinions wouldn't have made sense if you had thoroughly paid attention to most of them.
Your response to me ignores the point of what I was saying, and just doesn't make sense. Essentially you're saying you have the right to make an opinion and judge other people, but when I point out that it doesn't logically follow what they wrote (or at a minimum makes significant leaps in drawing conclusions), it's ME who can't think for myself.
"I am unimpressed by people who demand the right to kill for fun"
So am I.
I do not know anyone who kills for fun.
I do not know anyone who demands the right to kill for fun either.
Yet again, you prove that you do not bother to read what others have posted,you just continue to say hunting is just "killing",
while not stopping to consider the reasons that others hunt.
You continue to try and force your personal beliefs on others,
to try and get them to conform to your way of life,while forcing them to change their way of life.
When you can not refute facts that are posted,you go back to name calling and personal insults.
Hunting is a sport-get over it.
Hunting is legal-get over it.
Very few hunters hunt just to "stuff animals"
Every hunter I know eats the meat from the game they harvest.
No hunter I know tries to force non hunters to hunt.
No hunter I know kills an animal for "fun".
All of the accusations you have made about hunters have been proven to be false,facts have been presented to you by several posters,and you choose to ignore them.
"The license is the least of the costs of shooting a deer. If you butcher the deer yourself, you can butcher the cow yourself. The real bottom line is how much is the meat per pound counting labor, equipment, and fuel. As you well know, there is a hell of lot more meat on the cow."
Actually, most hunters already have the equipment,and have had it for years,there is a big difference between butchering a deer by yourself,and a cow by yourself. To butcher a cow takes far more equipment,a hoist that is far larger than a small deer/elk gambrel,
and you can not saw through cattle bones easily with a hand saw.
Venison is far cheaper per pound, the deer or elk is feeding itself all year, not being fed with food that you have to buy.
It is not going to use any fuel if you hunt your own property,and is not going to use any extra,because just by driving to the area that is hunted,you already used fuel,it isn't going to take more by adding the weight of a deer,or an elk to the truck and /or trailer.
And more importantly,venison is far healthier of a meat than beef,lees fat,less cholesterol.
It costs far more per pound for beef,and it is not practical to butcher cattle by yourself,and is not legal in many states.
Those of us hunters who grew up on farms or ranches,or lived in rural areas,knew how to butcher game animals by the time we were in our early teens,and some of us had grinders,meat saws,knives etc. handed down to us from parents or grandparents.
My family always sent our cattle out to a butcher to be processed,same with hogs,too difficult to do without speciaized,very expensive equipment. The butchers charge a higher rate per pound to process beef than they do for deer/elk.
I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago with multiple large grocery stores within 15 minutes, went to school in a well-populated area of the East Coast, and wouldn't even know where to find an actual butcher that isn't a supermarket deli.
Since I haven't lived your lifestyle and don't know about it, I'm going to assume you're a backward quasi-neanderthal and I assume the only reason you don't agree with my opinion is because I haven't berated you with it enough times for it to sink in.
I understand you have presented instances that make your comment seem like it comes out of actually having lived that life, and what you say SEEMS like it's fairly factual and logical. However, because I don't know for sure, I'm going to assume you're wrong. In fact, I'm pretty sure you run around shooting kittens with semi-automatic, bolt-action super bazookas that you can buy for 2.99 during the blue light special at your special Hick Mart, and that instead of ruining the tender kitten meat by eating it, you simply stack them in large piles in front of your house to show off to the rest of your backwards friends.
I'd say correct me if I'm wrong, but I won't listen anyway. But I DO hope you comment again, because I have other names I'd like to call you and other things I'd like to say and judgments I'd like to pass that don't actually address your posts. Plus, I assume everybody knows I must be right, because I think so.
The "super bazooka" ammo was gittin too 'spensive,
I went back to military surplus tracer ammo for my Browning .50 cal. belt fed machine gun, got me that at Joe-Bob's Army Navy and gun store along I-10 in AZ.
The local Chinese take-out place likes the kittens better when I shoot 'em with the .50,pre-tenderized,and partway cooked when they buy 'em. ( the stink from the piles of dead kittens was gittin to be too much)
I'm tryin ta git the city ta let me call my new store ATF but they keep givin me a hard time, no matter how many time I 'splain ta dem dummies that ATF is a great name for a convienence store...Alcohol, Tobacca 'n Firearms,all in one store, how much more convienient can ya git?
That sound about right?
Seems like that's how some people just know I have to be like in person.
Very few hunters hunt just to "stuff animals"
You are clearly out of touch with reality or maybe you are too ignorant to realize what is going on.
Is hunting a sport? Killing is not a sport. I wonder if you would consider it a sport if someone with a gun came after you to hunt you. You live in Ohio.
No hunter kills for fun? That is a blatant lie. It's obvious you don't know very many hunters. Just because your "friends" don't do it doesn't mean that others don't do it. You are out of touch with reality. Get a clue.
Some hunters do indeed kill for fun/sport/pleasure
There is no denying this. Just because you have a few friends who don't hunt for sport does not mean others hunters don't. A real hunter also doesn't consider hunting a sport as it is considered a means to put food on the table. If you believe it is a sport, would you call it a sport if a grizzly bear mauled you almost to death? People who call it a sport are usually the ones who sucked at real sports. Killing is and will never be considered a sport. If you truly believe it is a sport, your mind is warped and you have a few screws loose.
No, I don't live in Ohio, I am here because I am going through a series of surgeries. I told you I was in Ohio,not that I live here.
I have a daughter who lives here,and some other relatives.
Like I told you In a previous post, my family has had land in NW Montana since the 1800's,which is where I live,and where another of our daughters is right now,because the horses need cared for,
and someone has to take care of the property. I will be home,hopefully by elk season.
"You are clearly out of touch with reality or maybe you are too ignorant to realize what is going on."
"Is hunting a sport? Killing is not a sport. I wonder if you would consider it a sport if someone with a gun came after you to hunt you. You live in Ohio."
"No hunter kills for fun? That is a blatant lie. It's obvious you don't know very many hunters. Just because your "friends" don't do it doesn't mean that others don't do it. You are out of touch with reality. Get a clue."
Yet again, personal attacks,and the incorrect assumption that you are right.
You show yet again that you are ignorant,you don't "know"
what hunters do,you just make assumptions.
That shows that you are "out of touch with reality"
Hunting is a sport,killing is not a sport.
You are the one who needs to get a clue!
Once again, I've been shot at,have you?
Or did you choose not to serve your country?
Now, you are suggesting that people come after me,with guns, to hunt me? Who is "out of touch with reality"?
I am ignorant? Seems I will at least listen to what others have to say, not just call them names,and use personal insults.
"No hunter kills for fun? That is a blatant lie. It's obvious you don't know very many hunters"
The blatant lie is that you pretend to know hunters,or what they do,or the reasons they hunt,all of your comments concerning hunters are straight from anti-hunting literature,with the exception of the personal insults.
More personal insults, "real sports have nothing to do with why people hunt.
Hunting and killing are not the same thing.
People who get mauled by grizzlies have nothing to with hunting.
I eat what I hunt,so that can be called putting food on the table.
You are just so against hunting that you can not see the other side of the issue.
"If you truly believe it is a sport, your mind is warped and you have a few screws loose"
Killing is not a sport
Hunting is a sport,no matter what your personal opinion is.
There is far more to hunting than just "pulling the trigger" as you said,it takes a lot of effort,a lot of hard work,you just refuse to see that.
You say that you photograph wildlife,well anyone can do that,just walk around the woods and tale some pictures, no work,just walk around with a camera,then sell the pictures.
Is that a fair description of your photography?
No, the accusations were not, and are not true. There are some who do not enjoy the taste of wild game, and they either donate the venison to hunger programs,or give it to friends,the meat from the animal is used,that is the point.
Yes, there are some "slob" hunters, who leave trash, hunt from trucks,spotlight animals,or worse, these people are not hunters,they are criminals.
That is the difference, that you do not seem to get, these people are criminals.They are not hunters,and do not represent hunters,
they give all hunters a bad name,and should be in prison.
Those are the people you have a problem with, but you choose to believe it is all hunters,when it is not hunters at all,hunters turn these people in to the state game agencies.
Sorry, but hunting is not a sport. Hunting INVOLVED KILLING just incase you are unaware of this. If you want to hunt for food, fine, but to call it a sport is laughable. The blatant lie is that you refuse to admit that there are infact hunters out there who actually hunt for sport/pleasure/fun. You call hunting a sport, but what if a grizzly or mt. lioned mauled you almost to death? Would you still consider it a sport almost after you were mauled to death? It's only a sport if you kill, but not the other way around when animals kill right? REAL sports don't involve killing and they sure as hell don't involve guns. Now if a grizzly mauled you or hunted you, would you consider that sport?
If it were humans they were shooting would it be called sport? NO!
Its a power trip of some inadequate humans over a defenceless species.
If the animals were able to shoot back, then that would be more sporting
You're still not making actual arguments with thoughtful replies. How can you say nobody can afford to hunt for sustenance anymore? People DO it. Isn't that evidence? Maybe there aren't people who hunt for a living and their only source of income, but there are certainly people who hunt to feed themselves and their families.
And as for enjoying the faux spotlight I'm focusing on myself? What spotlight? I'm not just posting things for my benefit. This is something I'm truly concerned with, and I don't consider it a spotlight when a half a dozen people quasi-read what I post in the comments section of an article. I post replies to things I strongly feel are incorrect, unreasonable, or unjust. And I honestly feel a strong compulsion to point out when people convey thoughts that seem irrational and illogical - especially when ultimately they'd like it to be at the expense of how other people are allowed to live their lives.
You have to be honest with yourself: 2 out of 4 of your posts have been more based on personal attacks instead of legitimate content. Your first post was your own belief that wasn't consistent with the actual reasons people had given, and the other was another comment that can't be substantiated by anything to which I replied to in the first paragraph above. I don't comment here to feed a desire to argue; I'm actually a non-confrontational person. I just have a hope that people on the fence of the issue will see which side fact-based discussion and logic comes from, and which side personal attacks and assumption comes from.
My brother, who has little tolerance for religion, would often ask me when the "fun"dametalists got alittle to carried away, shouting about God given rights "Where the hell are the lions when you really need them?"
The "men" who assembled the Constitution and The Bill of Rights had no inkling of what life would actually be like 50 years later or 200 hundred years later. Its time to start taking that into consideration..........
themselves and their families.</quote> I call BS on that one.
Lets see a little credible evidence.
Jack replies: I guess I must be smarter than a fifth grader. I actually know about the process the founding fathers put into the Constitution to make changes. It's call the "amendment process" and we've had quite a number over the years. Its time Nancy started taking that into consideration..........
Lets see a little credible evidence.
Jack replies: Errrr... horst, ol' buddy. It was the anti-hunters who FIRST claimed that no one hunted for substance. YOU are the ones who have the burden of proof.
And just what do you think those hunters do with the animal? Leave it out in the field to rot?
...
In ADDITION to the people who on this very thread do exactly what you "call BS" on, and have explained it themselves, a quick count shows at least 30+ states that have Hunters Helping the Hungry program that contributes to food banks to feed the poor.
Now, I'm finding a hard time finding statistics or data that have anything to do with how many people hunt for food one way or the other. However, there are plenty of websites dedicated to discussing how to dress an animal after shooting it to prepare it for food. The Centers for Disease Control even has information on properly preparing game to eat. I don't come from a hunting family, so I couldn't tell you that X number out of so many hunters in the family have freezers specifically for venison or whatever.
If you search the internet, there are many discussions that certainly indicate there are plenty of people that hunt for meat (now, I'm not saying they don't also enjoy hunting - that's not the point here).
However, your comment insinuates that you don't believe anybody hunts for food. That seems astronomically less likely than the alternative. Otherwise, there's a lot of information available on game freezers, preparing game, how many people a deer will feed, health benefits for and against certain game, and so on and so forth for there to not be anyone hunting to feed themselves.
Now, if you mean you don't think there's anyone hunting whose SOLE source of food comes from what they hunt - well, that I'd take a pretty good wager is true. I have no numbers to prove one way or the other, but I'd have a very hard time believing there's anyone in this country today that relies only on what they can hunt to eat. But are there people who supplement the food they have with fresh, unprocessed meat they hunt? Of course there are.
You are correct that the Founders couldn't have imagined everything that has happened in the 200+ years since ratifying the Constitution. However, they knew they wouldn't be able to, and created a document that accounted for that. The overarching principle of the Constitution is a limited government that has certain explicit functions, and serves to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens. That concept doesn't change, regardless of how much time passes. That's the point of the document.
Jack mentions the amendment process, and what he says is true. Because the Founders knew that circumstances and events beyond their imaginations would require occasional changes, they created that Amendment process. They created it so that it would be difficult to change, in order that no controlling person or party could draft their own vision of the Constitution at their whim, or monopolize their temporary power. Whether it's the Federalists, Anti-federalists, Whigs, Greenbacks, Republicans, or Democrats...it's difficult to change the Constitution without vast popular appeal. But the Amendment process exists solely for the reason you said - which makes the Constitution perfectly relevant.
"....This is not about those who enjoy wild game. It's about those who hunt for sport/fun...."
Actually, it's about guns, not just hunting or killing.
"...... REAL sports don't involve killing and they sure as hell don't involve guns......".
What's that olympic sport where they shoot while skiing? And what about cowboy shoots and just plain shooting competitions all over the country? There are plenty of sports that involve guns. Do you understand that there are lots of veterans who hunt? Why would you insult people who risked their lives to defend your freedom by calling them cowards because they engage in a practice that you don't approve of?
Your hysterical rants make you sound like a thirteen year old girl who just found out that her blue nail polish is more purple than blue.
@ Nancy: The bill of rights was written to prevent the government from denying us our "GOD given" or "natural born" rights or how ever you wish to state it. As stated in numerous posts above, it doesn't give us any rights, it protects us from the government taking away what we already have by default.
Our founding fathers knew that if our rights weren't protected, some tyrant would come along 50, 200, a thousand years later and take them away from us.
So The "men"(??) who assembled the Constitution and The Bill of Rights certainly had more than an inkling of what life would actually be like 50 years later or 200 hundred years later.
I appreciate that most of your comments are at least thought out and civil. I think you make some good points discussing the economics of hunting. I still think your comment about the Second Amendment was off track, but I'm grateful that you actually seem interested in exchanging ideas and reasoned debate that isn't just an attack on others.
Jack replies: Have you always been this judgmental about other people or is this a recent development in your life?
Personally I think that people who have to view the world thru a camera lens like you do must have severe problems relating to the real, actual world in front of them... Since I believe that it must be true.
There is nothing wrong with disapproving of hunting, and one is certainly within their rights if they don't think the skills that go into it are considered a sport.
However, once again, it's impossible to steer away from those broad, character-attacking statements: "People who shoot guns and consider it a sport do so because they were terrible at REAL SPORTS plain and simple."
I mean, come on. You KNOW that you have no information to back this up, and if you thought about it, even without a list, you could probably realize that there are most likely professional athletes who are paid because of their proficiency at their chosen sport. You said that simply out of contempt for other peoples' choices regardless of the truth.
I think you might be a bit hesitant to tell Bo Jackson, Chipper Jones, Brett Favre, Kevin Gross, Walter Payton, Barry Bonds, Shaquille O'neal, Michael Strahan, Karl Malone, et. al. to their faces that they are terrible at "real sports." (I guess here I'm assuming that between football, baseball, and basketball, you consider at least ONE a real sport).
Here's the thing: I don't take exception to anyone's opinion simply because it's different from mine. I take exception when they then try to force someone to change other people's behavior or condemn their opinions without factual reason, and I take exception to blatant falsehoods that get rattled off as truth simply to put down the other side. You take away any legitimate argument you may have by posting something so easily recognized as angry opinion and so easily debunked.
Some may eat what they kill; and they may even enjoy it--even prefer it to beef or pork, etc. Some may give it to food banks.
But if they need food there are far more inexpensive ways to get it than hunting.
You are trying to blow smoke up our skirts...
No, I'm not trying to blow smoke up anyone's skirt or be disingenuous or misleading in anyway. The way you phrased it, it seemed as though you didn't realize people hunted and ate what they killed.
And you know what? I mostly agree with your statement there. Most everything about it is perfectly reasonable, and I wish you would have said it that way initially. I also think that probably (and I don't know this for sure), for the majority of people, there are certainly cheaper ways to get food. But I'm not willing to say "nobody" because there's over 300 million people in this country, and I think it's very unlikely to say "nobody" for just about anything and be accurate. I think there probably are a few people out there who actually hunt mainly for food, and I think that in the right circumstances it could be cheaper to get that much food out of one animal (you can get a lot of meat off a deer) than it would be to buy the equivalent amount at the grocery store. Plus, other than cost, I'd bet (again, don't know, but it really seems likely) that there are some people out there who choose to eat what they hunt more than store-bought meat due to lack of processing, and having fresh, healthy meat.
But I think most of what you said is accurate. To me, that's reason enough for a validity to hunting. I can completely understand why some people might not like it, and why in the age when most people live in urban or suburban areas and might not want to visualize where meat actually comes from, more and more people will choose to never hunt themselves. That's all fine to me. I just think it's untrue for people to say there are NO valid reasons for hunting. It seems like it's just a question of where on the spectrum of "completely against" to "completely for" you place your own opinion on the validity of hunting - but even for the most ardent anti-hunters, it's hard to argue that poor people without other sources of food actually having healthy fresh meat donated could be a bad thing.
But if they need food there are far more inexpensive ways to get it than hunting.
Jack Replies: And isn't it amazing, folks, that people who never shot a gun, who are dreadfully afraid of guns, who only barely know which end the bullet comes out of, are somehow the people to whom we should get our information from about hunting and hunters?
While we simple-minded, misguided, befuddled people with decades of hunting experience, knowing hunters, and working with hunters are just misgiuded and ignorant about the whole subject of hunting.
I can state with certainty that I know a number of hunters who count upon those deer each season to provide meat on the table for the family through otherwise lean winters. Subsistence hunting has always been alive and well here in the states.
Like they say: When you're sick you go to a car mechanic; when you're in court you need a butcher; and when you want to know something about hunting, you go to Mr. Horst.
I butchered it by splitting it lengthwise, and I gutted it with an ice cream scoop. I chopped some Wally Two sweet onion, half a green pepper, two small stalks of celery, didn't have any bread crumbs so I used a cup of oat bran instead, teaspoon and a half of sodium chloride with iodine, half of one of those skinny small cans of tomato paste, a jumbo egg, quarter cup of milk, a goodly shot of black pepper, and mixed it all with a half pound of sweet pork sausage and a pound of elk burger, and filled the zucchini gut cavity to heaping, and laid the two halves, skin side down, in a 9x12 no stickum pan with an inch of water in it, and put those puppies in a 350 degree oven for 45 minutes. Oh, so good. That's what happens when you kill a bull zucchini and have some elk burger left from last year, and some store bought pork sausage. Hmmmm. I froze the left over meat loaf makings, and the wife and I cut one of the halves in two, and that was dinner on a hot evening. The other half is lunch tomorrow. And she quizzed me about the zucchini in the hashbrowns this morning. One small zuke and one large red spud fresh dug, with some WallyTwo onion, in the pig meat grease, and boy, oh how do you do!!!! We are going to eat zucchini every day until the frosts come. And some after that. I just shred it on a no stickum baking sheet and pop it in the freezer, and an hour later scrape the OreZuky hashgreens in a freezer bag for winter. Sport hunting zucchini everyday. Two plants is all I have.
But, the zukes put me in the quandary of having to try to bag some more venison this fall. Need the burger next summer for the zucchini onslaught. I sport hunt zukes with shears. You can use a knife, or a .22 might shoot the stems off nicely. It is the human blood lust in me. The blood sport gene. The urge to kill animals large and small. Better that than lip torturing some poor fish. Or being a bicycle seat sniffing poof from town with my log brand around his neck and a Hope and Change bumper sticker. It takes a lot of courage to sneak on a zuke plant looking for one of those alligator zukes hiding in the foliage. Them dudes 'll take your arm off!!! And I have no guilt cutting off those porn star cucumbers, either. Those looooonggggg ones with the upstanding curvature. No cuke genes in my family. Next year I will go for self esteem, and plant Boston Pickling cucumbers. And some of the fartless ones. The yellow orbs of no burp.
I will plant a better spud crop next year, but no matter what you grow, the need for some protein other than beans means killing birds, mammals, and fish. Just how it all works out. I don't want to be a vegan, one of those skinny yellow tinted skin guys with the little pot belly cutting those long farts every five minutes into a pair of ill fitting pants with sandals below them and a tie dyed shirt with "Make Love not War" printed on it. Like, is that a uniform or something? So common. That and the heavy black rim glasses and the little square Nazi fatigue hat and the ubiquitous back pack. Does someone make them pull inspection every day? Black pants. check. Black coat. check. Maroon scarf. check. Black back pack. check. Black rimmed glasses. check. fingerless gloves. check. Intern ID on rope around neck. check. Olive green square Nazi ball cap. check. Ipod in ears..check...riding a bicycle and texting in traffic. check.. And then they stop for some coffee and bitch about red necks, intolerant people, and aiding the poor until they can get in law school.
Gee. I sound like a progressive anti hunter environmental zealot with a modicum of leftist political views. So predictable. So predictable. I want a FRESH idea in this discussion. Someone put forth a fresh idea, something new. I'll throw one out. I think the path to peace is to issue an automatic rifle, a case of ammo, and a box of bombs to every kid born in a third world country every day. Few will be around to to make life miserable for others after age fifteen. They will solve their own problems and won't be asking others to, or be trying to foist their ideas on others. Population control by peers. Too many guns is not the problem. Too few guns is the problem. Too few guns and too many people.
But the fact is, that killing animals is fun. Okay, not "fun" fun, like an amusement park ride, but rather it satisfies some innate and natural blood lust that is deep in our nature, that some of us would rather deny. We exist solely because our ancestors were tremendous hunters. Humans would not exist on the planet if we did not have this blood lust.
When you look at wolves hunting, you can see palpable joy when they make their kill, whether or not they actually use the meat. You can actually see this same kind of blood lust in the actions of our own dogs chasing squirrels. You can teach a dog not to chase and kill certain animals, but you can't take away the part of a dog that would experience joy with a successful hunt. It is in the nature of a carnivore. As it is with us.
So yes I hunt and I enjoy the kill. I am civilized so I never kill for anything other than food, but that is a construct of a more recent civilizing of our species rather than some innate urge for restraint. We are a lot more like animals than many would like to admit. Including hunters and anti-hunters.
Those same veterans are the reason you can post your stream of anti-hunting comments,and personal insults and attacks on this site. No one who has been to war can be considered to "suck at real sports", all lived through a war zone, which involves a lot of running,jumping,crawling,and other physical activity,that was the main reason they survived the war.
So, no, they do not suck at real sports, fighting for your life,while serving your country,is far above any organized sport in importance.
So,by your logic, all veterans who hunt are cowards?
They served their country,did you?
jack replies: Yeppers... you do "view." It's all emotion with you. No logic... no fact... no reasoning. Your "view" is all-absorbing and nothing that anyone who actually knows about the subject reports is ever going to get in the way of your "view."
And since all these millions of hunters live next door to other people, have brothers, sisters, and cousins, co-workers, and friends who know they are not the killing psychopaths that you label them... the greater population laughs at your "view" because they know that it is simply false.... kind of like we laugh at flat-earthers and their "view."
I own more guns than just about anyone I know and I thought the article was funny as could be.
And I fail to see how comment on the article as it was written turned into the whole ugly diatribe against hunters. Seriously off topic.
Funny article Bob. Just shake off the spanking you're getting in the comments. Carry on.
I inherited my mauser from my uncle who broought it home from the war, my wife bought her .243 back in the seventies, we have enough ammo to last the rest of our life, we don't wear camo underwear or use camo toothpaste or camo binoculars. We jump in the truck and drive 20 miles up the canyon and wait for a deer to come along. How is that more expensive than driving 30 miles to walmart and buying meat?
And ~this~ is the very best they can do, Dear Readers. Confirming everything that has been noted about the anti-freedom people's inability to rationally discuss issues such as firearms.
Thank you, poster. I can sense great joy in the Force as thousands leave your side and come to the light because of your efforts. Who wants to stand next to someone like you anyway?
"And I fail to see how comment on the article as it was written turned into the whole ugly diatribe against hunters. Seriously off topic."
It turned into the hatred against hunters due to the posts by "hunters are cowards"
In my first reply to this person, I stated that the article was not about hunting, but the attacks against hunters continued,and two others jumped in on the anti-hunting side.
That would be how the discussion degraded.
I laughed and laughed, thanks. Didn't read all the comments, people want to write a book make thier own dogone blog.
In answer to your question why I own guns it's cause I like shooting big animals, and that's about it.
PS you can keep your wolves.
If you read the posts above (I know...there are a lot), you'll see that there are many documented facts and well-reasoned, rational, thought-out arguments on the pro-responsible gun ownership side. Just as often, you'll find that the name-calling ("these gun nuts"), and incorrect conclusions drawn from emotion instead of fact comes from the anti-gun side.
I'm not saying you'll change your mind, but to make the statement you did and make a willful decision to NOT truly understand the other side while making sweeping, incorrect judgments against it just perpetuates ignorance.
The first 50-60% of the comments - before it started going into the topic of hunting - proves my point.
Yes, I'd agree with that to an extent. However, I'm not really talking about high-level beliefs based in some existential arena. In the context of most of these discussions, one can pretty easily distinguish a coherent argument that uses pretty plain logic from an argument that consists largely of accusations, name-calling, or unsubstantiated statements. In this circumstance, I'm considering the arguments rooted in logic and fact those of "rationality."
But yeah, you do have a point.
The Second Amendment does not, and never will, protect individual gun owners. And that's the way it should be. Read your constitution, people!
-Jon Cheever
We, the people of the USA, have to sit down someday and discuss what public education did to young men in the last three decades, and then go figure out how to turn that around.
You can't place young males in an public education system that is geared to a developing female brain, taught by a developed female brain, all the while not taking into account the differences in development between males and females, in their brains, bodies, and emotions.
What we have allowed socialist education to create is a public school system that offers the adolescent boy few pleasures, and lots of mental and emotional pain as he tries to fit his square peg into a round hole, all too often unsuccessfully. As girls whiz by, lauded and praised for their successes, boys try hard to catch up, keep up, and if they detect that it just might never work out, they quit. Somewhere between age 12 and 14 they just quit trying. They get no reward for their efforts because they are trying to run a race that was designed for fillies. And guess what? Gangs offer everything public school does not. Action. Rewards. Excitement. Physical outlets. Fights and dominance displays. All an abomination to women, and women run schools and school districts. Many of them have no connection to males, preferring females in all aspects of their lives. Theirs is a tolerance of males because they are there. Their affections and interests are in female students.
The reason the inner city gender separated, uniformed school boy succeeds is because he is in an environment that is tuned to male needs, progresses at a pace male brains can process, and the outlets for aggression, dominance, attention, are all there in a much more controlled atmosphere. They work like a gang but with socially acceptable goals as the outcome. Think about it.
Guns are not the problem when you have all this violent behavior. Guns are merely the weapon of choice, and the end results are going to be about the same no matter how the battles are fought on the street. Kids wearing their form of uniforms are going to express their frustrations with their lot in the world by affecting displays of dominance, and will fight to the death to carry out their dominance. Schools once were taught by males, and strong men were able role models and "smokers" and after school brawls settled many a problem. A good poke in the nose, and some aggressors find another line of expression. But in today's school, two boys trade blows, and both are expelled, many times never to come back. Send the problem to someone else. Slough off the problem to another agency.
But when someone like me makes these kind of assertions, all I ever see in rebuttal is accusations of sexism, racism, gender hatred, right wing crazy, ad nauseum. That is what I would expect from the people who can't see the problem, and want to blame it on something they think is the cause because there is a lobby to proclaim that is the problem. Let your lobby think for you.
Violence is about human nature, and the inability of educators to read their own research, listen to their own psychologists, and solve all problems by insisting that their unions shorten their work time and raise their pay. Young men, always prone to violence, will become the self fulfilling prophesy, and bleeding hearts will blame it on guns. Guns have no humanity, no feelings, no emotions, no life at all. They are machines, like a chipped obsidian rock is a machine, for violence, to protect life, to take life, to enable the gun holder to pass on dna, whatever. But still a machine which can be replaced, substituted for, and if you don't address behavior and what is behind the behavior, all is lost because there are enough guns in the world for everyone to have one. Those who really feel a need to have one, will. Our safety is much more protected by addressing behavior that we can change and work with, than it is with limiting mechanical devices that can be smuggled, home built, obtained by theft.
Bombs are a bad deal. But they do have a redeeming social value. They have stopped wars. They might be used to prevent a war. And they might be used to keep people who want to build bigger ones from doing so. It is all about scale. On what basis do we measure these things? We do have to address scale. I have reason to believe that gender neutral education is not possible in a mixed gender classroom and school. Always the bias will be towards success, and success comes earlier to girls than to boys by actual scientific research and proof. The sexes mature and grow at differing rates and times. Education cannot address that as it stands right now.
My particular wonder is how many violent deaths would be prevented just by recognizing all the physical and psychological evidence that boys are very different from girls when we talk about their paths from conception to adulthood. As it stands, boys are getting a raw deal. 60% of 2010 college graduates were women, and 40% men. 50% more females achieving educational goals for higher earnings and employment over a lifetime. By design, and intent. The system is designed to favor them, and the intent was to favor them. Affirmative action? Title 9? Minority status? Who are you bullshitting? In the near future, some bright young lawyer is going to take a school district to task on any and all of those issues, and win, because he only has to produce the numbers to show the disparity and the result.
Gun control is a red herring for piss poor understanding of the innate bias in the American public school education as it now stands. By neglect, by choice, by design, our schools deny boys and young men equality in treatment, in acceptance of gender differences. Sound familiar? We did the same to race for over a century. Now we do it again, and guess what, it exacerbates itself in minority races.
Reform education and guns become a much lesser problem. My rational statement.
Lets put more sports into the school curricula.
I got an email this week from a guy who spent the summer agonizing over school for his twin boys. He thinks public school has more options, or did. His email was a copy of the letter of intent to enroll his sons in parochial school. Dad and Mom dropped out of the public fiasco because they are educated, working hard, self employed, and value education above all. As is the case for Obama and Michelle, they abandoned public school for private education because it is better for their kids. Obama for security or social reasons, and my friend because his experience with the financially strapped public school was not a good one. He pays high taxes, and expects more for that. Now he pays parochial school tuition, which is a third of what public schools spend on kids to fail them. Go figure. For his twins, it is the same as making payments on a new pickup truck. Better two boys get a disciplined and good basic education with a basis in morality than he a new truck every five years.
Blaming our social ills on our public school system isn't even original.
Turning the United States of America into a third-world source of cheap labor is the answer to a capitalist dream.
Egalitarianism is a reality for Western societies.
Pretending that it is at the root of free-market failure is hysterical.
Reminds me of those old-timers who rued the end of Jim Crow.
I'm copying part of a comment I made above, because it'd be more work to read through them than I think most people care to do at this point. However, I think to say that the Second Amendment protects only the rights of the states isn't logical unless you also agree that the First Amendment also allows the state to regulate free speech, press, etc. as they wish as well. While I think you sort of have a point by discussing it as a states' rights problem instead of a government's right as a whole to ban gun ownership, the libertarian principles under which the country was founded doesn't lend itself well to the idea that a private, law-abiding citizen could be involuntarily disarmed by his government (especially when looking at many of the Founders' significant support for the private ownership of arms). I do, though, appreciate the fact that you made your point in a reasonable way without using name-calling or other combative means.
"Specifically, if you look at a contemporary dictionary around the time when the Constitution was drafted, "well-regulated" didn't mean "strongly controlled by the exact strong government we're writing a Constitution to someday protect against." It meant essentially "well-trained" or "well-disciplined." Which is significantly different than the idea you have.
Also, while the definition hasn't changed, many peoples' understanding is incorrect: the "militia" refers to everybody - NOT a National Guard that was founded over a hundred years later. And while you may not want to recognize the fact that YOU are very likely a member of the "unorganized militia" as it's defined in the U.S. Code (and very similar to how it was understood back then), that doesn't change the fact.
So while again, there are some folks that would love to hand over their own natural-born rights to self-protection and defense (and their freedom to do as they please as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else) to a body of people they FEEL protects them better than they can themselves, and will eagerly display misguided ideas of what the actual meaning of the Second Amendment is in order to do so, to anybody that actually cares about preserving some semblance of free-will that argument will fail; for we make an actual effort to understand.
The Bill of Rights was drafted after arguments between the Anti-Federalists and Federalists of the possibility of the government taking too much control. The Bill of Rights is codified as a set of *pre-existing* rights (pre-existing simply by existing as a person, as an individual) that CANNOT be taken by the government or anybody else. You aren't GRANTED protection against unreasonable search and seizure, or unjust punishment, because of the kindness of that piece of paper. You OWN that protection as a human being - just like you OWN the ability of self-defense against a tyrannical government (or, of course, the freedom to worship as you please, speak your opinion as you please, etc.).
Now, why, in the middle of a document that celebrates individual rights and freedoms to an extent rarely seen before in the history of the world, would the people who JUST finished fighting a bloody war to unchain themselves from the unjust rule of a tyrannical king, THEN just slip in a little tiny amendment that had nothing to do with individual rights, but handed MORE power over to the government they were potentially there to protect against? It doesn't make sense historically, or logically."
Very original. We support the second ammendment,so of course we must be racists.I was wondering when somebody would call us racists for disagreeing with the liberal point of view.
@navydan: Well thought out and very well articulated.
The Second Amendment does not, and never will, protect individual gun owners. And that's the way it should be. Read your constitution, people!
The 2nd amendment does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed"
It says"the right of the people to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed"
I suggest you re-read the constitution.
The SCUS has held,repeatedly,that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not connected to a militia,or being in a militia.
The court concluded, “We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government’s power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans. We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.”
The Court ruled that “[T]he operative clause [of the Second Amendment] codifies a ‘right of the people.” And went on to explain: “In all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. . . .’”
There is,and always has been,since the Bill of Rights was enacted,and individual right to own and use a firearm.
Outstanding reply to Mr. Cheever
Close reading of the constitutional record from 1789 shows our Founders' intent was to protect state militias. Applied today, that means that the National Guard can stock arms, but a National Guard reservist, much less a typical citizen, does not have a right to buy a pistol and keep it in his home.
The right wing talks about supporting the constitution, but in this instance the constitution is clear. Individual citizens do not have inherent constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.
-Jon Cheever
You should read the opinion and dissents in the McDonald docket, and then maybe you won't be tooting that line of garbage. For example, there is a lot of discussion about past civil liberties discussions and what sort of checks were on any level of government to infringe on any civil right. In short, whether a state could infringe on a right regardless of whether the federal government was proscribed from doing so.
For example, the Slaughter House case was a stunning example of terrible jurisprudence. It's in there.
Ironic
thank you very god
http://www.the-backup.com