would you give up your guns?

Localized temporary situation.

And only in the need of extreme emergency/imminent threat to unnecessary loss of life. (Look up my earlier posts on Katrina)

I wholeheartedly support the Second Amendment's dictated right for the citizens of the country to keep and bear arms -- especially since I exercise that right.

But I'm for a rational exercising of that right. I feel that we'd get a lot farther in reaching understandings if a) Gun Control Nuts wouldn't think that every firearm is an awful, criminal-making piece of evil, and b) Gun Rights Wackos wouldn't stockpile AR-15s and HP rounds because "they can and I'll be dammed if anyone tells me otherwise."

 

But you'd only need one rifle.

Hence the "multiple-weapons" argument.

 

well i still disagree with the confiscation of guns in Katrina but Ive always believed that the man on the ground makes the call, and you were there so thanks for sharing.

Just curious how did they go about disarming the population? They cant enter houses without a warrent right? "unreasonable searches and seizures" and all that?

 

Not necessarily, would you use a .22 on a bear? What about a .308 on a squirrel?

 

There were many cases of the police entering houses to check for survivors and bodies, finding weapons, and confiscating those weapons.

There were other issues when out of state officers used their state's laws in Louisiana and arrested people for carrying weapons in their house, or leaving a weapon on the table.

In the wake of the stupidity that occurred regarding the matter, many states have passed laws making it illegal to confiscate personal weaponry in times of disaster. Some, such as my own lovely Massachusetts think that the state can protect everyone, and have not protected its citizens' Constitutional rights.

Remember, the Constitution tells the government what it can and cannot due. It does not tell the citizen what they can and cannot do.

 

I'll admit, there were certainly some questionable times. But for the most part, the Guard forces I was with did it right. Most of the ones I saw came on sweeps of neighborhoods where there were already a high number of reports. Plus, you can enter a house when you've been fired upon, or when threats have been made.

It was actually kind of easy at times, because everyone was walking around armed all the time, so they just went over to them and said there was an ordinance to disarm everyone in the Ward. Sometimes people talked back, but usually not. The situation was tense enough -- plus, it's hard to argue with the people who are also delivering you water and food, and are obviously better equipped than you.

There was one LT who had it great. When he disarmed someone who started complaining, he would give them the address of the Federal building in Baton Rouge, and tell them:

"You can go here to file a request to retrieve your weapons once this area has been lifted of restrictions. While you are there, you can also file a Constitutional violations suit if you're so inclined. It'll probably be a long line. Good luck."

The seizures were probably a little over-reaching as far as geography is concerned, but from what I saw in the middle of that place was nothing short of hell. I give the Guard immense respect for getting it controlled as quickly as they did.

 

But this just goes back into the "opulence" point I was making earlier.

As Americans, we feel that we have the "right" to own as many different weapons for as many different situations as our imaginations can concoct. Instead of saying: "Bear is the primary game and the staple of my diet, so I am going to get a .308," Americans say: "I WANT BEAR AND SQUIRREL! It's my RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN to be able to hunt both!"

But it's not a right. It's a luxury we take for granted because as a society we have achieved such a level of comfort that we can afford to purchase multiple firearms. And it's this philosophy that sets us apart from other nations and ethnicities.

There's also a greater schism in that most other societies function on a method of collaboration. Native peoples in the Arctic Circle generally keep a rifle for seal and caribou hunting. Occasionally, a polar bear comes along. But not every family has a rifle suitable to take down a polar bear, they just don't need it. However, there is usually one or two members of the community who do have such a weapon -- but not a standard rifle. They are the ones who are tasked to take down the bear. In exchange, they receive a share of the hunt as payment for their specialized task.

 

Well played sir, well played

 

in theory at least, in practice it is the other way around...

 

the guard...ha... whata buncha ass-clowns, it scares me to think of them running amuck in america and poor joe citizen having to rely on Pvt Joe Snuffy who more often then not just cleans his M16A2 and then BBQs and jerks off on his "one weekend a month"

 

I almost completely forgot about this thread when this morning I read that some guy accidentally shot his girlfriend in the knee while cleaning his weapon. Apparently a dog jumped on his lap and a gun fell and his girlfriend no longer has a knee.

Grrr.. make it stop

 

Here's the problem with that. The people are not required to follow a law, requirement, ordinance, or anything that is not constitutional. We don't need anyone to tell us we're right or wrong. The constitution is what gives us our rights. Not some politician. It protects us from them and their "policies"

Come to my house and try to take my gun. You will not like the result.


"Gun cleaning" problems are either user error, or not. How do you know the guy was not actually shooting the GF and trying to cover it up. Hmmm, I didn't know it was loaded, did I, honey. Sorry about the knee.

What is the purpose of your post anyway? What would you like to stop? I'm missing something, please clarify.

 

Gun homicides for 1 yr....England 39.... Germay 194...Canada 200...US 9,484 (off google). Stands to reason that when gun ownership is restricted, there are fewer homicides by guns.
I'd give mine up, no problem

 

Great, I'll take them off your hands then. PM me for my mailing info. I know you want to make your neighborhood more safe.

 

Uhhmm you said gun homicides.... hmmm.... how about the total amount of homicides regardless of weapon or presence of weapon in relation to population?

Maybe I read your post with my sarcasm meter off? Pls elaborate.

 

Notice how all the stats are in places with very strict regs? Criminals are no longer in fear of being shot by citizens with guns.
Gun laws are only followed by the law abiding. How will you defend yourself, wife, or kids until the cops arrive? When seconds count, they are minutes away.

Here is a good read for everyone who hates guns, and those who don't:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

 

There was a time when I was a member of the NRA, Issac Walton League and a gun show regular...buying selling & swapping. Still have a Uzi model B, Glock 17 and a pre ban Walther PPK.
I live on the outskirts of a city where gun violence against innocent people is a daily occurance and the Ga legislature just passed laws basically allowing gun owners to carry just about everywhere. It is a rare occurance (here) when a bad guy is killed by a law abiding citizen defending himself...more often a stray bullet, fired by some mook who's trying to prove he's a man, takes out a bystander.
I'm just saying that perhaps if tougher laws were in place years ago our country would probaly have fewer gun deaths today. The Constitution certainly gives good guy's AND bad the right to own a gun.

 

6 dead & 4 wounded in ABQ in an apparent domestic violence dispute in the workplace. Can you imagine the angst of the families of the innocent victims that said goodby for the last time this morning before their loved ones went off to work?
Very sad

 

Just imagine the difference one ccw permit holder who was able to carry at work would have done. Maybe a few less bodies.

 

Like I've said, I feel awful for the victims of any shooting tragedy, but I still don't buy it as a reason to get rid of guns. In my mind, it's very clear-cut.

1. Violent people will be violent.
2. Banning guns clearly does not stop people from being violent.
3. Banning guns DOES limit a given citizen's right to self-defense.
4. Restricting any right is a very serious thing to do.

Conclusion: Banning guns might stop violent people from using one means to hurt each other. Banning guns does not stop them from using other means. Banning guns will definitely infringe on rights of law-abiding citizens.

Cost to ban guns: High. (You're taking away rights.)
Benefit of banning guns: Low. (Watch people stab each other and make pipe bombs, then try to ban metal and cleaning supplies.)

... Seems pretty obvious to me.