Jump to content

Who has guns?


eva4ben-gal

Who has guns?  

31 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you have a gun?

    • No
      16
    • Yes
      12
    • Multiple guns
      7
    • I own an assault rifle
      4


Recommended Posts

[quote name='gatorclaws' timestamp='1356709234' post='1200034']
the biggest issue is that most of these checks and tests would only be done by people that actually follow through with the procedure put in place. Those people aren't the issue. I'm worried about the people that would skip gun safety or mental health checks. I also worry about the people that don't secure their guns.

i wonder if the answer is somewhere in the technology of guns themselves. Perhaps some better way to track a gun instead of a serial number that can be filed off. Something that could restrict who uses it. this technology would likely be expensive and may not be possible. also, it doesn't do anything to stop the supply of guns already out there.
[/quote]

The biometric and fingerprint technology is being worked on, which would mean that only you (or someone that you designate) can actually fire the gun. It's not reliable enough yet though, which is why you aren't seeing it yet. Law enforcement is drooling over the prospect I am sure, as one of a cop's worst fears is someone taking his or her weapon from them and using it against them. With this technology, that can't happen. But the gun has to either fire for the correct person 99.999% of the time and NOT for for the wrong person 99.999% of the time and that goal has not been reached yet....but it's getting close.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1356991090' post='1201986']
The biometric and fingerprint technology is being worked on, which would mean that only you (or someone that you designate) can actually fire the gun. It's not reliable enough yet though, which is why you aren't seeing it yet. Law enforcement is drooling over the prospect I am sure, as one of a cop's worst fears is someone taking his or her weapon from them and using it against them. With this technology, that can't happen. But the gun has to either fire for the correct person 99.999% of the time and NOT for for the wrong person 99.999% of the time and that goal has not been reached yet....but it's getting close.
[/quote]

It'll be cool to see technology get to that point, but as you stated having the gun ever fail for the cop due to the technology would be horrible. Can't imagine these guns would be cheap either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1356260136' post='1196460']
Here are my three most recent purchases.

[url="http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=84697"]http://www.ableammo....oducts_id=84697[/url]

[url="http://policelink.monster.com/products/products/418-smith-wesson-sigma-40ve"]http://policelink.mo...sson-sigma-40ve[/url]

[url="http://www.ruger.com/products/miniThirty/specSheets/5806.html"]http://www.ruger.com...heets/5806.html[/url]


Wish I had a facebook account.
[/quote]

[img]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/207978_476896945689883_201394930_n.jpg[/img]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1357894241' post='1207268']
[img]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/207978_476896945689883_201394930_n.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

I've got the first two, but needing the third is a spurious argument. If they come to get your gun, and you pull out one of those this is what you'll get:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwNQZpSP5j0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1357939591' post='1207453']
Of course this had nothing to do with gun ownership, but I digress...
[/quote]

I really hate that phrase, "but I digress". Sounds so condescending, especially when used in this kind of context. It's like you're saying, "Of course this had nothing to do with gun ownership, you asshole."

Of course the quote wasn't about gun ownership, but it was about giving away your personal liberty and succumbing to tyrannical government, so in that context it's a valid quote and was perfect to express my feeling on the subject at hand. I don't have that many years left anyway. I am not going to willingly let a government take away my ability to defend myself and my family from those who wish to do me harm, whether they be street thugs, hand wringing bleeding hearts who think they know what's best, or power hungry politicians. Not without a fight anyway. If that's how I die, so be it.

Like oldschooler has been known to say, don't start none, won't be none. Leave me the fuck alone and my guns will never be used for anything other than target shooting. Fuck with me, my family or innocents and if I'm in a position to stop you, I'll blow your fucking head off without batting an eye.

Give me liberty or give me death.

Oh yeah, I just joined the NRA. Been meaning to for years, but the time has come to choose sides and stand up for what you believe in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1357977459' post='1207500']
the time has come to choose sides and stand up for what you believe in.
[/quote]

The idea that any issue can be expressed as a matter of "sides" is simplistic in the extreme and exactly the sort of "us vs them" puppet show those "power hungry politicians" etc are hoping people will buy into wholesale. The world rarely falls into simple distinctions of black or white. So tired of reading the standard apologetic qualifier of "Both sides are guilty of __________". There are not 2 sides. There may be two extremes, but most people are going to fall somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately the aim of those in power (political, media or otherwise) is to play up the divide so it makes them seem like crusaders against an evil "other", creating more power/exposure/etc for themselves, rather than trying to build a consensus and create a solution to anything. It's a problem that extends far beyond public policy and I am weary of the finger-pointing, cover-your-ass mentality that seems to be creeping into every facet of life. It's about creating an illusion of action that maintains a status quo and requires as little effort as possible.

More specifically, I enjoy hunting and target shooting, but find the NRA in current form borderline insane. Which "side" am I on?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1357977459' post='1207500']
I really hate that phrase, "but I digress". Sounds so condescending, especially when used in this kind of context. It's like you're saying, "Of course this had nothing to do with gun ownership, you asshole."

Of course the quote wasn't about gun ownership, but it was about giving away your personal liberty and succumbing to tyrannical government, so in that context it's a valid quote and was perfect to express my feeling on the subject at hand. I don't have that many years left anyway. I am not going to willingly let a government take away my ability to defend myself and my family from those who wish to do me harm, whether they be street thugs, hand wringing bleeding hearts who think they know what's best, or power hungry politicians. Not without a fight anyway. If that's how I die, so be it.

Like oldschooler has been known to say, don't start none, won't be none. Leave me the fuck alone and my guns will never be used for anything other than target shooting. Fuck with me, my family or innocents and if I'm in a position to stop you, I'll blow your fucking head off without batting an eye.

Give me liberty or give me death.

Oh yeah, I just joined the NRA. Been meaning to for years, but the time has come to choose sides and stand up for what you believe in.
[/quote]

What liberties are being taken away from you? Have you even read the 2nd amendment? It is well withing the governments rights to regulate guns. You dont have the liberty to ignore the "well regulated" part of it. "Leaving you the fuck alone", I'm sorry whether you like it or not you live in a society and as such must follow the societies laws that the citizenry chooses to have and unless the day comes that you move onto your own island with your own laws thats how it is. If you dont like the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment work within the structures of said society to change it. I wont support that change and will work to keep it and make sure those regulations are enforced, but spare me the civil war type bravado.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1357984724' post='1207503']
Only you can decide that.

If you want to take my guns, I think you're on the "other" side. If you don't, I think you're on "my" side.
[/quote]

And what side am I on if I dont want to necessarily take them but want to make sure they are regulated the fuck out of?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how I feel about you folks who keep trying to paint Obama as some socialist/marxist/radical...

If you actually pay any kind of attention to his policies he's a damned 90s Republican, which makes YOU extremists.

Your disappointed in Obama? HA! [i][b]I'M[/b][/i] disappointed in Obama.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgjiZys68e4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html"]http://www.guncite.c...s/vandhist.html[/url]

Didn't you go to George Mason University Jamie? Also, note Patrick Henry's views, you know, the "Give me liberty or give me death" guy.

Excerpt: (This didn't really format right, but close. Go to the link if this is hard to read)

[b] [i]A. The Antifederalist View[/i][/b]

Additional views on the relationship between freedom and arms were expressed when the Constitution was being submitted to the states for ratification. The Antifederalist views were stated in pamphlets entitled [i]Letters (p.1024)from the Federal Farmer to the Republican[/i].[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn133"][133][/url] Richard Henry Lee is credited with authorship.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn134"][134][/url] The self-styled federal farmer thought of himself as a supporter of federalism and republicanism.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn135"][135][/url] His view of federalism was not that set forth in the proposed Constitution of 1787. The federal farmer argued that a distant national government was antithetical to freedom:
[indent=1]
[T]he general government, far removed from the people, and none of its members elected oftener than once in two years, will be forgot or neglected, and its laws in many cases disregarded, unless a multitude of officers and military force be continually kept in view, and employed to enforce the execution of the laws and to make the government feared and respected. No position can be truer than this, that in this country either neglected laws, or a military execution of them, must lead to revolution, and to the destruction of freedom. Neglected laws must first lead to anarchy and confusion; and a military execution of laws is only a shorter way to the same point--despotic government.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn136"][136][/url][/indent]
The federal farmer also saw evil in Congress's power to raise an army, despite the two-year limit on money appropriations and the states' control over the militia via the appointment of officers.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn137"][137][/url] He understood the need to provide for the common defense but believed an additional check was necessary. He proposed requiring two-thirds consent in Congress before a standing army could be raised or the militia could be pressed into service by the national government.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn138"][138][/url] Additionally, the federal farmer argued that a select militia composed of less than all the people ought to be avoided. The farmer argued that, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn139"][139][/url]
[u][b]Another Antifederalist, George Mason, spoke on the relationship between (p.1025)arms and liberty. Mason asserted that history had demonstrated that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn140"][140][/url] Mason suggested that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense, clearly including the right to defend one's political liberty within that term.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn141"][141][/url]
Patrick Henry argued against ratification of the Constitution by Virginia, in part because the Constitution permitted a standing army and gave the federal government some control over the militia.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn142"][142][/url] Henry objected to the lack of any clause forbidding disarmament of individual citizens; "the great object is that every man be armed .... Everyone who is able may have a gun."[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn143"][143][/url] The Antifederalists believed that governmental tyranny was the primary evil against which the people had to defend in creating a new Constitution. To preserve individual rights against such tyranny, the Antifederalists argued for the addition of a Bill of Rights which included, among other rights, the right to keep and bear arms.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn144"][144][/url][/b][/u]
[b] [i]B. The Federalist View[/i][/b]

The Federalists, those supporting the Constitution as drafted, did not dispute the premise that governmental tyranny was the primary evil that people had to guard against.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn145"][145][/url] Nor did the Federalists dispute the nexus between (p.1026)arms and freedom.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn146"][146][/url] In one of the first Federalist pamphlets, Noah Webster argued that the proposed Constitution provided adequate guarantees to check the dangers of any standing army.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn147"][147][/url] His reasoning acknowledged checks and balances, but did not rely on the same. Rather, Webster argued:
[indent=1]
[u][b]Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn148"][148][/url][/b][/u][/indent]
[u][b]Similarly, James Madison made clear that, although the proposed Constitution offered sufficient guarantees against despotism by its checks and balances, the real deterrent to governmental abuse was the armed population.[/b][/u][url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn149"][149][/url] To the Antifederalist criticism of the standing army as a threat to liberty, Madison replied:
[indent=1]
To these [the standing army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from amongst themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by government possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops .... Besides the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are (p.1027)attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn150"][150][/url][/indent]
[u][b]Another leading Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, voiced a similar view.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn151"][151][/url] Hamilton suggested that if the representations of the people, elected under the proposed Constitution, betrayed their constituents, the people retained the right to defend their political rights and possessed the means to do so.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn152"][152][/url]
In summary, both Federalists and Antifederalists believed that the main danger to the republic was tyrannical government and the ultimate check on tyrannical government was an armed population.[/b][/u][url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn153"][153][/url] Federalists and Antifederalists disagreed, however, on several issues. First, they disagreed as to whether sufficient checks and balances had been placed on the proposed national government to control the danger of oppression.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn154"][154][/url] Second, the Antifederalists believed a bill of rights should be incorporated into the Constitution to guarantee certain rights.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn155"][155][/url] The Federalists argued that such a bill of rights was unnecessary because the power of the federal government was restricted to the grant of authority provided by the Constitution.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn156"][156][/url] There was no need to (p.1028)provide exceptions to powers not granted.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn157"][157][/url] Further, the Federalists argued that providing exceptions to powers not granted was dangerous because it could encourage a claim that powers not expressly stated had been granted.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn158"][158][/url][u][b] Again, both sides not only agreed that the people had a right to be armed, both sides assumed the existence of an armed population as an essential element to preserving liberty. The framers quite clearly had adopted James Harrington's political theory that the measure of liberty attained and retained was a direct function of an armed citizenry's ability to claim and hold those rights from domestic and foreign enemies.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn159"][159][/url][/b][/u]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1358021891' post='1207550'][u][b]The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn148"][148][/url][/b][/u]
[u][b]Similarly, James Madison made clear that, although the proposed Constitution offered sufficient guarantees against despotism by its checks and balances, the real deterrent to governmental abuse was the armed population.[/b][/u]
[/quote]

Unfortunately this part is no longer true and will never be again. It was true back in the days of muskets and when a regular Army was only called upon to serve in time of war...we have a gigantic, hugely-funded full-time military with highly sophisticated weaponry, surveillance and communication equipment now.

The interesting part of this thought experiment to me is if the federal government ever called upon our military to go up against the civilian population, just how many would follow that order and how many would not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1358031388' post='1207579']
The interesting part of this thought experiment to me is if the federal government ever called upon our military to go up against the civilian population, just how many would follow that order and how many would not.
[/quote]

Er.. 1967, Detroit - 82nd Airborne. 1992, Los Angeles - 7th ID & Marines. I'm pretty sure there are other modern incidents that escalated beyond the typical National Guard response, but that's a place to start.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1357977459' post='1207500']Oh yeah, I just joined the NRA. Been meaning to for years, but the time has come to choose sides and stand up for what you believe in.
[/quote]

Wife just joined too, going to go get memberships tomorrow at a local range. Might sign up for CCW classes too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1357984724' post='1207503']
Only you can decide that.

If you want to take my guns, I think you're on the "other" side. If you don't, I think you're on "my" side.
[/quote]

What if I want you to prove you're not batshit insane to buy them, and think there's no legitimate reason for a civilian to own a semi-automatic rifle that takes external clips? Is that a "side"?

This mentality that anyone that doesn't 100% agree with you is some evil enemy you need to go to war against is a pretty strong argument for gun control, by the way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...