People hunting.

In my opinion machine guns, and the like, are only used to hunt other people. A true sports man (person) if they must hunt, should be able to succesfully kill whatever animal there after w/o shooting many hundreds of times per second.

The voice of experience.

Thank you for a good laugh tomndebb.


You're right about the machne guns. There really isn't a sportsman-like use for them. Can't hunt with 'em. The deer would be in too many peices.

Collecting, however is one ostensible reason.

I'm anti- gun control, but I can't really see a purpose for them either.

I would believe the "gun collectors" excuse if it wasn't used by every single nutcase with a large stockpile of weapons and ammo.
I have seen "gun collectors" with a couple dozen of the same make and model Uzis and other "hunting" rifles and gun shows.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

NRA members should be taken out and shot.
With a bows 'n' arrows.

Hehehehehehehe.

"Machine-guns" and all other full-auto firearms have been illegal for private ownership without a special, federally issued collectors permit for over 70 years.
Semi-auto firearms have been avialable to the general population with varing degrees of regulation for over one hundred years.
Oh, yeah, its the "sudden availability" of guns causing the latest rash of violence in schools.

as for shooting NRA members....
Well, you're welcome to try. But I will put two rounds center-mass while someone is still drawing back thier bowstring!



------------------
"The universe doesn't give first warnings or second chances"

OK FINE!!!!
Ryan if all NRA members have thier guns, can stock up ammo (If we warrn you first.)
And then, stop making these weapons for the general public and when a weapon of this kind is used in a crime it should be confiscated permantely. The number of guns used in crimes would reduse as the responcable people keep thier guns anr the irresponcable people, (weather the gun was used by them in the crime or not) lose the guns. This takes care of the irresponcable parrents with guns too. Hows this? (Oh, boy am I in for it now.)

FireTiger:

OK FINE!!!!
Ryan if all NRA members have thier guns, can stock up ammo (If we warrn you first.)
And then, stop making these weapons for the general public and when a weapon of this kind is
used in a crime it should be confiscated permantely. The number of guns used in crimes would
reduse as the responcable people keep thier guns anr the irresponcable people, (weather the
gun was used by them in the crime or not) lose the guns. This takes care of the irresponcable
parrents with guns too. Hows this? (Oh, boy am I in for it now.)

Well, yeah, but as much for your obvious drunkenness while typing as your opinions.

Waste
Flick Lives!

Okkaaaaay....Not really sure what you are trying to "say" here Firetiger...But if I decypher your message correctly you advocate
us NRA-types to stockpile guns and ammo then the industry will just stop producing more?!?
Yeah, that will work!
(dismissive snorting sound)
FYI the strongest advocates of sever sentencing for the use of guns in a crime are NRA members.

------------------
"The universe doesn't give first warnings or second chances"

People hunting is actually very apropos. The founding fathers did not guarantee gun ownership for hunting, collecting and target practice. They added guarnteed the right of gun ownership (and I am not going to argue whether it is private vs. militia) to shoot people. Namely tyrants, autocrats and those that would try to take away the rights of US citizens.

So the right to bear arms was indeed created to "hunt people." not exactly how I would put it, but close enough. The trick is which people can be hunted. It is certainly OK to kill Serbs and iraqis. Murderers can be killed as can intruders. The problem only comes when you kill the wrong type of "people."

strongest advocates of sever sentencing

Does that mean we cut off their trigger fingers?

"Machine-guns" and all other full-auto firearms have been illegal for private ownership without a special, federally issued collectors permit for over 70 years.

Yah, and any boob with a bastard file, half a brain and a couple hours to spare knows how to make them fully automatic (at least as far as the AR-15 goes). *Poof* goes this argument.

A small package of value will come to you shortly.

No, that's a song title from The Jefferson Airplane's After Bathing at Baxter's.

Nickrz wrote:
Yah, and any boob with a bastard file, half a brain and a couple
hours to spare knows how to make them fully automatic (at least as
far as the AR-15 goes). *Poof* goes this argument.
Sorry, but the idea that semi-aut weapons are easy to make into fully-auto weapons is a "hollywood special" just like people flying through the air when shot...looks impressive, but isn't realistic.
And again, anyone who would attempt such modification is breaking an exsisting federal law, a new law banning such weapons is hardly required. BTW- the "right to keep and bear arms" refers to what is and was considered "small arms" rifles, pistols ect.
NOT "engines of war" such as then were in use
cannons, mortars and warships, or now in use
machine guns, nuclear weapons, or biological warfare agents.

------------------
"The universe doesn't give first warnings or second chances"

Machine guns are OK.
But for my money, you can't hunt a human better than with a good old-fashioned military-grade sniper rifle; bolt action, heavy barrel, monster scope.

Remind me to watch my back.

Sniper rifles-reach out and touch someone!

FYI some target-style rifles are far
more accurate than mil-spec sniper rifles, but if your "hunt" takes you into the bush, take the mil-spec.Walther, Dragunov, or H&K are the best bets!
Remember-at close range, nothing beats a shotgun...except a flame-thrower!


------------------
"The universe doesn't give first warnings or second chances"

At close range, nothing beats a shotgun..
except a sawed-off shotgun. Oops.. that would be a violation of state & federal laws.. good thing nobody would think of violating those, huh?

I gave a very specific instance of a weapon (AR-15) that can very easily be made fully automatic. Although others are more difficult (or impossible) to convert, they can still spew hot lead death at an alarming rate. Sporting arms, my ass.

I don't know about some of you people. Your lack of brain power makes me sad for this country. Lets just suppose that it became illegal for American Citizens to own guns. Ok, so now we have a country where the only people with guns are the criminals. Hmmmm....seems like it would be a field day every day for them. They wouldn't think twice about robbing everyone they came across. I think I'd prefer to live in Iraq if guns were outlawed in the U.S. Now lets look at it the way I think it should be. Every American Citizen who is over the age of lets just say 18 bacause some would say 16 is too young, I wouldn't say that but I'm sure some of you would. Ok, and to own a gun you would be required to take a firearms safety course before your permit would be granted. Then once you have your permit you are allowed to carry your weapon concealed or not, anywhere and everywhere you went. Do you think that the criminals would have the balls to rob a bank or a 7-11 store when the chances are that most if not everyone in the place had a weapon of their own. Ponder that one. I'm sure some of you would agree with me.

------------------
Visit Spedrick's Playground @ http://members.xoom.com/Spedrick/

Ok, so now we have a country where the only people with guns are the criminals.

OH MY GOD WHAT AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT SO MANNY PEOPLE HAVE POSTED HERE WITHOUT KNOWING THIS PLEASE TELL US MORE.

Wow. Never before have I encountered a thread so difficult to follow. You're all drunk and illiterate, aren't you?

Allow me to throw in an observation from north of the border:

Gun control prevents accidental shootings by the bucketful. Gun control does not prevent sane, civilized people from going out and shooting either targets or food. Gun control does mean that the nasty kind of guns stay in the hands of criminals, where they are generally used to kill other criminals. I'm not seeing a big problem with this.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled blather.

Homicides and other violent crimes involving guns are much more prevalent in the U.S. than other countries with stricter gun laws. It doesn't seem to be a huge problem in those countries that only "criminals" have the guns. (BTW, I'm pretty sure Iraq doesn't allow its citizens to own guns, so moving there wouldn't help you.) I've been going to convenience stores for years and I've never been in one during a robbery. On the other hand, if I knew every citizen on the street was armed, I'd be too afraid to leave the house.

I've always thought that since gunowners and their disciples (i.e. children) are something like five times more likely to die accidently in their homes, that the gun nut problem was one that would tend to solve itself over time. As Cecil says, it taking longer than we thought.

BTW Eris, what are gun control laws like in Canada? I assume there must be provisions for hunters, unless those moose and rabbits you ate in the other thread died of natural causes. :->

If I know Eris, she's already doing the research. Response time for a detailed and informative reply is usually about 20 min. If you don't post before you read this, Eris, could you also let us know how Canada keeps their own gun nuts from just getting their guns south of the border. I've smuggled my share of Havanas so I know how easy it is to bring whatever you want across the line.

Hey kids. Glad to know you're anxiously awaiting my input on this

Canada has recently enacted very strict gun control. All firearms, down to BB guns, must be registered with the RCMP gun registry. This was free for the last few years (I think - or a nominal fee anyway) but now I think it costs somewhere in the range of $100. Handguns are more strictly regulated, and you must prove that you belong to a gun club in order to own one. Gun clubs themselves must prove that the exist and are legitimate. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons are, as far as I know, strictly illegal (except if you're the military, of course). My family owns several rifles that, in accordance with the law, are not only registered, but stored a certain distance away from their ammunition, and all have key-locks on the triggers. The keys themselves are not stored in the vicinity of the guns. It is illegal to carry a firearm unless you're actually hunting or target shooting (i.e., away from people).

As far as preventing gun-smuggling across the border goes, the main lines of defense are the RCMP and Customs. Some guns do, of course, get through. In my area, these are primarily used by criminals (duh). Fortunately, the number of innocent people shot by criminals is small. Crimes involving guns are usually either hold-ups or drug operations. The hold-ups (which are rare enough to guarantee front-page newspaper coverage) rarely involve actual shooting, and the drug operations usually involve shooting other drug dealers, so no big deal. Overall, guns cause far fewer deaths in Canada PER CAPITA than in the States. I will endeavour to obtain actual statistics if I get a chance later today.

Gun accidents have been on the decline, too, since the new regulations came in. This is only my observations, but it used to be that a couple of kids managed to shoot their babysitter/brother/cat every year by accident. I haven't heard of a case like that for some time.

Thor
Member posted 05-21-99 04:34 PM

So the right to bear arms was indeed created to "hunt people." not exactly how I would put it, but close enough. The trick is which people can be hunted. It is certainly OK to kill Serbs and iraqis.

Oh, give that crap a rest, Thor! Legitimate military actions do not consitute murder. NATO has embarked on their current course for very specific reasons.

Yugoslavia's government is cconducting an ethnic cleansing campaign against people whom they just plain don't like; this dislike being rooted in religion and ethnicity.

Iraq invaded a peaceful, and much smaller, neighbour.

You have proven on this board that you can neither communicate in the English language nor present even an elementary school level grasp of facts and history.

The right to bear arms was not created, it was recognized. And it was recognized as a right of defense, not offense.

I repeat: give this crap a rest!

Over the last few years, the state of Tennessee has banned electric stun guns [for obscure reasons-just too "newfangled"?] but made it easier to carry a concealed [lethal] handgun. HELP!!!!!!!!

------------------

Good stats & discussion of Canadian vs American attitudes towards guns and crime rates: http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/Canadian_Gun_Control.htm

I haven't been able to find anything post-bill-C-68 (the really tough gun-control bill) but I'll keep looking. There is a bunch of stuff from the NFA (the kinder, gentler, Canadian version of the NRA and still pretty scary) but it's all pretty biased.

Monty,

"Give this Crap a rest" -- Your command of the language is indeed astounding.

But you make a salient pointwhich I assume is that state sanctioned killing is not murder because it is justified. That was my point. Killing people is not always illegal, it depends on who you are killing and how the state feels about it. Hell, they might not feel too hot about you, either.

Judge: Now, who did the defendant murder?

Pub. Def.: A member of the SD BBq Pit named Monty.

Judge: Oh, who the hell cares about him. Case dismissed.

There was a time in this century when a few good lynchings were considered healthy by certain state officials. After all, the negroes raped white women and killed babies. Right?

As for the war, all of this demonizing is pretty unconvincing. Can anyone find an example of a war (preferably a 20th century war) where a) Either side truly beleived that God was not on their side or b) where the enemy was not demonized.

The whole point of protecting the right to bear arms is to make sure that dupes who believe Big Brother is infallible don't turn our country into a totalitarian state. As long as I can fight back, I can protect my rights. That is what the founding fathers did.

Eris wrote [QUOTE}Wow. Never before have I encountered a thread so difficult to follow. You're all drunk and illiterate, aren't you?
[/quote]
No, I am not drunk, nor am I illiterate.
I am a firm supporter of the 2nd Ammendment of the US Constitution. Those who offer up statistics from contries other than the US are missing a couple of points. First-We have fought a successful revolution against a foreign government in the not too distant past, which has made guns and to a lesser extent violence a part of our culture. Second-Modern American culture and society is suffering through a periond of moral, and ethical decline. It has gotten to the point that violence is an acceptable first response to problems and not a deeply regretable last resort. There are other nations that have an armed populace (Switzerland and Israel come to mind) but lack the "impetus to violence" prevalent in America.
I support training to use any firearm privately owned, and am horrified at the senseless death of a child whose parents did not keep their guns secured out of their reach. I am also a person who has used a gun to prevent a violent crime from being committed against myself.
Lets face reality here...the police (whom I support wholeheartedly) do not exsist to protect the populace, they exsist to catch those who have already committed crimes, thus limiting their oppurtunity to commit more crimes. This means that someone will get robbed, raped, assaulted ect. before the police become involved. I chose not to be a victim. I have taken personal responsbility for my own safety. I have sought education in ways to limit my own vulnerability to crime, and have prepared myself for what I might have to do in the event of an assault upon my person.
My life, my responsibility.


------------------
"The universe doesn't give first warnings or second chances"

Good Point ryan. The fact that we actually defeated the English in the revolution certainly colors our attitude towards guns. Our country was founded on a type of distrust of government, hence the checks and balances and the whole democracy thing. Those who cite Britain and Japan as being the ultimate ideal societies when it comes to gun control may fail to notice that they were Monarchies. The people do not have guns because the aristocracy did not want an armed populace. Ask any monarch what the result of an armed populace is. Soviet citizens certainly couldn't own guns. Government of the people my ass.

I would like to see a statistic that shows the rates of human rights violations in countries that do not permit private gun ownership.

On a side note...Riddle me this: why do those who oppose the second amendment limit their rebuttals to accusing us of being illiterate and stupid/drunk. Is this the foundation of their anti-gun belief?

No, Thor. It's the incredibly high death rate due to guns, both intentional and accidental.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

Thor
Member posted 06-01-99 02:01 PM

Monty,
"Give this Crap a rest" -- Your command of the language is indeed astounding.

Well, Thor, you're obviously prepared to pursue a career in comedy.

When you find yourself on a ship of fools, it takes a good sense of humor to get along.

I have been looking for this quote for a while and just found it. This is what George Washington had to say about private gun ownership when addressed the first session of the US Congress:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and the keystone under independence...
When firearms go, all goes -we need them every hour."

But his language does sound a bit odd to my ear, perhaps he had a poor command of the English language....

Sigh. And on it goes...

Couple things should be clarified, though.

First, it is inaccurate to characterize those of us who are anti-guns as being anti-2nd amendment. I passionately embrace the constitution in its entirety. I simply interpret it differently than you do. Does the phrase "well-regulated militia" ring any bells? That hardly translates as everybody armed to the teeth.

The intent behind giving everyone the right to bear arms, within the limits given!, was to give us a means to protect ourselves should the state become a little too overbearing.

But times have changed. In the modern world, anyone who hopes to keep the government at bay using weapons is merely suicidal. Much better to hire yourself an excellent lawyer and take it to court.

So now the 2nd is used as a screen to convince us that we need firearms to protect ourselves from criminals.

Well, this whole "Crime in the streets! Get your guns!" thing is fundamentally ridiculous, and the idea that taking away everyone's guns would motivate the bad guys to rob, rape and murder anyone and everyone they encounter is even more ridiculous.

The fact is that the vast majority of people in this country (and when I say vast, I mean truly vast, like nearly everyone above a very low socioeconomic threshhold) will never even see a violent crime being committed, much less be the victims of any. Especially if they don't already know the perpetrator of the crime personally. The hysteria about crime is completely out of proportion to its occurance.

And in those very rare instances where you might be the victim of a randomly violent crime? Chances are good you won't have, or have a chance to get, your handy dandy gun.

Unless you clerk at a liquor store, drive a cab, or live/work in gangbanger territory, basic precautions should keep you safer than any gun you might own. What crime you do experience in this life is much more likely to be crime against your property than your person, committed while you are not around - something gun ownership is not going to prevent. And in fact, your gun is one of the most likely bits of your property to be taken from you!

It would be so nice if the gun freaks would just be honest with everyone about it. "I love my gun. It makes me feel big and bad. I like to hunt, I like killing stuff. It turns me on and excites me to watch things die and know that I, mighty man with huge deadly penis, umm, gun, has brought about this death. Leave me alone."



------------------
Stoidela

First, it is inaccurate to characterize those of us who are anti-guns as being anti-2nd amendment. I passionately embrace the constitution in its entirety. I simply interpret it differently than you do. Does the phrase "well-regulated militia" ring any bells? That hardly translates as everybody armed to the teeth.

Grrr...without offering my own gun-control opinions...please....read the thing. Fucking read it:

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

The clause up to the comma does not modify "the people," grammatically. And in every single court case you care to look up, "the people" has been held by the Supreme Court to mean all the people. Not some of the people, not a few people, all the people. Unless you can come up with some compelling, legally sound reason why the courts should interpret "the people" to mean something other than what they've held it to mean in every single other instance, you're just pissing in the wind.

I'm sick and tired of people bleating "well-regulated milita! well-regulated militia!" as if they hold some sort of trump card. Sorry, folks, but legally and Constitutionally, it doesn't wash. Even if you reconstruct the sentence to read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so that we can maintain a well-regulated militia," the Amendment still quite clearly confers that right on the people, not the militia.

Goodness, you folks sure do get each other into a lather about some topics, don;t you? I feel that I really must make some comments. First, I would like to take some of the statements I have seen on this thread and try to discuss them with reason and facts.
"...shooting many hundreds of times per second." Of course, this is an obvious misstatement. Although high capacity magazines (often incorrectly referred to as "clips") are no longer manufactured for use by the civilian population, there are still some "shelf stock" or "previously manufactured" magazines available, and even with these magazines (holding as many as 30 rounds of ammunition), I would challenge any person to be able to change magazines fast enough to attain a rate of fire that could be described as "many hundreds of times per second."
"Machine guns are used for two things only..." I make the assumption that the writer here refers to the civilian population. If one concedes that there is a need for military force, there are very legitimate uses for fully automatic firearms.
"Yah, and any boob with a bastard file, half a brain and a couple of hours to spare knows how to make them fully automatic..." This is a very interesting and widely-held misconception. Firearms currently in production in the U.S. and firearms imported from other countries must be manufactured in such a way to preclude the conversion of the firearm to enable it to operate in a full automatic mode. This is federal law. Any person in possession of a firearm (without the proper legal authorization) that has been modified or altered - even if not done by the owner - is in violation of federal law. In addition to being in violation of the law, a firearm that has been modified in a way to change its mode of function is extremely unreliable and is therefore dangerous to the user as well as others in any setting, whether it be hunting, target shooting, personal defense, or competition. The "conversion" of semi-automatic firearms of any kind to fire in a full-automatic mode is not an easy or quick task for firearms of current manufacture. There have been some firearms in the past which were very easy to "convert", but federal law has stepped in to prevent the "conversion" by declaring these specific firearms (even in their semi-auto version) to be Class III (also known as NFA) firearms (machine guns). As a matter of fact, if a person owns a semi-auto firearm and also has in possession parts to "convert" that firearm to full-auto function, that person is deemed to possess a Class III firearm. Of course, the possession of such a firearm is regulated by federal law.
"I gave a very specific instance of a weapon (AR15) that can very easily be made fully automatic. Although others are more difficult (or impossible) to convert, they can still spew hot lead death at an alarming rate." This is a very inflammatory statement that in not only inaccurate, but would have us believe that a military-style firearm can somehow shoot bullets of a more lethal nature than a sporting-style firearm! Nothing could be further from the truth - a bullet is a bullet is a bullet, no matter what style firearm it is shot from. In addition, the sporting-style firearm operates at the same "alarming rate" as the military-style firearm.
"Gun control does mean that the nasty kinds of guns stay in the hands of criminals, where they are generally used to kill other criminals. I'm not seeing a big problem with this." Wow! Where do I start with this attitude? First of all, does the writer feel that it is okay for "nasty kinds of guns" to kill some people and not others? When the writer talks of "criminals", does the writer refer to anyone who owns a gun? (Remember the line that has been repeated ad nauseum - When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!)? What are "nasty kinds of guns"? Does the writer's definition mean military-style firearms, or all black firearms, or all semi-auto firearms, or all magazine-fed firearms, or just plain, old "all firearms"?
"I've always thought that since gun owners and their disciples(i.e., children) are something like five time more likely to die accidentally in their home, that the gun nut problem would tend to solve itself over time." This statement is an insult to concerned law-abiding firearms owners all over the country. How would the writer interpret my attitude if I substituted the words "X-rated movies" or "alcohol beverages" for the word "gun" in the statement? There is a very close parallel because all of these items are legal to own at the present time. Since the writer doesn't specify what kind of accidents in the home, it would be hard to quantify deaths due to hobbies, interests, and video tastes.
To clarify a point made by another writer, Uzi firearms have never been portrayed as hunting rifles. On another point, full-auto firearms, as well as short-barrelled shotguns and firearm suppressors are legal to own if a person fulfills the obligations of ownership (lots of red tape, including background checks, fingerprints, photo identification, registration with the BATF and payment of fees to the IRS, and approval of local law enforcement agency). Ownership of all kinds of guns therefore depends upon availability, legal authority, and disposable cash capacity of all citizens.
Guns are in our national psyche. Whether viewed as good or bad, they are a part of our society. Many consider guns to be tools, to be used intelligently and prudently. Others think guns are evil incarnate and have no place in a civilized society. I would hope that we can come to some common ground because we need to solve the absolutely horrific problem that guns cause in our nation today. One of the problems we must grapple with is the fact that many law enforcement units tell us that it is no longer possible for them to be able to repsond quickly enough in an emergency to prevent harm from coming to us on an idividual basis. Until the police arrive, we are on our own. The decision to use a gun to protect ourselves should be an individual choice, made within the framework of existing laws. There is no doubt that this issue is a complicated one; however, with cooperation and rational, measured debate, we must find a solution.
As a parting thought, see if you think this analogy is appropriate to this discussion: Should the U.S. unilaterally divest itself of all nuclear arms, in spite of the fact that many and various countries around the world have or are developing nuclear capabilities? Do we have a right to have the means to defend ourselves against "the bad guys"? Why or why not?

here is some of what those who were there during the formulation of the 2nd amendment said:

Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion. . . in private self-defence . . . ." John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America 475 (1787-8)

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms," Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776) I T Jefferson Papers 344 (J. Boyl ed. 1950)

"to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . ." George Mason, 3 Elliot Debates 380

So the intent was for self defense and for liberty.

Now convince me that the current anti-gun pundits know more about the constitution than those who created it.

Mr. President, any word on that?

We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
-- Bill Clinton
President of the United States in USA Today, March 11, 1993

Ryan:

Why are you resentful of the characterization if it does not apply to you? I spoke specifically of gun freaks, I did not say all owners of guns. I am perfectly aware that there are many people who do not hunt, yet own guns because they are convinced that their lives are threatened.

And if hunters don't hunt for amusement/fun, why do they do it? While they may eat what they kill, that is NOT why they do it. They do it because they ENJOY doing it. They LIKE TO KILL. You can dress it up any way you like, but if they did not derive pleasure from the act of killing, they would not hunt. It is leisure, sport, entertainment, FUN. And I find the idea that anyone would KILL for FUN nauseating.

(Yes, I eat meat. I also hate the way animals are treated in the corporate version of animal husbandry, and seek free-range meat whenever possible. If I had to kill the animals I ate myself, I would surely become a vegetarian in short order. It is not the eating of animals I object to, it is taking pleasure in the act of killing them.)

And by the way, your portrayal of the quick, clean kill that does not cause suffering is the exception, not the rule.

As for home invasion robberies, etc. I never claimed that no one is ever a victim of violent crime. What I said, and what is true, is that the likelihood of it happening to most of us, and most particularly the people who are most likely to use that as their reason for owning guns, is on a par with being struck by lightening.

PLdennison:

The courts once held that "separate but equal" was possible, too. The courts are not infallible (Witness the recent decision that suing a sitting president wouldn't interfere with his work.) and I think they have missed the boat here. And I am certainly no constitutional scholar, but I know there are many who side with me on this. So it goes back to a matter of interpretation.

And all that aside, it doesnt' matter anyway. The genie is out of the bottle and the best we can hope for now is regulation and enforcement of existing law, much as I might like to amend the constitution. (And then again, I might not. I would want a gun in one particular cicumstance: the breakdown of social order brought about by some disaster. I dont' feel the need to own a gun now because I dont' feel that there is a significant chance I'd need it. I do feel that I might need it in case of a massive earthquake, or if Y2K turns out to be as bad as some people fear. But so long as our society remains essentially functional, owning a gun is an invitation to trouble.)

Radar Ralf:

You are evidently a thoughtful, informed, and intedlligent person whose contributions are of interest to me. Could you make it a little easier by spacing your paragraphs? Thanks.



------------------
Stoidela

Stoidela, I resent your charaterization of gun owners a "freaks" who use guns as a phallic substitute and glory in killing.

I don't hunt, or shoot animals for amusement.
You will note the difference, I will explain just in case you don't understand it.
Hunting-Going into the countryside, using you skill and knowledge to track prey and place yourself for a single, clean shot which kills quickly and without needless suffering to the animal. Cleaning and dressing the carcass for edible meat and disposing of the remainder.
Hunters are among the strongest advocates for wilderness preservation in the US. The perform a service that is vital to the ecology of many areas as mankind has eliminated natural predators from the food chain.
Killing for "fun"-Someone with emotional/mental problems who is just as likely to aim their cars at dogs near the road as go out with a gun. They have problems that are unrelated to the instrument they use to kill.

Just for the record, I have hunted, although I don't care to do so anymore. I have no issues about my own mental stability/sexual identity that require a gun as a phallic substitute. I use my guns to target shoot at a competitive level, and for home defense.
Dispite you protestations to the contrary, there is an alarming tendancy in the US to a robbery technique called "Home Invasion". Perhaps youve heard of it? Armed intruders, making no attempt at stealth, force their way into a home when they know the occupants are home. The force the homeowners to surrender all valuables and often brutalize them physically, emotionally or sexually. I was nearly a victem of such a "invasion" 6 years ago, but upon hearing them breaking the outer door I armed myself when confronted with the business-end of a 12gauge shotgun, they fled.
I am gratefull I didn't have to shoot to protect myself, but I am certainly glad I had the means to defend myself!
I will soon be moving to NYC, and I can assure you, I am not at all comfortable going into an area where I will be unarmed, and the crimerate is so much higher than where I live now!

------------------
"The universe doesn't give first warnings or second chances"

Thor
Member posted 06-02-99 09:28 AM

When you find yourself on a ship of fools, it takes a good sense of humor to get along.

Gee, Thor; I wonder how the populace of Iceland feels about that characterization.

PLdennison:

The courts once held that "separate but equal" was possible, too. The courts are not infallible

Of course not, but in an instance such as this, when the language in the Bill of Rights is consistent throughout and has been consistently interpreted, you need an extremely compelling reason to convince the courts that "the people" means something other than "the people." In fact, throughout our history, whenever the question of to whom "the people" refers has been addressed, the definition has overwhelmingly been broadened rather than narrowed.

Monty wrote:

Gee, Thor; I wonder how the populace of Iceland feels about that characterization.


OK, I'll bite: Iceland?

Thor - FYI there is a poster here abouts named Thorsomethingorother who as well as being a jerk is also from Iceland. If you have been encountering what you might think is unwarrented hostility, it is probably due to people confusing you with the other Thor.

Thanks for the info. I live in Colorado, not Iceland. I was wondering about some of the hostile responses I was getting.

Appologies, Monty. I did not understand the context.

"Gun control does mean that the nasty kinds of guns stay in the hands of criminals, where they are generally used to kill other criminals. I'm not seeing a big problem with this." Wow! Where do I start with this attitude? First of all, does the writer feel that it is okay for "nasty kinds of guns" to kill some people and not others? When the writer talks of "criminals", does the writer refer to anyone who owns a gun? (Remember the line that has been repeated ad nauseum - When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!)? What are "nasty kinds of guns"? Does the writer's definition mean military-style firearms, or all black firearms, or all semi-auto firearms, or all magazine-fed firearms, or just plain, old "all firearms"?

What I meant was that contrary to what most people think, much of the damage that comes from guns in the hands of criminals is inflicted upon other criminals. More specifically, at least around here, guns accompany drug deals, and when drug deals go wrong, the guns get pulled out. Arming the general population isn't going to help this situation. The types of guns I was referring to are handguns and military assault weapons - basically anything that's not a flare gun or a hunting rifle.

Many people seem to be concerned that the criminals will have guns, and their victims will not. I do not believe that this is a valid argument, since the odds (assuming you are a law-abiding, nice sort of person) that your gun will be used in an accidental shooting (by, say, your five-year-old) far outweigh the odds that a crime will be committed against you in such a way that you will be able to defend yourself with your gun.

And yes, it's a harsh position, but I do NOT have a problem with criminals shooting other criminals. There are degrees and exceptions to this of course, but our justice system (and yours, too - to a far worse degree) is overloaded and if the criminals are going to police themselves to some extent, that's great.

Hey, just remember:

GUNS don't kill people....

It's the bullets that do it.

_____________________________________
President of the Vernon Dent fan club.

Prairie Rose sez (ever so charmingly):

"Stoidela, your proctologist called- they found your head."

Jeez, what is it with you people around here that you can't have a lively debate without resorting to snotty little swipes like that? Tsk tsk...very uncivilized.

Now, about your actual points...

I am absolutely clear and comfortable with the idea of wildlife management (although it wouldn't be as necessary if people weren't so hellbent on exterminating natural predators like wolves! We keep creating the problems that then need solving.) But here's what I want to know: why do YOU do it? If it's simply a matter of wildlife management, and no one is ENJOYING it, why not just send a bunch of rangers out to do the deed and have done with it? Why are you and all the hunters eagerly lining up to be the ones to do the killing? Hmmm? Seems to me somebody is having a grand 'ol time blowing holes in living things.

And perhaps it's not you. Perhaps there isn't the slightest rush or thrill in it for you, perhaps you alone, among the thousands of hunters in this land, go forth to do your killing with a heavy heart and a tear rolling down your cheek as you take aim. Let's say, for the hell of it, that that is true. You going to tell me that you are REPRESENTATIVE of the typical hunter? Not bloody likely.

SO I shall modify my statement: MOST hunters hunt because they LIKE IT. They get a thrill out of KILLING. Because if they did not, they would not do it. No one is going to spend thousands of dollars on guns and gear and licenses because they want to do their duty in caring for the herds. Baloney.



------------------
Stoidela