Guard Dog

I have often heard this statement, and with some introspection it makes sense, but I've never seen much in the way for significant studies. You did mention that crime rates went down after gun laws were made lax in Florida (which is good), but I'm curious if there are other confounding variables that I'm unaware of. After finding out how ineffective the death penalty seems to be at reducing murder rates, I'm curious if our commonsense is leading us to a false conclusion with this as well. I also said it is difficult to directly prove since we do not track gun ownership. However the counties with the highest gun sales have the lowest gun crime. That we know is true. And since the background checks, waiting periods, etc are the same statewide it makes sense if you are buying a gun, you will do it close to home. Over the last 10 years we have had two governors (a dem then a repub) and three attorney generals. The per capita income of the state as climbed slightly above the national average, poverty levels (according to the 2000 census) ranks Florida 19th of 50 (on the good side of the median). Our population is increasing at the second fastest rate in the US which usually means an increase in crime but that did not happen. I cannot credibly claim relaxed gun laws are the sole reason violent crime is down but it is hard to deny the numbers. Other than that I cannot think of a thing that would change the crime dynamic one way or the other. But that is just according to the site I linked and the US Census.

One of the points I was going to make (and never got around to) was that whining about things like this does little but exasperate and turn off people who might otherwise be sympathetic to the cause of the group doing the whining.

The American psyche is just different than Europe. The Kelo v New London ruling by the Supreme Court probably would not have even made the news in Europe because the mindset is that the benefit of society is of greater import than individual freedom. In America it is the other way around (to a point) and that is one of the hottest politcal subjects right now. I think (and devoutly hope) it will be overturned shortly if one of the liberal judges on the Supreme Court will do us the service of dying.

We are not talking about dispensing 'justice' in the vigilante style. We are talking about the last defense of life, limb, and property. As to efforts in crime deterrence it has be pointed out earlier in the thread that areas with the highest level of private gun ownership have the lowest crime. That is no coincidence. To fix all of the social ills (like crime) of America today you would need one of two things, a government that is willing to do the unpopular thing and radically change a welfare system that traps the poor, or a time machine. And even if it were fixed there would still be violent crime. The best you could hope to do is mitigate it. I would not ask a single citizen to give up their means of self defense, or enjoyment of safe and legal sports, if they do not wish to do so simply beacuse "the rest of the world is doing it". And the law of the land forbids the federal, state, and local governments to do so.

You need to understand something here Wals, the American and European mindsets are very different. Both are members of "Western Civilization" both industrialized and advanced. But to give up an individual right, no matter how outdated in may seem, is an anathema to the great majority of Americans and the social contract be damned. As we have discussed earlier, a law outlawing guns tomorrow will not remove a single gun from the street. It will not convince a criminal who has no problem with robbery or murder to give up his gun. All it will do is ensure when he breaks into my house I will not have the means to defend it or my family. If I called the police it would take them 5-7 min to get here. An eternity in those circumstances. Another thing to consider 94% of the land in the US is considered rural or undeveloped. If you need the police in west Texas, Central Georgia, somewhere like that it will take them a half hour or more to get to you. As to your second point. If the President were suspend the Constitution and dissolve the congress we (the citizens) would fight. But it would be a doomed and hopeless cause if the military were against us. But I'd rather die in the fight than live in the aftermath. Why do you think we were able to throw the Brits out in the revolution? If England was hell bent on keeping the colonies, damn the costs, there would be only one possible end to the American revolution: British victory. But to do so they would have needed to kill over half the population and almost all of the males capable of firing a musket. And at a tremendous cost of English blood and treasure. It was not worth it. How do you defeat a people who would rather die than live under your rule? A lesson that applies to todays world come to think on it. If you do a little reading on the intent of the founders, they intended an armed people to be a deterrent to their own government as well as an invading army.

All of which are illegal own, and cannot be bought anywhere legally. So a gun control law will not really affect them will it? Gun control only disarms law abiding citizens.

Actually... no. The rules for conduct for US armed forces personnel are pretty well laid out in the UCMJ, Code of Conduct, etc. Whatever moral problem one may have with the war, it is authorized by congress therefore it IS legal. Therefore ordering a soldier who swore an oath to obey the orders of the president and his superior officers (and is in fact contractually therefore legally obliged to do so) is not a criminal act by any means. And once deployed there are a rigid (too rigid to my thinking) set of rules and laws that tell him exactly how to behave. There is also a well run and oft used process of redress if he is ordered to do something that violates those rules. I know where you are coming from Sand. It is up to the individual to decide what they think is right or wrong. But what is legal or illegal in not up to the individual. The long and short of it is, he joined the Army during wartime, he agreed to all the consequences of that. Heck right in the enlistment contract it tells you that combat and loss of life are possibilities. Now the government is trying to compel him to keep up his end of the agreement.

Here is the link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251000,00.html

The number one and two use of firearms in America are hunting and marksmanship (for sport). Maybe not in that order. I own three. A Winchester .300 with which I enjoy both sports. I also own a single shot .20GA that is strictly for home defense (note I said home defense not self defense, I do not carry it with me). And a Colt Navy .36 cal revolver. But that is a genuine antique. It belonged to my great great grandfather and he carried it in the US Civil War. I have it in a display case in my den. But the 2nd amendment applies no litmus test as to why a citizen should wish to own a firearm. It simply states their right to do so shall not be infringed.

Each state does it's own thing with drivers licenses. In Florida it costs $22 and you need to pass a test when you first get it. Most states are thereabouts except California. I think it's more expenisve there. In Japan my license cost $150 USD. I forgot what the actual yen price was.

As Aram said, it will never happen. No such amendment will ever be carried in the vote even if all 50 states get it on the ballot. Most Americans (I hope) are wary of government and will not cheaply sell their freedoms. Case in point, the 3rd Amendment states: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." There is not a more outdated amendment than this but if any group tried to repeal it most people would oppose it I think. You just ask yourself "what if?"

I heard on the local news this morning some guy down here was paid $500,000 for a video he shot of Smith arriving at the casino. Evidently it was the last one. Looking for the news link now.

Yes they are designed to be alterable by the Constitutional Amendment process as laid out in Article 5 of the constitution. The problem I have with gun control laws is that to date they have side stepped that and tried to enact their agenda by legislative or judicial fiat. If that happens then the scenario I laid out happens just that way. To enforce such a law they will need to trample those amendments I noted. And if the government is not held to it's own law then it becomes and out of control monster in a BIG hurry. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. All powers and limitations assigned to the US Government as well as most of the personal freedoms enjoyed by US citizens are codified therein. Politically I consider myself a strict constructionist and I recoil when I hear US politicians (like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton who both said it) state that the Constitution is a "living" document that needs to change with the times. Laws need to change with the times, but the rules of governance do not. As I said, if all 50 states and 2/3 of the citizens decide the time has come to set the second amendment aside, and DO IT LEGALLY by the amendment process, then that will become the law of the land I will get rid of my firearms then. Until that day "from my cold dead hand".

To Hell Kitty and Blue: points well taken.

Saw this on the news tonight. Some suicide prevention group is boycotting GM over it's Robot Commercial in the Super Bowl. And the CEO at GM actually felt he had to respond to it. I tell you all, this crap is getting out of control. Here is the link to the commercial. It was the second best on IMHO: GM Robot commercial

It can't. Blanks are different size and weight from live rounds. A little OT here but... Don't know if it is still this way but when I was in the USMC, every Thursday was training/field day. No matter what job you did, every Thursday morning you would do some kind of infantry training. Well, one particular time we did M-60E-3 (light 7.62mm machine gun) training. Since you need to be at a range to fire live ammo, we were using blanks. Since I was the duty armorer that month I checked the M-60 and 80 belts of blanks (100 rounds per belt) and took it to the training area and at the end of the day brought it back. Now, I had to clean it. I had no idea blanks made such a bloody MESS. When you fire a round the burned powder is pulled down the barrel by the vacuum created by the projectile leaving. Some of it burns from the friction the projectile exerts on the barrel, a far bit exits the barrel behind the projectile (GSR for you CSI fans). Well, with the blanks, the barrel is stoppered so it goes nowhere. An after 8000 rounds it is caked up and burned in. So, anyway, I cleaned this damned thing for 3 days with a toothbrush, q-tips, pipe cleaners, bore patches,and CLP (the ONLY compound authorized for cleaning a military weapon.) I got no where. I voiced my frustrations many times to the armorer but he just laughed. Finally on day 4 I filled a 5 gallon trash basket with gasoline and hid it in the back of my car. I asked the armorer if I could take it topside to work on it that day (the armory was underground). He agreed. After 30 min in gasoline it was spotless. I rubbed it down with CLP to get rid of the smell and turned it in. Anyway, the armorer looks it over and laughs and said "It took you three days to figure it out. Sometimes you gotta break the rules to get the job done." Anyway, blanks just screw up your weapon. Don't use them.

I had a friend who used to say, "live hard, die young, and leave a fond memory". I guess she did all those things. Sort of... I guess... Well.... I don't think I'd want to be remebered for the things she'll be remembered for.

You can come up with a better conspiracy theory than that!

Well, they MIGHT try to ban PAC groups like the NRA so there goes the 1st amendment but you got the idea. As for the first post, I just threw those out off the top of my head, but when you called me on it I really gave it a bit more thought.

A BFA (Blank Firing Adapter) goes over the end of the barrel and screws a bolt into the muzzle. The idea is, without a projectile to trap the gas from the charge, you need to close the barrel to work the action of the gun. It take a little while to take one on and off, and you really can't do it in the dark. Also, most manufacturers do not make them in any case. They figure if you wanted a toy gun, you wold have bought one.

Drugs. Had to be drugs.

Here we go again..... Yeah what the hell Calson says. We don't need that old 2nd amendment, and so to get rid of it lets also throw out the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments. It's quite a country you want to create there Calson. I'm glad I won't live to see it. Slippery Slope fallacy. Not at all. Shutting down gun maufacturers will be a direct violation of Article 1 sect 8 of the US Constitution. It will also be a violation of the 4th and 9th 10th amendments since they are all non-government entities publicly or privately owned. Conficastion of private property (guns) will be a violation of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments. Going "waco" on people who refuse to give up their God-given freedoms is a violation of the 4th, 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments. Once the government can ignore the Constitution with impunity it will not be worth the paper it's written on. The only way you can make this happen legally is a constitutional amendment repealing the second, or amending it to prohibit private ownership. That will happen when pigs grow wings and fly.

The fact is there is nothing funny (or in this case attemped funny) that does not offend someone. Make a joke about muslims on TV and three hundred million people want to behead you. Make a joke about about homophobia and GLAAD and it's ilk gets all upset and files protests, threatens boycotts, an on and on and on..... Kind of makes you appreciate Rednecks. Joke about them all you want and they laugh too. By the way Kitty, most heterosexual men are just a tiny bit homomphobic. Anyone who says they are not is a liar. It is not right, it is not fair, it is a failing of the human character, but it is true. Might just as well laugh about it.

Here we go again..... Yeah what the hell Calson says. We don't need that old 2nd amendment, and so to get rid of it lets also throw out the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments. It's quite a country you want to create there Calson. I'm glad I won't live to see it.

If you are an idealist I would not reccomend involving yourself in politics. The political process will sour you on your country, your countrymen, democracy and make you doubt the worth of all good things. It is like a huge private club where common sense is checked at the door. Nobody cares about actually solving problems, just about being on the right side of them. You will be shocked to hear the condescending and insulting way political insiders think of the average citizen, but after talking to voters you will start to feel the same way. Most of them (politicians) do not have a shred of self respect and most honestly believe we NEED them in office simply because they are so much better than we are. Winning in politics is the equivalent of selling your soul for beans.