Skip to main content

I am a gun owner. I want to keep my guns and I will fight to keep them if need be. Saying that, I would like to address the constant fear mongering by the right, that in the last Presidential election, and the current one seems to be getting distorted. Obama is not coming after our guns people! Everytime I read an article or see a post online where someone is accusing this administration of trying to take away their guns I just shake my head. Where does this misinformation come from and why do so many Americans buy into it?

 

I ran across this article today and I wanted to share it. Maybe it will make those that have bought into the idea that Obama is trying to take their guns away realize it has never been a real issue. Also take note of what Romney did in MA as governor. His gun policies should be in question more than Obama's.

 

I sorta hate to quote the whole thing here, but I feel like so many just don't click on the links. So I am gonna doit.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-ro...ights-075546394.html

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney both have softened their positions on gun restrictions over the years. As they expressed shock and sorrow over the bloodshed at a Colorado movie theater, neither suggested that tougher gun control could make a difference, a notion that has faded from political debate.

Romney signed a ban on assault weapons as Massachusetts governor. But as the presumptive Republican nominee, he now bills himself as the candidate who will protect gun owners' rights.

Obama called for reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons during his 2008 presidential campaign. But since his election, he hasn't sought to get that done or pushed other gun control proposals, either.

Neither man is likely to raise gun control as a campaign issue — beyond Romney's insistence that an Obama presidency is bad for gun owners. Both say they'll protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms. A look at the evolution of the candidates' positions and where they stand on guns:

OBAMA

1997-2004: As an Illinois state senator, Obama supports banning all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms, including a failed effort to limit handgun purchases to one per month.

2005: In the U.S. Senate, Obama votes against protecting firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits over misuse of their products by others. The bill is signed into law by President George W. Bush.

2008: During his first presidential campaign, Obama supports a return to the federal ban on assault weapons, which began during the Clinton administration and expired under Bush. He also endorses requiring background checks for buyers at gun shows. The National Rifle Association attacks him as an anti-gun zealot — a stand the group continues to take today.

April 2008: Obama is criticized for elitism after sounding dismissive of gun owners in a talk to campaign donors. He said voters in struggling small towns in Middle America "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them" to explain their frustrations.

September 2008: Obama seeks to reassure gun owners: "I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. ... There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away." Nonetheless, gun sales go up when Obama wins, apparently because of fear that new restrictions are imminent under his administration.

2009: As president, Obama signs a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons in the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and other national parks and wildlife refuges and another that lets people carry guns in their checked bags on Amtrak trains.

2010: The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives Obama a grade of "F'' for failing to push even the gun restrictions he supported while campaigning.

2011: Obama says the shooting that severely wounded then-Rep. Gabriel Giffords, D-Ariz., and killed six people should lead to "a new discussion of how we can keep America safe for all our people." He calls for "sound and effective steps" to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, including strengthening background checks on gun buyers. But he's short on specifics, and the Obama administration hasn't proposed any new gun initiatives since then.

March 2012: Obama calls the fatal shooting of black teenager Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida "a tragedy," saying Americans should do some soul-searching and "examine the laws" to figure out why it happened. He hasn't called for any legal changes in response to the case, which mostly brought attention to some states' "stand your ground" laws making it easier for a shooter to claim self-defense. Indeed, most gun regulations are imposed by states. The primary federal law is the Brady law requiring background checks on firearms purchasers.

July 20: Obama says he's heartbroken by the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre and calls for Americans to unite in prayer for the victims: "If there's anything to take away from this tragedy it's the reminder that life is very fragile, our time here is limited and it is precious."

Asked whether the mass shooting should prompt a new review of gun laws, White House spokesman Jay Carney declines to comment beyond reiterating Obama's existing stance in support of "common-sense measures that protect Second Amendment rights of Americans, while ensuring that those who should not have guns under existing law do not get them."

___

ROMNEY

1994: In his unsuccessful challenge to liberal Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Romney sounds moderate on guns, supporting an assault weapons ban and insisting, "I don't line up with the NRA."

2002: Running for governor of Massachusetts, Romney says he supports and will protect the state's "tough gun laws." The NRA gives his Democratic opponent a higher rating on gun-rights issues and makes no endorsement in the race.

2003: As governor, Romney upsets gun owners by signing a law that quadruples the state's gun-licensing fee — from $25 to $100 — as part of a widespread effort to eliminate the budget deficit.

2004: Romney signs a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons. He mollifies many gun rights advocates by coupling it with looser rules on gun licenses and an extension of the duration of licenses, reducing the effect of the earlier fee increase.

2005: Declares May 7 as "Right to Bear Arms Day" in Massachusetts.

2006: As he prepares for his first presidential run, Romney becomes a lifetime NRA member.

2007: While campaigning, Romney declares he sometimes hunts "small varmints" — a comment ridiculed by some as an awkward attempt to pander to pro-gun voters.

2008: In a Republican primary debate, Romney says he would have signed the federal assault weapons ban if it came to his desk as president, but he opposes any new gun legislation.

2011: Making his second presidential bid, Romney's campaigns on a promise to protect and promote the Second Amendment.

2012: Romney tells gun owners that Obama wants to erode their rights. "We need a president who will enforce current laws, not create new ones that only serve to burden lawful gun owners," Romney told the National Rifle Association's annual convention. "President Obama has not. I will."

July 20: Like Obama, Romney avoids talking politics on the day of the Aurora shooting. He says Americans are coming together in their sorrow: "There is something we can do. We can offer comfort to someone near us who is suffering or heavy laden, and we can mourn with those who mourn in Colorado."

 

 

 

Life is short, Forgive quickly, Kiss slowly, Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably, and never regret anything that made you SMILE!

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

I am a gun owner. I want to keep my guns and I will fight to keep them if need be. Saying that, I would like to address the constant fear mongering by the right, that in the last Presidential election, and the current one seems to be getting distorted. Obama is not coming after our guns people! Everytime I read an article or see a post online where someone is accusing this administration of trying to take away their guns I just shake my head. Where does this misinformation come from and why do so many Americans buy into it?

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

IMO because the (*average*) American gun owner is an arrogant, impulsive, insecure twit.

 

Hand 'em a gun and a bible and they become arrogant, impulsive, insecure,(albeit locally) dangerous twits on a mission.

 

I wonder daily how half of them manage to breathe.

 

By *average*, I'm referring to this ass clown:

 

 

 

gun****er

 

"Fear me! For I am a badass!  Fo' Realz!"

 

 

Attachments

Images (1)
  • gun****er
Originally Posted by dogsoldier0513:

B.O. may not 'want my guns', but he WILL listen to the fruit cakes that DO: Sec. of State Clinton, Sarah Brady, Sen, Feinstein, Sen. Boxer, Sen. Schumer and NYC Mayor Bloomberg, just to name a few.

Look for B.O. to reinstate the Clinton-era 'Assault Weapons Ban'....if not via 'legal means', by Executive Order (emperial edict).

An NRA poll revealed that more professionals owned more firearms, than blue collar workers.  So much for gun owners being ignorant.  Dentists were the second largest group of owners. Accountants were the largest group, with auditors, as a subset, owning more than regular accountants.

 

As a reminder, the damage below was done without firing a shot -- 168 people died and many more were maimed for life.  The Oklahoma City bombing was caused by a couple of ill educated men using rather primitive means.

 

The monster who killed 12 is a well educated man with extensive knowledge of chemistry and physics.  Denied firearms, he could have rigged chemical weapons from readily found chemicals and killed everyone in the theater.  Or, deviced a large bomb in a vehicle and leveled the entire building.

The problem lies within the human heart.  The solution will not be found in laws, alone.  

 

 

 

Oklahomacitybombing-DF-ST-98-01356

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Oklahomacitybombing-DF-ST-98-01356
Originally Posted by Road Puppy:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

I am a gun owner. I want to keep my guns and I will fight to keep them if need be. Saying that, I would like to address the constant fear mongering by the right, that in the last Presidential election, and the current one seems to be getting distorted. Obama is not coming after our guns people! Everytime I read an article or see a post online where someone is accusing this administration of trying to take away their guns I just shake my head. Where does this misinformation come from and why do so many Americans buy into it?

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

IMO because the (*average*) American gun owner is an arrogant, impulsive, insecure twit.

 

Hand 'em a gun and a bible and they become arrogant, impulsive, insecure,(albeit locally) dangerous twits on a mission.

 

I wonder daily how half of them manage to breathe.

 

By *average*, I'm referring to this ass clown:

 

 

 

gun****er

 

"Fear me! For I am a badass!  Fo' Realz!"

 

 

Please note that there is not a Bible in that picture (unless it's a little one that I couldn't see)

The most stupid thing I have heard said was when LaPierre said that the proof that Obama was going to come after your guns was that he HAS NOT COME AFTER YOUR GUNS.

It takes a real dumbass to believe that Obama , or any politician for that matter, would attempt to circumvent the 2nd amendment.

Reinstituting the assault weapons ban, on the other hand is something I could support. When I got my first shotgun at the tender age of 9 my daddy told me it was illegal to have more than three shotgun shells in the mag at any time. I was also told that assault weapons were banned due to the problems during the prohibition era. Never understood why I should have some fully automatic weapon intended only to kill a person, or in this case, a multitude of people.

I would prefer to live in a society of civilized people where carrying a weapon is a choice and NOT a necessity.

Having said that, I do have quite a few guns, and I do have a handgun very close almost all the time, but not an AK47 or an Uzi

Well, I guess some of the confusion comes from the dems themselves, such as the ones that said one of the reasons they were voting for obama was because he was going to ban guns. (Guns are bad doncha know, and canada doesn't have guns and no one ever gets killed there). I guess they were listening to republicans instead of obama. Go figure.

Tell me Pup, you didn't want to leave anyone out but you did.  Do you not think an atheist can be a gun owner and support their rights to keep and bear arms just as strongly as anyone with religious beliefs?

 

And tell me, Pup, you being a drop out, in support of the Constitution, how did you "write that check in full?"  I missed that part.

Since no one here knows who I am (I think) I'll tell you a little about my gun ownership. I do own a few guns, some for hunting, some military assault type, and some handguns that are obviously not for recreational use. With that said, most of my friends would never guess that I own any type of gun. Only a few close friends and family know that I have any type of gun and most other people would never know unless they tried to do something like break into my houses, rob my businesses with me there, or attack me or mine. 

As for carrying a gun, I have carried for about 20 years and except for switching guns, all I ever do with the ones I have carried is either target shoot or clean the pocket lint out of the barrel (otherwise no one knows that I carry a gun (so far)). The guns I have carried have gone everywhere with me (inside the USA) except for on planes. They have been with me at schools, school events, in other states (including NYC), and anywhere else I have been out and about such as downtown B'ham and even dangerous places like Sheffield at night.

Lord willing, no one not close to me will ever know that I own any type of firearm, the only way that anyone would know is if they tried to harm me or my family. It's possible that someone might find out if I saw someone who appeared an innocent being attacked but on those few occasions, it has been dealt with without the need for drawing a firearm as I do believe that a firearm should not be drawn unless it's use is imminent.

I truly believe that I am the "normal" firearm owner, I enjoy hunting sometimes, target shooting, collecting, and also have guns that are meant for the defense of my family (and I would also use them to protect others if needed). Outside of that, my ownership of any weapons is discreet, I do not believe it to be the business of others what guns I either own or have on my person. I give the gov't only the info I have to when buying a new gun, no info on old guns or private purchases and as I said above, unless you see me on a hunt or target shoot, attempt to harm my family, or try and hurt others, then there is no chance that you would ever know that I am a gun owner and if anyone did guess such, cept for what I carry is kept secure. 

 So anyway, why would anyone want to take any type of gun from me? Including assault weapons and a full automatics?

Originally Posted by budsfarm:

Tell me Pup, you didn't want to leave anyone out but you did.  Do you not think an atheist can be a gun owner and support their rights to keep and bear arms just as strongly as anyone with religious beliefs?

 

And tell me, Pup, you being a drop out, in support of the Constitution, how did you "write that check in full?"  I missed that part.

If I am not mistaken, RP did serve in the military and if that is the case then it is true what he said, he's already written that check and it's paid in full. Added to that, he's already done his part to insure that we have the freedom to disagree.

 

@budsfarm:

 

I joined the Army as a buck Private in August of 1982 via the Delayed Entry Program. Mom signed the consent.  I shipped out in October of that year.

Enlistment was at an all-time low so they had lowered the standard for certain qualifying individuals, and I had scored well on the ASVAB in my MOS of choice. (There was a need for people in that field at the time). I entered via the DEP because I had to wait for my high school class to graduate. 

 

I served four years. (also a condition of enlistment).

 

Being a dropout and living wherever I could at the time-I figured I might's well get myself in a position where I could survive well enough to learn something I could use and figure out what to do next. Turns out I excelled in radio repair (I could follow a manual) and I could twirl a pretty good wrench.

Joe_80s_Army

 

*picture is laminated and didn't scan well*

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Joe_80s_Army
Last edited by Road Puppy

Thanks Jank.

 

As a retired vet, I appreciate your comments regarding service; however, we vets have a different interpretation of what "paid if full" means.  Don't mean to be rude, but Pups a big boy.   I asked him a couple of questions he should be capable of answering himself.  Why don't we let him speak for himself?

 

And Jank, I don't know if you're independent or coming from the left, but I appreciate your personal comments regarding gun ownership.  You ask for some "political" background...I hope this helps though I rarely delve into politics and never mix with religion as some like to do.  No fearmongering, no paranoia...just history.

 

One thing I would like to mention based on personal experience as an LEO during the early days of Clinton that he did try to ban so called "cop killer bullets" and did institute an "assault weapons ban," neither of which was even close to being properly defined.  And they failed.

 

For example, the move to ban much ballyhooed Teflon coated KTW round which was capable of penetrating body armor.  And Clinton had the backing of the Fraternal Order of Police, grinning and gripping pictures and all.  Well, the FOP was also against CCW in my state but that's another story.

 

But despite all the Clinton hype, reason prevailed.  First, the Teflon was a lubricant for the bullet in the barrel the same as a copper jacket serves.  And secondly, practically every copper jacketed hunting round would penetrate body armor as well. Clinton knew full well what he was doing when it came to this smokescreen ban.  His intentions were all too obvious.  Ban the ammo and the guns dry up.

 

Personally, I cannot see the FOP ever again climbing in bed with another liberal POTUS.  Lessons learned.

 

And here I go beating a dead horse that the liberals insist on riding but as a gun owner, you know ful well.  One more time, an assault weapon is capable of firing full auto.  Semi-autos look-a-likes are not assault weapons any more than any semi-auto that doesn't look like one.  That's what Clinton was after.  The full autos/assault weapons have been under governmental restrictions since the 1930s and he knew it.  He played the "stupid" card again and won, briefly.

 

So yes, there is a genuine concern amongst Second Amendmenters that Obama in his second term with nothing to lose could try something Clintonesque.  And no Democrat, no matter how conservative, cannot say it won't happen again.  History is not in their favor.

 

Therefore, no supporter of the Second Amendment, casual gun owner, or NRA advocate, regardless of party affiliation, religious persuasion, or gender identification should ever let their guard down while a liberal president is in the White House or a liberal Congress is in session.  History has proven we can't afford to.

 

I'm not concerned with the "cold dead hand" thing unless you're a gun owner depending on your firearm for personal protection.  But what I am concerned most about is tinkering with the Bill of Rights guaranteed us by the Constitution.

 

Boils down to either you agree that the Second Amendment applies to the American citizen or you don't.

 

And I think you do and if so that's your dilemma.

I'm not anti-gun any more than I'm anti-wrench.

 

I AM however anti "nobody-turned-badass-because-they-have-a-permit-to-wave-a-shiny-metal-phallus-substitute-around-in-public-jerkwad."

 

Hmph. Everybody's a tough guy when they're carrying the weight.

 

Somebody (I disremember who) said "With great power comes great responsibility."

 

Somebody forgot to explain that to the loser of the informal, drunken bible quoting contest in Dadeville back in '96.

 

Guys like that are seriously compensating.  Just like you don't need a jacked-up Ferd F-teenThousand with Armor-All'ed mud tires, "truck nuts" and a bullbar to drive through the 'burbs to the packy to get your 30-pack, you don't need a fully automatic assault rifle to hunt deer.

 

I see the post on Faceybook all the time that asks if I "believe in the second amendment."

 

I don't hafta "believe in it." It's THE SECOND AMENDMENT. It exists. Too bad a lotta folks around here never bothered to read the first half of it.

 

Nobody's gonna take your semi-automatic strapons away from you.

 

;P

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pup,

 

A world of difference.  You and I both know what words can mean to civvies.  I fulfilled the same contract, well, maybe a tad longer.  But for the record, I never did nor to this day, whatever the semantics, consider my contract or debt to my country paid in full or even partially for the freedom and rights given me.

 

And as to my contention an atheist can be as strong as a supporter of gun rights as one with religious beliefs...care to address that?

Bud,

 

I don't know if I have a party. I have been reading up on the Green Party lately as suggested to me by a friend. I like a good many of their platforms. Anywho, I would also like to point out that it was not me that answered you about RP. It was BFred. I could have told you if you had ask me the same thing though. RP has served in the military and has both my appreciation and my respect.

 

I agree with RP that it is extremely unlikely that ANY president would try and take away the 2nd Amendment. Taking away one of the most important amendments to our Constitution would not be easily done. It would never make it past the SCOTUS. I am a gun owner as I stated before and I have no fear of that changing. Of course I would fight along side the majority of this country to defend that right and to keep it. I just don't believe it is a huge worry I need to have.

 

What I really don't understand is why with Romney's record of tougher gun laws than Obama's so many from the right seem to believe Obama is more of a threat. It just isn't good logic. One has a record of banning guns and making laws that make gun ownership more difficult and the other has actually promoted and backed laws that gave gun owners more freedom to carry concealed weapons in National Parks and public places that had been illegal before.

 

What Clinton did has no bearing on what the current President will do or any other Democrat that runs for the office in the future. Heck, I thought Bush was one of the worst presidents of all time yet if there had been a decent (viable) Republican candidate running this election they might have my vote. I don't judge a candidate by what someone else in their party has done. If that were so then I couldn't vote for ANYONE. Both major parties have some real extreme idiots amongst them.

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

Totally off-topic, but are the pics I'm posting showing up in the body of the post, or only as an attachment? I'm suddenly getting the "big, empty box" syndrome.

 

Is it my browser or does TVT need a kick inna guts?

RP, this is the only one that shows on this end. Although I do see the uploaded thumbnail on the bottom of the posts. 

 

 

The others are just empty boxes. 

My bad, Jank.  Apologies to you and BFred.

 

I can't help you with party affiliation either.  In my career fields, I worked under both, overtly supported neither.  I was just concerned with doing my job.  Obviously, there were certain administrations which were more favorable than others.  But both used us to their political benefits.  I voiced my opinion in the ballot box.

 

Bottom line is I'm a conservative Independent.  Doesn't mean I won't entertain liberal Independent ways of viewing things.  Rational opposing views from both sides is how I learn otherwise all I hear is my own voice.

 

Comparing former president Clinton to POTUS Obama...kind of silly, yes?  Heck, everybody knowsClintonwas the first black president. J/k

 

But seriously, when you think of the two major political parties, don't you automatically think of certain agendas?  I mean how can you not?  And one of those agendas has been gun control.  Now Clinton, from my perspective and experience, set the "modern" standard.  And from day one, before he was senator Obama knew this...heck, going back to when he was COOTUS - community organizer of the US- so he had to know this was a Democrat legacy.  [Yes folks, Republicans have legacies too.  Oh boy!  But not on this topic.  Can you imagine a Republican wanting to campaign on Watergate?].

 

So if say you were Senator Obama running for President and you wanted to make your mark...prove you're your own man, you'd want to distance yourself from certain legacies you believed  [1] were unpopular and [2] didn't represent your views and [3] wouldn't cost you a handful of votes, why wouldn't you?  Talk about a golden opportunity.

 

But since day one POTUS Obama has not tried to distance himself from the liberal idea that gun control is a good idea.  Why?  Does he think a police state is preferable to your right to keep and bear arms for personal defense?  How hard a question is that to answer?  Heck, nobody knows what he thinks and everybody knows no answer is a bad one.

 

Obama has yet to take a stand, and that is why, Jank, conservatives like me are either waiting for his answer or the other shoe to drop.  And it's been almost four years.  Does Obama as POTUS believe that an American citizen has the right to own a firearm for legitimate reasons and self defense being at the top?  You can bet no liberal is going to ask that question for you.

 

You say your friend Pup supports the Second Amendment and that [maybe] gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling.  But did you not read above that he is not for the very thing you hold so dear...that you would fight for...private ownership of firearms?  He wants militia only.  Or did I misread that too?  How about it Pup?  You want to disarm Jank?

 

But didn't I read somewhere about a year ago that SCOTUS ruled in a Washington,DC case that private ownership of firearms is covered by the Second Amendment?

 

Okay, Romney.  Good lawd, the guy was a Republican governor of Taxachusetts.  He had to represent his folks, right?  Can you imagine what he had to do to survive?  If they want higher taxes, stick it to them.  Is that his USplatform?  How come that doesn't come up?  If those crazy folks up there wanted him to outlaw the Boston Patriots, he'd a done it, right?  He represented his constituents.   But the bottom line is, he isn't POTUS and Obama is.  Romney says he's not a tax freak and not a gun control advocate.  He's talking.  Obama is like the Tar Baby in Uncle Remus...he don't say nuthin'.  Heck, believe what you want to.  Time for a Change or More of the Same?  Are you being represented?

 

Look here, Jank.  You're on the right track.  I've just given you my views.  Vote your conscious, not a party and who knows, you may be in the majority.

 

One more thing, while the Second Amendment is important, we should never lose sight of the fact that it's "the economy, stupid."  Yep, history repeats.

 

Dum spiro spero

Originally Posted by BFred07:

Since no one here knows who I am (I think) I'll tell you a little about my gun ownership. I do own a few guns, some for hunting, some military assault type, and some handguns that are obviously not for recreational use. With that said, most of my friends would never guess that I own any type of gun. Only a few close friends and family know that I have any type of gun and most other people would never know unless they tried to do something like break into my houses, rob my businesses with me there, or attack me or mine. 

As for carrying a gun, I have carried for about 20 years and except for switching guns, all I ever do with the ones I have carried is either target shoot or clean the pocket lint out of the barrel (otherwise no one knows that I carry a gun (so far)). The guns I have carried have gone everywhere with me (inside the USA) except for on planes. They have been with me at schools, school events, in other states (including NYC), and anywhere else I have been out and about such as downtown B'ham and even dangerous places like Sheffield at night.

Lord willing, no one not close to me will ever know that I own any type of firearm, the only way that anyone would know is if they tried to harm me or my family. It's possible that someone might find out if I saw someone who appeared an innocent being attacked but on those few occasions, it has been dealt with without the need for drawing a firearm as I do believe that a firearm should not be drawn unless it's use is imminent.

I truly believe that I am the "normal" firearm owner, I enjoy hunting sometimes, target shooting, collecting, and also have guns that are meant for the defense of my family (and I would also use them to protect others if needed). Outside of that, my ownership of any weapons is discreet, I do not believe it to be the business of others what guns I either own or have on my person. I give the gov't only the info I have to when buying a new gun, no info on old guns or private purchases and as I said above, unless you see me on a hunt or target shoot, attempt to harm my family, or try and hurt others, then there is no chance that you would ever know that I am a gun owner and if anyone did guess such, cept for what I carry is kept secure. 

 So anyway, why would anyone want to take any type of gun from me? Including assault weapons and a full automatics?

A BIG +1! I think I may have found my long lost twin brother from another mother!
 

ANYone that has ANY prior military or law enforcement service SHOULD KNOW that (like budsfarm said), 'look alike' weapons, such as the AR 15, ARE NOT 'assault weapons'. This is due to THE FACT they are iNCAPABLE of 'fully automatic fire'. The MILITARY definition (NOT the made up definition from anti-gun politicians) of an assault weapon REQUIRES that it be capable of FULLY AUTOMATIC fire.

 

And as far as I am aware, NOBODY 'hunts deer' with a fully automatic weapon.....

"it's the economy, stupid'

 

Yeah you right.   Glad somebody's paying attention.

 

 

No, I don't wanna disarm Jank or any responsible gun owner.

I didn't mean that 'the militia' should only be armed.  What I meant was people carrying 'an assault rifle in the glove compartment' because they never bothered to read the first half of the amendment.

  The part about "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," seems to be largely ignored by most, except by three-toothed hillbilly societal dropouts dancing and whooping and cackling with their modified AR-15s and rocket launchers around a bonfire in West Virginia or somewhere in the northwest.

 

All most folks can seem to recall about the amendment is the part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" and..."something about a militia..."

 

Cue Bubba driving around in his pickup with his assault rifle and eleventy-bazillion boxes of ammo and a twelve-pack...Nevermind the kid need diapers..

 

Being fairly new to Alabama, I understand that it is technically a 'may issue' state for handgun permits, but in actuality it works out to being a 'shall issue' state.

 

From studying the Code regarding pistol permits, it seems the sherriff's departments are pretty lax on issuing them. From what I gather all that is required is that one not be a convicted felon, a habitual drunkard or a known, documented nut case and you can carry whatever the hell you want.

Well...That and if the cop knows you from church, it's pretty much a lock that you'll get one.

 

Back to Bubba...

 

What amazes me since I've moved here is just how afraid of their neighbors people seem to be around here.  Seriously.  EVERYBODY I've met who owns a gun here is constantly bragging about it. I dunno if it's for the intimidation factor or if there are more deep-seated insecurities involved.

  Most responsible folks I knew where I'm from that WERE packing....You'd never know it.

They realized the value of the element of surprise. They also apparently didn't have the insecurity issues that most armed braggarts seem to have.

 

See? If I'm of the persuasion to do you bodily harm or rob you....and I KNOW you're armed (because you wear it like a badge and trumpet it from the hilltops like a six-year-old in his Wyatt Earp costume), I'd be an idiot to even think of confronting you with my gun.

 

No, if I was of that persuasion, and knowing you were packin', I'd simply walk up to you without a word and in one fluid motion-cap you in the eyeball and then take whatever I wanted-including your un-reached-for gun.

 

Surprise.  That's the thing.  You didn't see it coming because I didn't constantly tell you it was.

 

What I see here is everybody announcing to each other all the time that "You better not mess with me-I'll shoot you!"

It must really suck to live in fear like that all the time.

 

Fair enough, but what you don't know is that if I'm within roughly 21 feet of you, you might not have time to reach for that piece.  I've been tempted to demonstrate that from time to time on the occasional braggart. But seeing as I'm usually outnumbered by twits with itchy trigger fingers with stiffys to be heroes, that's probably not in my best interest. But it sure is tempting sometimes..

 

I knew a lot of southern guys back in training. I figured that since they'd been around guns and immersed in gun culture all their lives that they'd naturally be crack shots and more responsible with weapons than people from other areas of the country where gun control was stricter.

 

There were a couple exceptions, but man, was I ever wrong. When they were not whooping and waving their weapons around, "Spray and Pray" seemed to be the order of the day. Apparently just because they'd been around guns all your life doesn't necessarily mean they knew what they were doing. They equated firepower with respect, and while firepower commands respect-it is a respect borne out of fear.  To get respect, you must first be respectable in my book.

 

Guys from the northeast and upper midwest seemed to excel at target selection and fire control.

Those guys didn't own guns previously or if they did, they hadn't been using them as strapons to compensate for... er....'shortcomings' of any kind and therefore didn't have to 'unlearn' any bad habits.

(Pictuing Bubba obsessively and uncontrollably polishing his large-bore pistol..the oiled rag rapidly moving up and down...up and down  while he drools and whispers sweet nothings to it..) *yecch..Now I need to drink some turpentine to get THAT picture outta ma head.*

 

It makes sense to me that people in places where you can get a pistol and a permit in your box of Cornflakes tend to shoot each other while arguing.  It's just natural escalation. Those who have deadly force WILL use it, whether it's justifiable or not.

 

It also makes sense to me that when an area is saturated with armed people-the chances of somebody doing something stupid and everybody else reacting to it go up exponentially.

Give them nuclear warheads instead of pistols and there'd be nothing but scorched earth over a domestic dispute.

 

I personally think that the gun laws should be modified to require more stringent qualification standards for carrying a handgun.  Apparently here you can get a permit just because you want one. 

 

I also think that if you're so worried about your neighbors that you need to arm yourself against them, there's bigger problems than gun laws.  Kinda says something about the society when everybody's afraid of everybody else.

 

I lived on the road for awhile. I kept a shortened shotgun with me in my vehicle/residence for defense. Since I haven't lived like that for a decade or so, I have never felt the need to carry a gun.

Why?

I figure if I'm in a place where I think I need a gun-I'm in the wrong place and I prolly need to get the hell out.

That and I'd rather make friends than enemies. I fear no one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Severe gun laws are not a cure al for the deaths in Aurora, Colorado.

 

The worst case of one man murdering people occurred in Norway, a nation with strict gun control laws.  After a bomb in Oslo killed  eight and injured 209, the killer, frustrated that not enough were killed, traveled to an island retreat and shot down 189 people, killing 69.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

 

Next door in Sweden, a nation with strict gun control laws:

 

“A suspected serial shooter is keeping a city in southern Sweden on edge.

Police say as many as 15 shootings in Malmo over the last year may be linked to a single perpetrator who is targeting immigrants living in the city. Investigators have no suspects.

The shootings have all been well planned, under the protection of darkness and at places familiar to the shooter, according to CNN's Swedish affiliate TV4, citing police.”

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-1...-message?_s=PM:WORLD

 

One small mercy was the 100 round magazine that jammed.  The killer was forced to use a shotgun and pistol to continue.  As he appears to be a neophyte with firearms, he wouldn't know how prone to jamming the high capacity magaziine are.  They're fine for target practice on the range.  But, I wouldn't take them into combat. 

"What Kleck's National Self-Defense Survey discovered is that even excluding all uses of firearms by police, military, or security personnel, an American gun owner uses a privately owned firearm 2.45 million times each year in an actual defense against a criminal. About 1.9 million of these defenses use handguns, the rest some other firearm--a shotgun or a rifle.

In 

Stopping Power

, I boil down the results of my interview with Kleck as follows:
  • Every 13 seconds, an American gun owner uses her or his firearm in defense against a criminal. If you're only counting handguns, it's every 16 seconds. Compare this to the "once every two minutes" that the much-ballyhood Death Clock in New York City's Times Square clicked off an incident of "gun violence."

  • Women use handguns 416 times each day in defense against rapists, which is a dozen times more often than rapists use a gun in the course of a rape. Handguns are used 1145 times a day against robbers. Handguns are used 1510 times a day in defense against criminal assaults.

  • A gun kept in the home for protection is 216 times as likely to be used in a defense against a criminal than it is to cause the death of an innocent victim in that household--the well-publicized Seattle study's 43-1 ratio of dead householders to dead burglars notwithstanding.

It's this lack of dead bodies for the police to find which is the main reason that for every time you see on TV or read in a newspaper about a gun being used to defend someone, you are seeing hundreds of cases where a firearm is used in an incident of wrongful violence."

 

http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/indefnra.html

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

"it's the economy, stupid'

 

Yeah you right.   Glad somebody's paying attention.

 

 

No, I don't wanna disarm Jank or any responsible gun owner.

I didn't mean that 'the militia' should only be armed.  What I meant was people carrying 'an assault rifle in the glove compartment' because they never bothered to read the first half of the amendment.

  The part about "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," seems to be largely ignored by most, except by three-toothed hillbilly societal dropouts dancing and whooping and cackling with their modified AR-15s and rocket launchers around a bonfire in West Virginia or somewhere in the northwest.

 

That is just your opinion apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.


I figure if I'm in a place where I think I need a gun-I'm in the wrong place and I prolly need to get the hell out.

That and I'd rather make friends than enemies. I fear no one.

 

You mean like minding your own business watching a movie in a theater?

 

 

 

With your disdain for southern people surprised you continue to live in AL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×