New Poll - What describes your view on Firearms - Honesty.

Gun, shooting and equipment discussions unrelated to CHL issues

Moderator: carlson1

What describes your view on Firearms?

I agree with Boxer, Feinstein et al, only us elites need our firearms and permits.
0
No votes
Only LEO and military needs firearms.
0
No votes
I do not care what is outlawed as long as I still have my hunting guns.
0
No votes
Reasonable restrictions are OK as long as I still have mine.
0
No votes
Any type of carry/posession should require a license.
1
1%
Only law abiding, non-felon, sane people should own firearms.
41
47%
Come and take them, cold dead hands etc.
28
32%
I need a tank parked next to my arsenal and ammo dump. The 2A is about the civilian militia.
17
20%
 
Total votes: 87

frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

anygunanywhere wrote:Frankie, respectfully, I am just going to have to disagree with you on your point that if we had any gun, any time, anywhere, by any one there would be mass disaster.
That's OK.

But no one has explained to me how an "any gun any time anywhere" policy could be implemented while at the same time preventing Al Qaeda from staging public shoot ups on airplanes, in shopping malls, or anywhere that would cause maximum terror.

After all, under an "any, any, any" system, anyone could walk into a gun store and walk out with an MP-5. No license, no background check, no ID needed, right? Whether someone was a citizen, a legal alien, an illegal alien, or a full blown suicidal terrorist, they could buy the gun, right?

Then, they could carry that MP-5 anywhere they went.

Don't you think that if it was that easy that Al Qaeda would take advantage of it and run terror ops like that as often as possible? I sure do.

And I think it is absurd to think that we could ever round up every criminal, insane person, or terrorist infiltrator. To me, that's just waving a magic wand.

In the real world, "any, any, any" would lead to chaos and disaster, IMO. I would love for someone to show me where I am wrong.
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body
User avatar
anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: Richmond, Texas

Post by anygunanywhere »

frankie_the_yankee wrote: In the real world, "any, any, any" would lead to chaos and disaster, IMO. I would love for someone to show me where I am wrong.
We certainly know that none, nowhere, notime, noone is a disaster.

I doubt seriously if we will ever arrive at the opposite end of the extreme.

I do think we have moved way too far to the none side and must move more towards the any side.

Anygun
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh

"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
User avatar
seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Post by seamusTX »

frankie_the_yankee wrote:But no one has explained to me how an "any gun any time anywhere" policy could be implemented while at the same time preventing Al Qaeda from staging public shoot ups
No law can stop criminals and lunatics from starting shooting. But if honest citizens have weapons, they can stop the shooting.

"Gun free zones" are victim disarmament zones. They don't stop terrestrial criminals, and they didn't stop the September 11 attack, Richard Reid, or Cho.
anygunanywhere wrote:We certainly know that none, nowhere, notime, noone is a disaster.
I agree with your sentiment, but I want to elaborate one point:

There is no such thing as a workable "gun free zone." If honest citizens are prohibited from having weapons, criminals will still have them. At worst, the agents of a thug regime will have them, as we see in so many countries.

- Jim
frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

seamusTX wrote:
frankie_the_yankee wrote:But no one has explained to me how an "any gun any time anywhere" policy could be implemented while at the same time preventing Al Qaeda from staging public shoot ups
No law can stop criminals and lunatics from starting shooting.
Jim,

You didn't exactly answer my question.

Currently groups of Al Qaeda types are not boarding airliners with MP-5's and shooting them up at 35000 feet. Since it would wreak havoc with our whole air travel system it is obvious that they would like to do it if they could. But at the present time, something is preventing them from doing it.

So tell me how we would prevent them from doing it if anyone could buy an MP-5 and carry it anywhere, including on board airliners.

Otherwise, I must conclude that some restrictions of gun rights (infringements?) are a benefit.
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body
User avatar
seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Post by seamusTX »

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Currently groups of Al Qaeda types are not boarding airliners with MP-5's and shooting them up at 35000 feet. Since it would wreak havoc with our whole air travel system it is obvious that they would like to do it if they could. But at the present time, something is preventing them from doing it.

So tell me how we would prevent them from doing it if anyone could buy an MP-5 and carry it anywhere, including on board airliners.
I think I already explained it.

Obviously you can't get a rifle onto a plane now, but you can get weapons and bombs onto planes now. Richard Reid did it, despite receiving extra scrutiny from security.

They aren't trying to hijack planes because it is unlikely to succeed. The passengers and crew will resist, as the passengers of Flight 93 did.

If they stood the chance of being shot in the back of the head by the pistol-toting granny in the seat next to them, their odds would be as bad.

The flaw in suicidal terrorist tactics is that if the victims know they're going to die, they have nothing to lose resisting.

- Jim
yerasimos
Senior Member
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:02 pm

Post by yerasimos »

I voted #7, since I only want to care for hardware that I can haul around on my person or in the trunk of my car. For the purposes of individual protection, blades and bullets seem to be the most practical backup when awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, non-lethal force, etc, may be insufficient.

It is interesting to discuss what-ifs, hypothetical situations like boarding passenger aircraft while armed, but I have not seen any discussion about a possible transition from the present situation to the hypothetical (leaving aside the minutiae like AQ trying to open carry MP5s onto passenger aircraft). The questions I find interesting run something like, What would have to happen for American culture, society and legal norms to accommodate--and wholeheartedly accept-- the widespread, peaceable carry of firearms and weapons? What are the obstacles in the way of exercising our Creator-endowed right to self-protection without infringement?

Just a few thoughts of my own: if people decided, upon their own free will, to turn the bowling alleys into pistol ranges, and turn the golf courses into rifle ranges, and decided to practice with their rifles and pistols in large numbers on the weekends and weekday evenings, instead of running up their credit card balances at the mall, wasting time sipping lattes at Starbucks or swilling beer at ball games, and we chose to mind our own turf in the 50 states without trying to police the rest of the world, AQ and their evil brethren would be decidedly discouraged from and unmotivated in spreading their terror and ideology in Texas or the other 49 states.

Unfortunately, I do not foresee any such cultural shift happening, because the vast majority of people are content to outsource their security needs. They think that paying $100-200/month for a cellular phone, home security system and OnStar in their car/truck is a good deal that provides all they need to summon help wherever they are. Most people are accustomed to seeing uniformed police or security guards in their daily lives, and they (consciously or unconsciously) think these specialists in security and violence are generally there to protect them, directly or indirectly.

Furthermore, dressing in the latest hip fashions does not work well for CCW. Training to be ready for a worst-case self-defense scenario can be a quick detour to social ostracism and being perceived as a weird, paranoid freak. Most people are not interested in hauling around an extra 3-4 pounds of gun and magazines on a sturdy belt, let alone a J-frame in their shorts pocket; it gets in the way of their iPod and an active dating life. Ultimately, many people would rather be “cool� and comfortable, rather than ready. Sage advice such as, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance,� is mentally dismissed with a cheap, “Whatever.�

I am not going to bother ennumerating the legal infringements; they are pretty well known already.

This gentleman has some very interesting observations on contemporary culture, and I think much of what he talks about--or similar--would have to happen before an individual’s right to self protection is eventually respected and accepted as it should, evolving as an indirect result of devolution of power and authority.

Mods, please move this if this constitutes unwarranted thread drift, or pm me and I can delete it.
User avatar
seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Post by seamusTX »

yerasimos wrote:It is interesting to discuss what-ifs, hypothetical situations like boarding passenger aircraft while armed, but I have not seen any discussion about a possible transition from the present situation to the hypothetical
Of course this discussion is hypothetical. I can't foresee any political and social development that would allow ordinary people to carry weapons onto commercial aircraft.

I am only saying that the same principle holds true everywhere: Allowing honest people to bear arms is a deterrent to criminals.

The rest of your post is thought-provoking. The only way I know is to convert non-shooters to shooters, one-to-one.

- Jim
frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

seamusTX wrote:
frankie_the_yankee wrote:Currently groups of Al Qaeda types are not boarding airliners with MP-5's and shooting them up at 35000 feet. Since it would wreak havoc with our whole air travel system it is obvious that they would like to do it if they could. But at the present time, something is preventing them from doing it.

So tell me how we would prevent them from doing it if anyone could buy an MP-5 and carry it anywhere, including on board airliners.
I think I already explained it.

Obviously you can't get a rifle onto a plane now, but you can get weapons and bombs onto planes now. Richard Reid did it, despite receiving extra scrutiny from security.
But you could get MP-5's on board airliners if you adopt an absolutist "any, any, any" position and tolerate no 2A "infringements" whatsoever. And people have advocated exactly that in this thread.

Currently, no groups of AQ's are shooting up airliners because our current weapons control policies make it unfeasible to get the guns on board.

Just because the system is not perfect and people like Reid can conduct a rare op doesn't negate the fact that if an absolutist "any, any, any" policy were adopted AQ types could buy MP-5's anywhere, carry them anywhere, and run these ops every day.

Now all this proves is that the "any, any, any" position is unworkable. Of course, this is pretty obvious to most of us. But I only went to the trouble because of the uncritical responses and cheerleading I saw in response to that position.

Some advocate that we have gone too far towards the "no one, nowhere, never" policy, and that we would be better off if we moved more in the "any, any, any" direction.

I fully agree with this.

But I also believe that there are benefits to licensing people who carry guns, and conducting background checks on people who buy them.

I find it interesting that one advocate for the "any, any, any" position proposed rounding up all the criminals, terrorists, and illegal aliens and dealing with them with extreme prejudice. See the irony? Someone should be able to go into a gun store and buy a gun no questions asked, but if they are sitting in Mickey D's munching a burger they might need to prove their citizenship to avoid the "roundup".
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body
User avatar
jimlongley
Senior Member
Posts: 6134
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:31 pm
Location: Allen, TX

Post by jimlongley »

frankie_the_yankee wrote:But I do know that in times past we were not trying to defend ourselves from suicidal jihadist fanatics and terrorists. In times past, it seems that even warfare had rules that combatants followed.
I don't know which times past you are referring to, but our own "Indian Campaigns" into the 1890s, the French and Indian Wars of the 1600s, our "Civil War" and so many others included many many examples that could be equated directly to the actions of the "jihadist fanatics and terrorists."

Quantrill, Bomaseen, and the Seventh Cavalry, slaughtered innocent men women and children with the sole purpose of terrorizing them.

And who is going to enforce those rules of war anyway? The winners?

The first shots at Lexington and Concord were fired because the reigning government was trying to remove crew served weapons and ammunition from private hands, and those same people were declared, by that government, to be in rebellion, and thus felons.

The Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right that has nothing to do with hunting, carrying concealed, or the organized militia. The recent attempted removals of various rights were fresh in the memories of those who sought to protect them by establishing the Bill of Rights.

Accepting licensing of a right is letting the government "allow" the excercise of that right, which moves it into the realm of privilege.
Real gun control, carrying 24/7/365
User avatar
seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Post by seamusTX »

I have said everything that I have to say at this point. The lurkers can judge for themselves.

- Jim
frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

jimlongley wrote: The Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right that has nothing to do with hunting, carrying concealed, or the organized militia. The recent attempted removals of various rights were fresh in the memories of those who sought to protect them by establishing the Bill of Rights.

Accepting licensing of a right is letting the government "allow" the excercise of that right, which moves it into the realm of privilege.
Some advocate that we have gone too far towards the "no one, nowhere, never" policy, and that we would be better off if we moved more in the "any, any, any" direction.

I fully agree with this.

But I also believe that there are benefits to licensing people who carry guns, and conducting background checks on people who buy them.
I also believe that so-called "sterile areas" have benefits in certain narrow circumstances. No, they are not perfect, but they can yield a benefit if well executed.

I think the above (including the quote) nicely sums up my position. Judging by the poll results so far, this looks like the plurality position as well.
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body
frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

yerasimos wrote: The questions I find interesting run something like, What would have to happen for American culture, society and legal norms to accommodate--and wholeheartedly accept-- the widespread, peaceable carry of firearms and weapons?


Indeed yes, very interesting. The first thing that comes to mind is a massive change in what is taught in schools. The second thing is a massive change in the philosophy of the people who make up our mass media.

I do not see any of these changes happening, which means that the burden falls upon us to teach our philosophy to our children.
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body
frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

Liberty wrote: Honest I really didn't mean that to sound like an attack. It wasn't.
OK. No harm no foul.

Is this when we're supposed to say something like, "Bless your heart."?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body
kauboy
Senior Member
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Burleson, Lone Star State (of course)

Post by kauboy »

I can't help but notice that you have taken one group in one scenario, and taken it to the most extreme end imaginable.
You can't come up with a reasonable answer to stop a group that intentionally wants to kill themselves. All the restrictions haven't worked yet, and they are continuing to test the boundaries.
As stated, the 2A is only protecting an pre-existing right. Anything that limits that right to anyone in this country is debasing the very soul of the Constitution.

And to answer your question, yes, I would be willing to accept that risk, because I know that my daughter will have her "hole puncher" in her handbag, will be well trained, and will drill lead through the forehead of anyone who decides to commit an act of lunacy at 35,000 feet.

And to the one who quoted that "The Constitution was not a suicide pact." Maybe they should try to remember its predecessor. The Declaration of Independence was nothing but a suicide pact.
"People should not be afraid of their Governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people." - V
KBCraig
Banned
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

Post by KBCraig »

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Currently, no groups of AQ's are shooting up airliners because our current weapons control policies make it unfeasible to get the guns on board.
No groups of AQs are shooting up malls (you mentioned them in the same breath as airliners earlier), nor schools, nor churches.

Why not, Frankie? It's certainly not because they can't get guns into those places, so your "sterile area" argument fails.

Very few Americans fly more than rarely, but almost all Americans' everyday lives are affected by school, shopping, and church. Attacking those targets would be far more terrorizing. A team of 10 determined assassins in a large crowded mall like The Galleria, armed with guns and grenades, could certainly inflict more casualties than the typical 80-200 on a commercial plane.

I enjoy a spirited debate as well as anyone, but frankly --pardon the pun-- I'm growing tired of you wading in on the contrarian side of every issue just for the sake of arguing. It's getting really old, and it's to the point that I'm ready to start ignoring anything you have to say about any subject.

Kevin
Locked

Return to “General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion”