I believe everyone that is inclined, can afford...
and legally possess a firearm in this country should. Period. No grey areas. Straight up and to the point. Can you imagine the outcome if everyone that fit the above description could legally carry anywhere (other than jails and prisons) and at any time?! Would there be more or less crime? It could make things interesting at first, but who knows? 95% of all Montanans are armed 24/7 and our crime is the lowest in the nation. Anyone care to speculate what might happen with my scenario? [^]
Jim
* Yes, this was prompted by a friendly reminder of a complete verbiage blunder I made months ago. Seemingly, nobody will forget it and some like to bring it up to just to insult and hurt me. You'd be surprised at what lengths I would personally go through to protect your gun rights. Oh well, I'm a big boy and I can take it. I'm also "the meanest SOB in the valley." [:D]
Jim
* Yes, this was prompted by a friendly reminder of a complete verbiage blunder I made months ago. Seemingly, nobody will forget it and some like to bring it up to just to insult and hurt me. You'd be surprised at what lengths I would personally go through to protect your gun rights. Oh well, I'm a big boy and I can take it. I'm also "the meanest SOB in the valley." [:D]
0
-
quote:Originally posted by HobbyGuy
* Yes, this was prompted by a friendly reminder of a complete verbiage blunder I made months ago. Seemingly, nobody will forget it and some like to bring it up to just to insult and hurt me.
Thats what a public forum is for. Lest we forget. Don0 -
Hobby, I too think that all people that can legally own a gun should do so. Point in fact is Kennesaw Georgia where the law says that all residents of legal age that are not otherwise forbidden to own a gun must do so. The crime rate went down to near zero after that law was passed. I won't say that I have the law quoted in it's exact wording, but you get the point. The more people that are legally carrying or possessing guns the less folks that want to take a chance on crime against them. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by HobbyGuy
Sure Don, but lest we forget and perpetuate taking me out of context. [;)]
That, my friend, is the rub. Don0 -
See Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime" - covers this subject eggzakeley. His verdict, (With exhaustive stats and cites:) Yes, less crime. 0 -
I believe that everyone that is inclined, can afford, and leagally possess a firearm probably already does. Unless their wife won't let them. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by HobbyGuy
I believe everyone that is inclined, can afford and legally possess a firearm in this country should. Period. No grey areas. Straight up and to the point. Can you imagine the outcome if everyone that fit the above description could legally carry anywhere (other than jails and prisons) and at any time?!
On this thread, it seems we are in perfect agreement...on the "armed teacher" thread, total disagreement...The puzzling thing is we are talking about the same thing on both threads
How does your "carry anytime, anywhere" opinion coincide with your "teachers can't have guns at schools" opinion [?]
BTW: What was that "old post" that keeps being brought up?0 -
quote:and legally possess a firearm in
And just exactly who died and made you God ?
"A well regulated militia being neccesary for the security of a free state, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Where does one find "Legal" contained within those few words ?
The "old thread" you refered to described your position very clearly...IN YOUR OWN WORDS.0 -
I believe everyone who is inclined, can afford and legally possess a firearm in this country should.
I don't get it. Wouldn't people who have the money, desire, and legal standing to possess a firearm already do so? Are there people out there so dumb that they want a gun, can afford a gun, are allowed to have a gun, but can't somehow seem to make that happen. If that was the case, I sure as heck WOULDN'T want such a person to have a gun.0 -
quote: It may be, it may reduce population by 10 - 20% from immediate violence
Depends on what 10-20% you are talking about. Could be a very good thing!
And you know this, but heck yes, I believe anyone who wants and is inclined to should carry whenever they want and wherever they are. School included. [:D]0 -
I agree with the point, there are however some real morons out there that would be dangerous to themselves and others if they owned a firearm.... 0 -
quote:are allowed to have a gun, but
An impossible task..trying to help people understand their own country.
A citizen owning and carrying a firearm is not a function of some jack-booted thug or their masters "ALLOWING" said citizen to do so...but is a function of a GOD GIVEN RIGHT...0 -
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
I believe everyone who is inclined, can afford and legally possess a firearm in this country should.
I don't get it. Wouldn't people who have the money, desire, and legal standing to possess a firearm already do so? Are there people out there so dumb that they want a gun, can afford a gun, are allowed to have a gun, but can't somehow seem to make that happen. If that was the case, I sure as heck WOULDN'T want such a person to have a gun.
There could always be a family conflict that might preclude them buying one. I know at least one person who would meet all of those qualifications, but is married to a person who is dead set against guns.
No guns in that house. Sad.0 -
I was going to start a separate topic, before reading yours, HobbyGuy, but your idea ties in well with some thinking I've done as the result of reading history and observing the world around me.
Your hypothetical society has already, to a large extent, existed in this country. You describe pretty much how things were up until very recently (in relative terms). Guns were available to anyone who wanted them, could afford them, and was permitted to have them (as well as to a number of people who weren't, or shouldn't have been).
The point of my thought along these lines is an answer to anti-gun rhetoric that I've never seen put quite this way: that guns have been a fact of life in this country since well before a country, as such, existed on the North American continent. So, too, not incidentally, have ethically challenged, bullied, misfit, and sometimes just plain crazy people, kids included (the Romans were griping about how rotten "young people" were before the time of Christ, and it was probably a standard, somewhat stale complaint of us old or at least older farts, even then). To bring this more in line with modern issues, as defined by the anti-gunners: starting about 1860-1870, the combination of a pair of Colt revolvers and a Henry or Winchester rifle gave their owner a total of, roughly, two dozen or more shots that could be fired with speed -- granted, not as quickly as with a semi-automatic rifle, and reloading was a formidable challenge once those twenty-some-odd shots had been fired (and, presumably, someone might be shooting back at you) -- but still fast, if you knew what you were doing, and that's a lot of rounds to expend without having to stop, no matter how you measure it.
The precise same period saw the end of the Civil War, a migration west that often left the law and order of the more civilized east choking in its dust, and a vast opportunity for young and old folks alike, many hardened to killing during the National Misunderstanding of '61-'65, to do whatever the hell they pleased, if they could get away with it.
Where were the massacres by lone gunmen, or at the most two or three individuals united in some common grievance and/or delusion? You had no Columbines, no West Virginia Techs. There were cold-blooded homicides, absolutely -- but only one recorded instance that I know of, in Kansas, where a single person shot hell out of a good-sized crowd, and that was in retaliation for the shooting of one of the gunman's friends only moments before.
All evidence indicates that random, large-scale killings on the order of, again, Columbine or Virginia Tech, just to name two of way too many instances, are confined time-wise to about the last thirty or so years. This would have such atrocities be of the same approximate vintage as gun control laws that have grown ever-more-strict as they are demonstrated to be ever-more-futile, and the notion that no one, really, is responsible for his or her own actions. Also, an upsurge in graphically violent "entertainment" that more and more blurs the distinction between what's real and what isn't -- unless, of course, you're one of those apparently rare persons with a firm grasp of reality and a firm sense of right and wrong to match.
I'm of the opinion that, in determining what's gone terribly wrong with a relatively small but still way-too-large chunk of our society, what has to be done first is to eliminate those factors which have been consistent from the word go. As I said -- among other things, availability of guns; availability of guns that fire lots of shots, fairly quickly, before having to be reloaded; lack of effective law enforcement; and a good-sized population of persons, particularly young ones, hardened to killing. If these factors lead inevitably to widespread, random carnage, the history books would be full of it. To find out what's wrong with things today, then, we have to look at the factors that are different, some of which I've already detailed.
This is an overly simplified look at and discussion of the issue, but it's an overly simplified look at and discussion of the issue that's at least based on verifiable fact -- unlike the even more simplified way that those bent on disarming us look at and discuss the topic.
I don't intend to highjack your thread, HG, and I'm unfamiliar with whatever "oops" remark you made some time back, or the responses to it. I hope my ignorance hasn't caused me to completely miss the point of your comments, but it seemed to me you wanted speculation as to what might be the outcome of anyone owning, carrying, and using guns who was subject to no legal (and correct! not all that's legal is right!) restrictions on being able to do so. Seems to me there's not much speculation necessary -- we've been there, done that, and anyone who argues that gun control laws and moral relativity have improved this country vastly over the way large portions of it used to be, obviously lives in a universe with a completely different past than the one I've studied.0 -
I don't know if it's true or not, but I read a paper a few years ago that talked about felony crime in Arizona after they passed the concealed carry law. They said that felony crime dropped 40% for the first year after they passed the concealed carry law.
I personally think crime would drop if every legal gun owner could carry a gun. Unfortuneatly, our lovely state of ILLINOIS will probably never pass a law like that, too many Democrats!0 -
The Valentine Days' Massacre was the talk of the country, back a bunch of years ago.the idea of it !! What.a half-dozen killed ?
Today..that rates a quick spot on the news..then on to the latest whor story.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dcon12
quote:Originally posted by HobbyGuy
Sure Don, but lest we forget and perpetuate taking me out of context. [;)]
That, my friend, is the rub. Don
Best you keep your rubbing to yourself before the Mrs. has another "accident".0 -
quote:Originally posted by bigdaddyjunior
quote:Originally posted by dcon12
quote:Originally posted by HobbyGuy
Sure Don, but lest we forget and perpetuate taking me out of context. [;)]
That, my friend, is the rub. Don
Best you keep your rubbing to yourself before the Mrs. has another "accident".
None of them were accidents, we named them. Don0 -
Hobby Guy: I assure you, I have no "darker" motives.....I'm simply having trouble reconciling your positions.
You have stated repeatedly that armed citizens are a good thing (at least I THINK thats what you've been saying, otherwise why the [^] after those posts)
On the other hand, armed teachers (for example) are bad because they don't have the responsibility to make a life-or-death decision.
To paraphrase your sig line....You carry so that you may return safely to your family. Why is it that you would deny that same privilage (Relax Highball, I'm on your side [;)]) to another person, based solely on their occupation?0 -
Anti-gun is anti-gun.
Your type doesn't like it...tough.0 -
quote:Originally posted by HobbyGuy
Secondly, so what "militia" do you belong to?
Not to butt in, but according to the Militia Act (Revised) I belong to the Unorganized Militia0 -
quote:Originally posted by dcon12
quote:Originally posted by bigdaddyjunior
quote:Originally posted by dcon12
quote:Originally posted by HobbyGuy
Sure Don, but lest we forget and perpetuate taking me out of context. [;)]
That, my friend, is the rub. Don
Best you keep your rubbing to yourself before the Mrs. has another "accident".
None of them were accidents, we named them. Don
And how are little Oops, Uhoh and Iswearillcutitoff doing these days?0 -
quote:Originally posted by bigdaddyjunior
quote:Originally posted by dcon12
quote:Originally posted by bigdaddyjunior
quote:Originally posted by dcon12
quote:Originally posted by HobbyGuy
Sure Don, but lest we forget and perpetuate taking me out of context. [;)]
That, my friend, is the rub. Don
Best you keep your rubbing to yourself before the Mrs. has another "accident".
None of them were accidents, we named them. Don
And how are little Oops, Uhoh and Iswearillcutitoff doing these days?
Ooops and Uhoh are working on some ranch out in Nevada and Iswearillcutitoff is working for the state. Don0 -
Out of curiousity, was that last comment directed at me? 0 -
quote:With that mindset, we've got some serious battles ahead (to clean up the mess you are making). Thanks a lot.
We finally agree on something.
After a hundred years of sold out, government-knows-best, ignorant citizens and public servants..what little remains of the Constitution is freely interpeted by your type..right fom your masters mouth through you to us...
I wouldn't even respond to your posts..generally don't..but you trying to pretend that you support the Second Amendment is too much.
You have the same position on guns as does Shumer/Fiendstein/ Kennedy/Bush..we the masses get whatever crumbs your type feels like throwing our way.0 -
Ok ok the gun thing...I have sat and watched a gun for hours on end and all it did was just sit there. It didn't try to hurt me or anyone else. It was loaded too! Even had a round chambered and the safety off!! Still it just sat there doing nothing. You worried about someone freaking out and killing someone else? How about let's make it illegal to murder someone? You say there already is a law like that? That can't be, because people are still getting killed all the time. Gee, I wonder why that is? Maybe there is a criminal element to our society that will do as they see fit regardless of the law? 0 -
I guess that means that comment was directed at me after all.....and to think, I was under the impression that we were making progress [:D] 0 -
quote:Boy, you said it William! The worst part about that statement, is that comments posted here by certain members of this forum would place them in that category of concern. I can think of half a dozen members off the top of my head that I don't believe have the mental capacity to safely be in possession of any weapon, be it a gun, a knife, or sharp pencil for that matter.
The really COOL thing about the Second Amendment..at one time, of course..is that radicals like you had absolutely no say in who owned a gun.
Carefully read the long piece above..(Mongrel1776)..and you find that murders happened...but rather rare.
Since radicals like you took control...murders shot right out of the roof.
That says nothing at all about the increasing power of the federal government, either ..as they control and ever more find out where and who owns the guns in this country.0 -
Rack;
Don't let it bother you.
You are dealing from a position that the Second means something for the sovereign citizens of this country.
Hobbyguy deals off the position that it means whatever the government says it means.0 -
Hobby Guy: No offense taken, the conversation didn't upset me. You make your choices, I make mine. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by HobbyGuy
I believe everyone that is inclined, can afford and legally possess a firearm in this country should.
And of course this is ludicrous. Means, inclination and legality are fine for can, not should. There are those with means, inclination and legality who shouldn't even drive a car or own golf clubs, much less possess a firearm. Most of the CCW's in north Idaho I know scare me more than the criminals. That is a sad fact. Fortunately, you can't legislate temperament and judgment; if you could, RKBA would be near non-existent.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
32 comments