Informal Poll - off topic
parodyman-->
I am curious as to what kind of firearms are owned by TUSCL members.
At the moment I own a .22 Marlin Rifle, a Remington 870 12ga. and a Springfield XD Tactical in .45 with tritium night sights.
*** Those sad individuals who are pro gun control please do not spread your filth here. Start your own fucking whiney thread about how safe the world would be if you could just eliminate every gun.
At the moment I own a .22 Marlin Rifle, a Remington 870 12ga. and a Springfield XD Tactical in .45 with tritium night sights.
*** Those sad individuals who are pro gun control please do not spread your filth here. Start your own fucking whiney thread about how safe the world would be if you could just eliminate every gun.
42 comments
I thought only hippies and peace lovers even thought about that stuff.
The worst fear of criminals and outlaws are people who are armed and know how to shoot. If it's not it should be. Some criminals are so stupid. I once told someone the people that get killed are doing stupid things or have bad luck and I believe that is true.
My fear is a home intruder while I'm asleep
I don't expect my aim to be too great so I went for a big bullet that would knock down whatever it hits...also need it under my drivers seat because my
2nd biggest fear is the rare but horrifying (kinda like a tornado coming down the street) car jacking
But since this is a SC site, I just pray to God that everyone leave their gun at home when they go to a strip club. The last thing we need is some guys who have been drinking to get into a fight about who gets to dance with the hottest stripper and one guy ends up losing his cool and pulling out his gun.
Now, if you want to take your gun to Post Office when you buy stamps, feel free.
M-1 Carbine
1903A4 Springfield Sniper Rifle (I bought my rifle as surplus)
1901 .22 rifle (my grandfather used it during the Pancho Villa expedition to shoot rabbits)
Remington 870 12 gauge
.357 Colt Python revolver
We have my grandfather's 22 rifle still in its wooden case sitting in the back of the cabinet in his house now that he's dead. And a little "saturday night special" kind of thing, a chrome small-caliber "ladies gun" in its original box in my grandmother's nylons drawer. I have fired all sorts of target-shooting rifles, all owned by someone else (often the firing range itself).
I'm not exactly pro gun-control, but I am very much pro-licensing and anything else that the police would help them out for inner-city crime. Outside of major crime zones, hunting weapons and personal-protection weapons seem silly and useless to me (given that all the statistics point out they don't work, and only exacerbate situations and make the owners more, rather than less, likely to be killed in accidents or deliberate crimes) but also seem well within the scope of the ol' Amendment in question. Especially given the "new" interpretation yesterday.
I would support repealing the Second Amendment. I find the notion idiotic, that the original framers would stand for as many deaths as are occurring in high-crime zones, supported by their accidental slip-up about commas and subordinate clauses. But given the current version of the law, I agree with the Supreme Court's choice, to support it as it stands. Black Letter Law is, after all, rather difficult to quibble about.
So, as a legal and lawyerly matter, I'd have to say the Court wasn't far off base. As a social and civilization matter, I'd have to say that people who like to have guns and killing nearby are less civilized or sociable than people who don't. And yet I'm not sure that the current versions of "gun control" would force them to be more civicly responsible. They seem to think that a society consists of "every man for himself" and that competing with others is a productive thing for society as a whole. Not very educated of them ... But then, they're likely products of the American educational system, why WOULD they understand?
Kill kill kill, it's the American way. God Guns and Guts made this country dead. And free. So, kill more, it's un-American NOT to!
16 gague Savage shotgun
.22 Ruger 10' Bull barrel target auto
.25 Beretta auto (wife)
.357 S&W revolver (wife)
.380 Berreta auto my father brought back from Italy after WWII.
.38 S&W revolver my father-in-law took from some drunk in his bar. (wife)
.40 Taurus as my carry weapon
David120,
I have carried my concealed weapon for almost 10 years. I've never had to use it, and rarely had it "out". Many places I go, the people know I carry and a side benefit to that, is that no one messes with me, even in clubs.
Not sure if I posted about it, but a few years back I was watching NFL night game on TV. There was a knock at the door (doorbell hasn't worked it years), which I ignored. Well, the knock soon turned into pounding and the door isn't too secure; should have been replaced 20 years ago. Fortunately, I had a modest weapon handy and was able to properly greet my uninvited guest. He is like don't shoot, shoot. Couldn't see either of his hands clearly; porch light has been out for more than 20 years. I say to him something like: Sorry, but you real close to get filled holes it ain't even funny. One sudden move is all its gonna take! He starts yapping about an emergency and I snap FREEZE!!! He froze. I say that I'd hate to shoot, but this is a bad situation. He says he is a neighbor and his wife is stranded in Homestead and he just needs some gas money. I say what neighbor? Unfortunately, he knew a nurse lived in that house so there was a slim chance he might be telling the truth. Regardless, I just wanted him gone preferrably in not too bad a mood. Don't make sense to make enemies unnecessarily. I grab some small bills from my pocket (perhaps $7) and throw it out the door telling him not to move until I've shut the door. Go back to watching the football game and hoped that he was satisfied with the small payoff. (I later learned the nurse knew nothing about him.) After the game, I decided to check to see if he'd done any damage. Big mistake. I go outside and am soon in extreme sharp pain!!! Damn, the asshole broke a crack pipe and I stepped on it barefoot. Serves me right being so negligent. :) But, I wasn't walking for a few weeks after that; without crutches. :(
The whole time I was focused on the man's hands and also keeping an eye for his potential buddies. He never had both of his hands where I could clearly see 'em . . . not a good sign. And, yes once false move by him and I would have started shooting----I just don't know what if anything he had in his hand.
About a year before the crackhead, I had some crooks stealing from my yard so I go and confront them; of course with appropriate firepower. Fortunately, they didn't want any trouble; and appeared terrified. And, I told then just leave peacefully and keep your hands in front of you and there won't be any need to shoot.
Unfortunately, the little neighbor boy witnessed all this and it upset him greatly. :( His mom was upset as well. His dad did the alpha male routine explaining to his family that I should have been shooting first and asking questions later.
.12 winchester
.10 savage
all for show nice n clean ,
I must say that I am surprised and a little disturbed by your answer. You strike me as one of the more open minded and intelligent people on this forum. Yet your answers seem to follow some kind of liberal party line. Not to say I believe in conservative values either. I find the truth of most issues lies somewhere in-between.
Inner city crime that involves firearms almost universally uses weapons that were not legally obtained. By licensing or otherwise restricting the law abiding citizen’s access to legal firearms the government removes that person’s ability to protect himself. Not to mention curtailing the sporting aspects of firearm ownership.
Helping the police? You are missing the point. The police are there to help you. That is what they are paid for. Unfortunately due to the nature of their job they WILL NOT be present when you most need them. Have you ever called the police in an emergency? A good response time is minutes. A violent confrontation takes seconds. In most instances they arrive too late and can only call someone else to clean up the carnage. Some neighborhoods they take their time responding because they do not wish to endanger themselves. Safety and security are personal responsibilities not the job of a municipal agency.
Also I take offense at the implication that I am less civil or sociable because I choose to arm myself. I take no pleasure in the thought that I may at some point have to defend myself or a loved one and injure or kill another human being. That gristly situation is not something I look forward to. But I’m also not going to apologize for being prepared to deal with that type of situation. The priority I put on the safety of my family and myself is miles above the value I put on the life of a violent criminal. Sorry, I wish I could be a better person but I’m not.
Being prepared has nothing to do with an every man for himself competitive compulsion. It is just the reality of the situation. It is not a John Wayne attitude or an Archie Bunker “good American†attitude on my part and I resent being pigeon holed by your ignorance.
That's a great defense for the pro-gun argument, reasonably expressed. I disagree with almost everything you said, but there is no getting around the fact that you expressed it well.
But that was not how you began the conversation. You began by calling all gun control supporters "sad", "whiney" and spreading "filth." And if one looks at the other thread on the supreme court's recent decision, most of the posters expressed their views in a manner that was utterly intolerant of dissenting opinions. Frankly, when I read posts like this, I know that I and other proponents of gun control will one day win this battle, because the pro-gun people express themselves in ways that are going to be a turn off to the average American. And, I assure you, we will win and we will ban handguns. In most of the civilized world, gun control is powerful and extreme. America will get there one day, maybe even during my lifetime.
We could debate the issue of gun control in reasonable intelligent terms -- but it's extremely unlikely, given the nature of the debate (and given the nature of some of the people on this board, who have difficult expressly anything in temperate language). It is also unlikely that we are going to have a healthy, mature debate on a host of other sensitive topics (abortion, gay marriage, immigration, the presidential election, the middle east, etc.).
This is a board about sex, not something else. It's a good place to share information and have debates about sex. It's a lousy place to have debates about subjects that have nothing to do with sex. I am just as opinionated as you are -- maybe more so -- about guns as well as dozens of other topics. But I resist the temptation to subject you and everyone else to my views, because this isn't the place.
Can the parodyman who wrote the reasoned post above likewise reasonably recognize that this is not the place, and leave the gun topics for some other board?
Well, it can be. It is often noted how rural people "cling" to guns. Imagine you live miles from your nearest neighbor and dozens of miles from the nearest town. As P-man said calling 9-11 will not help you if someone with ill intent wishes you harm. I refuse, and this was I think the point of that silly amendment second only to freedom of speech, press and religion, to put my security and safety wholly in the hands of government. I demand, or better yet, I refuse to cede the right to protect myself. We are a people who consent to be governed by those we elect, not a people whose rights are granted by a government. There was a document to that effect drawn up about, oh 232 years ago, and another about 13 years later.
In the US home invasion robberies are rare, in Britain, they are increasing. Look into it, ask yourself why.
Often people portray the gun issue in stark terms, everyone has a gun, or nobody does. The nobody does won't happen. Neither will the everybody does. The middle ground, where a criminal can't be sure who will or won't actually helps enhance public safety. As always the movies reveal the truth. From Pulp Fiction:
Yolanda: This place? A coffee shop?
Pumpkin: Why not? Nobody ever robs restaurants. Bars, liquor stores, gas stations... you get your head blown off sticking up one of them. Restaurants on the other hand, you catch with their pants down. They're not expecting to get robbed. Not as expectant anyway.
Criminals prey on the weak and unprepared. Why? 'Cause they aren't stupid, at least in that sense.
But I didn't mean to say that I'd support (what is generally meant by) gun control. I recognize fully, that our current situation would throw a LOT of wrenches into the works. Since so many criminals currently have fire-arms; since most of those were illegally obtained; since they'd likely be able to get more of them regardless of new restrictions on "good" citizens; since there's so much crime in the streets already; since the police in some locations are unable to stop that crime; since all of that, and more, I'd have to say that any blanket reduction in LEGAL handgun ownership would really be missing the point.
Nevertheless, it might actually make things a little safer for the average Joe. Just by reducing the total number of guns ...
Then again, it might not. We have little proof either way.
The main point I'd make, is that owning a gun DOES NOT make you safer in a crime situation. Most people simply don't understand this fact. "I'm going to defend mySELF since the danged police can't seem to handle it, and there's a WAR going on out there," seems to be their general understanding. Nice theory, but it almost never pans out that way in practice. If you own a gun, you are like 3 times more likely to be killed by a gun, either by it in an accident or by a criminal who likely would not have killed you if you were unarmed.
This general assumption, by gun-proliferation advocates, that every man should "have a right" to defend himself, is the problem behind all gun-control debates in our country. They might want to do so; but they don't.
Further, it puts ME in the crossfire. I don't want to be shot at. So, I therefore want fewer guns available to ANYONE. Fewer for the cops, fewer for the criminals, fewer for the idiot civilians who don't know how to handle them, and yes (just to be consistent) fewer for the .00000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the population who actually are adequately trained in self-defense with them. (By one standard, there are less than 1000 people nation-wide who could for real do the "Chuck Norris thing", outside of police and military people. Add up training and ability and ongoing retraining ... )
But we're in a bind. We can't just instantly impose new gun control laws onto the mayhem that's going on out there already. It would mean all sorts of imbalances of power, and would (as you've rightly pointed out) miss addressing the key points, which are essentially that criminals CAN get guns, and use them, largely with impunity. So I WOULD, in theory and merely philosophizing, if I thought it might be feasible, support a repeal of the Amendment because then our nation COULD BE CIVILIZED when so far WE HAVE NOT BEEN, on this subject. But it ain't gonna come to pass, and in the current fix, my real and practical position, outside of all theoretical philosophizing, is to agree mostly with the NRA's position, that you can't just slap some poorly administered laws onto the top of an already untenable situation.
What we need, is a top-to-bottom overhaul of the assumptions and foundations of our relationship with violence. Ain't gonna happen.
"This nation was founded in violence" is an idiotic thing to say. Ya think the French didn't have a bit of bloodshed 'round about the 1790s or so? But do they have a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing every citizen the right to keep and bear guillotines? What about Germany? Every Reich instigates another pogrom, but this doesn't EXCUSE it. Two wrongs (fifty wrongs) don't make a right. If America was "founded in violence" in a manner exceptional to all other nations (it wasn't; they all had a bloody revolution at some point in the past) then why would that excuse the perpetuating of violence? And if the premise of the Amendment -- roughly, to prevent the government from gettin' uppity, because citizen-militias can just stop 'em in their tracks -- is to be considered, then we would have to allow citizen-militias to arm themselves with half-tracks, thermo-nuclear warheads, and surface-to-air missiles, just to keep up with the government's arsenal. We aren't prepared to that for the survivalists in Idaho, are we?
So, to me, both sides generally talk past one another in this debate. I often ask myself why people crave their guns so much. Two reasons come to mind. The first is a family / childhood association. I went huntin' with dad and grandpa, sure. I know the right safety moves and carries, how to oil and clean a "recreational" rifle, never to point it (loaded or not, no matter what you THINK the chamber holds) at anything but a buck (preferably more than 4 point). Those are old memories, and for some people they're sweet. I don't blame them for wanting to keep them and pass them on to another generation. Hunters are great conservationists, and in some ways they're the forefront of America's environmentalist movement. The gun teaches responsibility to the land.
The other reason is ... their dicks are small. They want to "man up," but they can only bring themselves to do it when they're sitting in a shopping mall surrounded by fluorescent lights and fat mothers in sweater-skirts. They're insecure about the (perceived) rising crime going on around them. (By the way, crime was generally worse in the 90s.) They want to do something. No, scratch that, they want to THINK OF THEMSELVES as HAVING DONE SOMETHING. So they "man up" and tell the cowed, timorous wifey, "I got me a gun." They don't know how to use it, they look at it for a bit and then learn where the safety catch is and think, "Now I'm just like Chuck Norris."
I live in the nation's murder capital. I'm not STUPID enough to own or carry a fire-arm, because if I go out to the French Quarter or New Orleans East in the middle of the night drunk alone (and I do) I'd rather be robbed than killed.
So, my positions, in general, tersely:
1. People talk past one another a lot, and the information about the fact, that owning a gun makes you MORE rather than less likely to be a victim, is poorly disseminated.
2. I realize the current situation prevents us from just going, "Kazam, no more guns for law-abiding citizens! Now it's all better." That wouldn't make it all better, not at all.
3. The current situation disgusts me. America CAN DO BETTER but DOES NOT TRY TO. By definition, we are poorly civilized. European nations do a better job of setting things up for a wide range of people to live in close proximity to one another.
4. I would agree, theoretically, that repealing (or, making it never have existed in the first place, magically through time travel) the Second Amendment would have been a good idea.
5. I would also agree, that's not practical. Practically speaking, the current debate over crime control need not concern itself with legalistic restrictions on gun ownership.
But note, the fact that discussion A -- crime control -- bears little relation to proposition B -- gun control -- does not prove that proposition B is a bad idea. If we agree that we are unlikely to curb inner-city violence through more restrictions on decent-citizen gun ownership, that does not mean there aren't other good reasons for restricting decent-citizen gun ownership. I think there are ... lots of good reasons for restricting decent citizens from owning guns. Here it is in a nutshell:
Guns are killing machines. Therefore they do not belong in any decent citizen's hands. Duh. (PS: no, cars are not killing machines, though they can wrongly be used that way, just like kitchen knives.) Further, legal guns do very little to aid an average citizen in protecting himself where the police have failed. (By the way, someone nit-picked my expression "to help the police" by suggesting we need not help them, because they should help us. True, we NEED not. But, in a civilized world, one could choose either to help them, or hinder them, or be neutral. I frankly choose to help. THAT MAKES ME MORE CIVILIZED than any asshole who thinks "I don't HAVE to help the cops, so fuck 'em I'm not gonna." I bet that selfish asshole who doesn't think in terms of what he OUGHT to do and instead in terms of what he CAN get away with doing, also owns a gun. For him, society is all about taking as many liberties as possible, regardless of their overall impact on others. That's not civilized. It's selfish.)
Nevertheless ...
6. The Supreme court got it right. Given the law, the Amendment, and the current social situation, I can't see that they should have decided in any other manner.
7. I would like to fix crime on the streets. I think the first step is to improve education; and to provide FULFILLING life-long work and learning situations for all adult humans. (Working at McDonald's doesn't count. Having to sit through a moron at a public school in NOLa as she pretends to teach, also doesn't count.) In addition, we might consider re-casting the "war on drugs" into a epidemiological and medical phenomenon instead of a para-military one. These solutions have little to do with controlling guns.
8. We ought to control guns. They kill. Kill = bad. Duh.
Law of the land? It was a 5-4 opinion, which may only apply to special "federal citizens." Yes, seems like a hell of a reach by
the legal expert featured on CNN. Also, you still have to get lower courts to comply, which ain't always easy believe it or not.
I have to agree with njscfan. You expressed yourself well. Now, if you would do that a little more often, people would quit calling for banning you.
Now, here is what I find puzzling about your post -
In response to Book Guy, you wrote "I must say that I am surprised and a little disturbed by your answer. You strike me as one of the more open minded and intelligent people on this forum"
What does intelligence, or lack thereof, have to do with a person's stance on a particular political or moral issue? Hear me out - I am not taking sides - but intelligence does not have anything to do with a person's support of gun control, immigration, abortion, gay marriage, the War in Iraq, or any other hot button issue one can name. I understand what you were saying to Book Guy, but I'll assume it was just a poor choice of words. An intelligent person can still disagree with me on one of these issues.
Do you have a source for this?
Licensing doesn't restrict anything from anyone who can legally own a gun. Like a lot things is this country, unfortunately, fear is the driving force behind a lot of (not all) people wanting to own guns IMO.
"we will win and we will ban handguns."
I dunno about that...
"I don't share their fear, so I don't feel the need to arm myself."
Extremely well put!
Citing "Pulp Fiction" as a "defense" of gun onwership...priceless...
I don't believe the problem is hand guns but crime itself. Many people here in South Carolina own a number of handguns but we aren't going around killing each other left and right. The people actually use the police to help catch criminals here. In fact where I live, the police investigators seem to catch criminals that were not caught in multiple other areas until they come here. That is good but a bit scary at the same time. The police seem to have such a tight grip on crime that they are going after kids who are having drinking parties (technically that is illegal) and they are cracking down on other activities if it violates the law. If you have a kid under 21 and you know they are having a drinking party, you could be arrested and put in jail here. Actually here you probably would be arrested anyway and only let go after you told them you didn't know. Crime is the real problem, not gun control in my opinion. There are already a lot of laws on the books for gun control. There may be compromises that could be made between gun control advocates and gun right owners to make it safer for everyone to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally insane and criminals but cracking down on crime needs to be the number one goal in my opinion. Not cracking down on restricting the rights of lawful citizens.
If President Bush wanted to (say in response to a terrorist attack) I believe he could declare martial law and temporarily disband Congress. People deemed to be a threat to the government or national security could be rounded up and detained. This could include senators and politicians opposed to martial law. Even though I believe Congress is not supposed to be permanently disbanded, I think there would be enough concentrated power to stop if from reforming if someone powerful didn't want it. If no one but a few criminals had guns, it would be even easier to enforce and keep a dictatorship here in the US. I do believe some gun control advocates believe nothing this bad could ever happen but the Founding Fathers remember things different over 200 years ago.
What does intelligence, or lack thereof, have to do with a person's stance on a particular political or moral issue? Hear me out - I am not taking sides - but intelligence does not have anything to do with a person's support of gun control, immigration, abortion, gay marriage, the War in Iraq, or any other hot button issue one can name. I understand what you were saying to Book Guy, but I'll assume it was just a poor choice of words. An intelligent person can still disagree with me on one of these issues."
My Answer: You are right. Poor choice of words. What bothered me about Book Guy's post was my belief that his world view was more like mine. I have nothing but respect for Book Guy and meant no offence. I was speaking to him as I would if we were face to face.
Parodyman--> A: Nothing. All of your aimless wandering has left you clearly retarded. See where it says "Informal Poll - off topic" in every god damn topic line? Do you need someone to hold your hand and explain these things to you?
Some of those "gang bangers" belong in the morgue--at least if you believe in protecting "innocents." I was prevented from killing a large powerful thug who preyed on the less powerful. Got a pair of government bracelets temporarily for my attempted good deed---the police were all upset because I used a "deadly weapon" i.e. a pool cue: BOO HOO. YES, it would definitely have been a good deed. So, 15 years or so later surprise surprise surprise I come across the adult version of this thug. He was happy to see me of all things--strange. In those 15 years how much damage did he do to "innocents"? My guess is quite a bit. And, NO----I definitely don't believe in the filth of large government or its prison state which does significantly more damage than terrorists or individual thugs.
This is exactly what common sense gun laws are all about BTW.
"People deemed to be a threat to the government or national security could be rounded up and detained."
Until the Supreme Court restored habeas corpus recently, this WAS already happening. The idea that the populace of this country could "rise up" and sucessfully confront what is the most powerful military in the world (maybe the most powerful military ever) is ridiculous. Your guns are not prtecting you from you govt., period.
I agree with david120, the easy access to guns in this country, whether legal or illegal, is not a good thing IMO.
Then they weren't "gang bangers." In order to be "bangin'" one must possess something that goes bang.
But in all seriousness I do get your point. The escalation in violence is attributable to a lot of factors. I don't think the ease of illegal firearms purchase helps, but this has nothing to do with legally owned weapons. There are already laws on the books for this stuff. How about enforcing the existing laws instead of legislating all of my rights out of existence?
Good comment about the gang bangers - funny
Now I need to find a dancer with excellent bun control. Hmm ...