Right To Bear Arms,A lesson for liberals

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ Jun 5 2007, 10:39 AM) [snapback]455807[/snapback]</div>

Huh? Gun laws vary widely from state to state, with many states allowing people to carry concealed weapons. That's a crime in California (might even be a felony). I don't think Maine has a CCW law, and I doubt that LA does.

Maine is a predominantly rural state, and probably has a less disadvantaged minorities that commit much more crime per capita than the white majority. LA has more urban centers with more blacks and other minorities, so the crime rates will be higher per capita.

New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont are similar. I don't know the status of the gun laws in Maine verses NH, but it would be an interesting thing to look at (Maine is more liberal, and NH more conservative). I do know that hunting is a huge sport in NH (you can always tell by the number of dogs you see with orange vests on when deer hunting season opens).

 

By "gun laws in each state" I intended to compare Louisiana and Maine. I am aware each state is different but LA and ME are pretty close in terms of actual gun llegalities but Maine is one of the safest states and Louisiana one of the deadliest.

 

So now this argument has gone from citizens carrying guns to protect themselves from crime...to hand-to-hand combat in the streets with terrorists, as we all fight to save Democracy...?

I just wanted to write those words to see how silly it sounded.

Are y'all serious? Do you think that "the terrorists" give a damn whether I have a .22 in my handbag?

This is beginning to sound really paranoid and defensive...the way just about every pro-gun argument becomes if you give it enough time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jun 6 2007, 02:18 PM) [snapback]456724[/snapback]</div>

Flying planes into the twin towers probably seemed silly before 9-11, too. The suicide bomber in the food court of your local mall is inevitable. The question is, do you want to throw your half-eaten ice cream cone at them, or at least have a fighting chance courtesy of Smith & Wesson.

However, you may wish to consider upgrading from an almost useless .22 to at least a .38 special +P revolver.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Les Gas @ Jun 6 2007, 02:32 PM) [snapback]456743[/snapback]</div>

I'm not sure that even the .38 would have been effective against an airliner from that distance.

Do you see how silly the juxtaposition of your two comments is...going from carriage of a .22, to planes crashing into the twin towers...?

These have nothing whatever to do with each other, except for the fact that you placed them together.

-----

Regarding "suicide bombers": I'd rather take my chances against these folks, than walking down the street in a country where everyone who can't even parallel park a car is carrying a weapon.

------

One more thing: how does law enforcement feel about this?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 6 2007, 04:34 PM) [snapback]456858[/snapback]</div>

Any savings of lives in this case would, I'm sure, be offset by all the occasions of folks who *think* their plane is being hijacked...shoot first, and ask questions later.

Proposals like this would change forever the tone and manner of all the social interactions we experience on a day-to-day basis. This is more difficult to measure than the awful loss of human life of 9/11, but may in fact actually be more damaging to our society (I believe). Why do you think it is that other countries deal with terrorism successfully, but don't have to resort to personal armament?

I also believe that tyranny will overtake us not with violence, but with complacency.

It's happening right now...and all the guns in the world won't stop it.

Also, no one is answering me...how does law enforcement feel about this?

Do you think most cops would like every citizen to be carrying as much firepower as they've got? Or will cops now carry machine guns, in an ever increasing escalation of weaponry? Next: criminals will wear bulletproof vests, so they can still commit crimes and not get killed...

...then every American will have to wear a bullet proof vest, too...?

I know, I'm being silly, but...

Where does this ever end? Don't you ever wonder why we're so violent in the first place, and why seemingly sensible people would actually think this is a good idea?

Also, if I'm shot by accident, or end up in the line of fire accidentally, who pays for my medical bills? And do I get to sue the person who shot me by mistake? Or is this just a price that I pay for feeling safe? Do you think that so many more guns might actually result in accidental shootings? How many children, Doctor, do you think you'll be treating...who've shot themselves accidentally 'cause firearms are so prevalent?

Does this possibility concern you? Your arguments are all quite abstract and idealistic. Mine, I'd suggest, have much more bearing on our daily lives.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jun 6 2007, 05:50 PM) [snapback]456870[/snapback]</div>

If socialism takes over this country... tax payers do..... all those illegals who broke the law who pay taxes.... oh wait.. they don't pay taxes.

Oh those rich people who pay taxes... oh wait - they all left the country because they don't like communism... or took their business overseas...

Erghm... social security will pay for it... right! All the old people died because of universal healthcare - we can afford that now!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jun 6 2007, 05:50 PM) [snapback]456870[/snapback]</div>

To quote these officers:

I'm beginning to wonder why seemingly sensible people think that it's such a bad idea that we, The People carry firearms.

I have to raise the question, because right now you're telling me that you're opposed to your right to carry that .22 in your purse. By what I'm reading in the many posts that are opposed to allowing the Greater Many to carry weapons by their own free will, I'm understanding that you would rather not have the gun in the very instance that you bought the gun for: to save your life.

In short, YES! Do we need to list the many Americans that have gone on shooting rampages in the populace? Or how about the domestic terrorist who took an M60 Patton main battle tank and drove it through the streets of San Diego, CA and left a swath of destruction in his wake. He was stopped by small arms after getting stuck on the center median before he had the opportunity to back the tank up and continue on his rampage. We cite things like these domestic acts of terrorism and acts of violence against us to show what life is like now, with our right to carry. Do you really want to see how life would be without our right to carry? I sure don't. I would feel much safer in a neighborhood where everyone on my street had a firearm than I would in a neighborhood where no one had any weapon whatsoever.

I've seen how bad a city can get when we are allowed to carry firearms. Many nights in the city of North Las Vegas I would lie awake at night and hear gunshots, followed by tires squealing, and a few minutes later, cops arriving. I always felt safe because my parents had a firearm in their gun safe, and we were fully capable of defending ourselves if the need arose. Now, what say the same thing happens, and the thugs wind up on my street, using my house as protection from the cops? 9 times out of 10 they're gonna kill the people they hold hostage anyways. I'd rather have the ability to drive those people out of my house and protect my family from criminals if I had to.

This is not some idealistic culture we live in - the many threads about many ridiculous numbers of full-size SUVs and pickups on the roads tell us that much already. If anything, this society, as a whole, grows more and more violent every day. You can feel it. You can see it! There's no way stripping away all the privately owned firearms would work now - you'd see the rate of fatalities rise exponentially in the first week alone. The massive numbers in gangs alone tell us that if excessive gun control would work against us, not for us.

You want gun control? Great! Use it properly, to restrict the wrong people from getting firearms. Don't restrict the law-abiding citizens! They're the last ones you want to stop from getting them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jun 6 2007, 05:50 PM) [snapback]456870[/snapback]</div>

The opponents of the Florida concealed carry law basically had the same argument that you did. That violent gun crime would run rampant when everybody had a gun. That the streets of Florida would be like the old West. Blood would run in the streets. Cats and dogs, living together. Wait....they didn't say the last one.

You know what? None of that happened. At all.

Neither did it happen anywhere else concealed carry for firearms was allowed.

If anyone is being "idealistic" and "abstract", it is the one operating on a premise without any evidence.

Despite your feelings, if someone is beating you to death with a golf club, my first instinct will be to kill that person to preserve your life. Not find out what kind of childhood they had. Not to try to talk them down. Not to call the police, and wait 5-20 minutes for them to show up and trace a chalk outline around you and take pictures for evidence.

 

That is all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ Jun 6 2007, 10:50 PM) [snapback]457088[/snapback]</div>

I imagine it was probably the same here in the state of Connecticut. However, crime here is low for the most part - and you never know WHO is carrying around these parts! I like to believe that a rather large part of the reason that we have a somewhat lower crime rate is because of the fact that the state has a concealed weapons law.

 

I find it amazing that in all the 52 entries to this thread discussing the practicalities and possibilities of a pistol packing populace being able to stand down a gov't on the march against them, not one has pointed out that for the last four years a civilian populace armed with nothing but guts and gunpowder has so far successfully derailed and defeated the largest, most mechanized military in the history of mankind, in Iraq.

I truly think that if Cheney and his sock-puppet whore had tried to strong arm their fascist grip on the U.S. gov't using military means, they'd have done it so incompetently (as they've done in Iraq) that they'd've been cut to ribbons by all the gun packing citizenry using just their pocket knives and we'd still have a Bill of Rights. Unfortunately they accomplished their coup de tat using the far more competent machinery of corruption and propaganda so no one raised so much as a toenail clipper in defense.

All of which is to say that an armed populace is useless; that what saves a nation is an AROUSED populace, and as we see in Iraq, that aroused populace is doing a pretty fair job with almost nothing but their teeth and fingernails against the greatest and mightiest military machine ever put on the surface of the planet.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Greenkeeper @ Jun 6 2007, 10:09 PM) [snapback]457102[/snapback]</div>

Heh heh.

I've got that shirt.

 

I always liked George Carlin's concept of arming each passenger on a commercial airplane with a smooth round stone. No guns. No knives. just a simple rock. His simple and npolitically correct reasoning is that an airplane full of pissed off Americans with rocks would be able to take out a few terrorists with guns, and if they were from a particular type of country we could take them out in a way that is in keeping with their traditions via stoning them to death.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Jun 6 2007, 11:57 PM) [snapback]457128[/snapback]</div>

So what you're saying, essentially, is that there's no point to allowing the populace to legally carry weapons?

Now mind you, this 'civilian populace' you're talking about is equipped with high explosive charges using ambush tactics to attack our Sailors, Marines, Soldiers, and Airmen.

You'll notice who's attacking whom here. You've got anarchist terrorists attacking the United States Military. They don't follow any rules, save what they feel like following. The United States Armed Forces all have rules and regulations they are required to follow.

The same situation applies to law-abiding citizens versus gun-carrying criminals. The law abiding citizens are way more likely to obey the law and not attack innocent victims versus the gun-carrying criminals, who do whatever they feel like doing 9 times out of 10.

I just have one other question: How do the following pertain to "practicalities and possibilities of a pistol packing populace being able to stand down a gov't on the march against them"?

That's at least 3 that I see right off the bat hat have nothing to do with The People taking a stand against The Man.

And it is NOT with "nothing" that the insurgents are taking out my bretheren. Have you seen the footage of the car bombs? The "civilians" blowing themselves up? How about the backpacks sitting in the middle of crowds that are detonated? Have you seen nothing of what's really going on in Iraq? They are not using sticks and stones. And, chances are, that they're receving funding and support from Iran. If not Iran, then they're getting it from somewhere.

I appreciate your view of we who serve to defend your right to make light of all our efforts and all those who died in Iraq. What I don't appreciate is that you're so flippant about the sacrifices made by the Sailors, Soldiers, Marines, and Airmen made there - the ones who gave everything, including their life, so that you and I can just sit around and whine on PriusChat.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Jun 6 2007, 11:57 PM) [snapback]457128[/snapback]</div>

So what you're saying, essentially, is that there's no point to allowing the populace to legally carry weapons?

Now mind you, this 'civilian populace' you're talking about is equipped with high explosive charges using ambush tactics to attack our Sailors, Marines, Soldiers, and Airmen.

You'll notice who's attacking whom here. You've got anarchist terrorists attacking the United States Military. They don't follow any rules, save what they feel like following. THE SAME APPLIES TO GUN-CARRYING CRIMINALS.

I just have one other question: How do the following pertain to "practicalities and possibilities of a pistol packing populace being able to stand down a gov't on the march against them"?

That's at least 3 that I see right off the bat hat have nothing to do with The People taking a stand against The Man.

And it is NOT with "nothing" that the insurgents are taking out my bretheren. Have you seen the footage of the car bombs? The "civilians" blowing themselves up? How about the backpacks sitting in the middle of crowds that are detonated? Have you seen nothing of what's really going on in Iraq? They are not using sticks and stones. And, chances are, that they're receving funding and support from Iran. If not Iran, then they're getting it from somewhere.

I appreciate your view of we who serve to defend your right to make light of all our efforts and all those who died in Iraq. What I don't appreciate is that you're so flippant about the sacrifices made by the Sailors, Soldiers, Marines, and Airmen made there - the ones who gave everything, including their life, so that you and I can just sit around and whine on PriusChat.

 

Support the Right to Arm Bears - best bumper sticker ever. Cuts right through the emotional arguments.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Jun 6 2007, 11:57 PM) [snapback]457128[/snapback]</div>

Mark, we only have 125K troops in Iraq. (Maybe 140K presently) Numerous books have been written by retired military men over the years dealing with an insurgency and all of those books calculate that only with about 350k troops can you hope to control a population the size of Iraq. This was something General Shinseki (sp?) said back in 2003. So the Iraqis have not been succeeding against the best military in history, they've been succeeding against a bankrupt set of leaders who assign a higher priority to their own agenda, then to America's, and the world's needs. And using American soldiers as cannon fodder for that purpose. And Shinseki was fired for saying what he said, which is pretty much what happens to any General who tells the fools running America right now what a mess they are making. And the sycophants get promoted. Now we have a loyal Republican running the war (Petraius (sp?)). The success of the insurgency is not due to our army, clearly the best and most intelligent in the world. Put the blame where it belongs: GW, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Pentagon. And now that the entire middle east is "aroused" against us more then they have ever been, it'll now probably take 500K Americans to win this war now.

And I still say an armed American population is no match for the 21st century American army. The only hope for defense against American tyranny is for the American army to stand with the people against the tyrant. If they stand with the tyrant the people can forget about it. This country has been marching towards tyranny for 6 years now and has been complacently happy about it. This President could finish the transition to tyranny and as long as Faux News tells us how much better off we are, with a bit of Paris Hilton and American Idol thrown in, that complacency would simply continue.

So much for an aroused population.

Oh, and Red Dawn is on DVD and available from both Netflix and Blockbuster online. Red Dawn is a patriotically touching story that is pure fantasy. People in some above posts suggested it's a realistic portrayal of a potential American resistance to a foreign invasion. I had trouble controlling my laughter at that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jun 6 2007, 02:36 PM) [snapback]456747[/snapback]</div>

This is the second post of mine that you have clearly misunderstood. I think my post was pretty clear as to what I was saying. How can you keep getting things so mixed up? Do you skim-read then reply in haste?

Let me try one more time.

Being prepared for terrorism is not silly. That was my reason for bringing up 9-11. If I had suggested we should have armed air marshals on airliners pre-9-11 you would have considered that silly, right? I said nothing about civilians using firearms to stop a attack on an airliner. I said as an armed citizen I will at least have a fighting chance in an everyday situation where a terrorist attack is actually more likely.

------

So you prefer the suicide bomber to a state-licensed concealed handgun carrier? They don't just give these things away, even in Texas. I find it hard to believe that you really think this way. I think it's more likely you have a severe lack of understanding of the topic at hand. You should educate yourself about the things that you fear.

------

What does law enforcement think about what? My state-issued license to carry a concealed handgun (CHL)? I think they rather approve.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Les Gas @ Jun 7 2007, 08:52 PM) [snapback]457711[/snapback]</div>

They do. Look at Post #49 on this thread and you'll see what some law enforcement officers believe about the subject.

Oh, and on a side note, guess who's supplying the Taliban...

I imagine that some of that is making its way into Iraq.