She thinks she has lit upon a "responsible idea" to regulate guns. The idea Megan Kristen Lewis of the Tallahassee (Fla.) Democrat thinks is "responsible" is to put global positioning tracking devices (GPS) in every gun. That way the government could track down your firearm if it is "stolen" or used in a crime.
Miss Lewis attempts to assure the reader that she really is a fan of guns before she unleashes this great idea, of course. She knows people with guns, she claims, and she doesn't "fear" them. Why, she grew up around them, she says. Of course, they were always locked up in a safe so no one could get to them. Still, she says her Father taught her about "weapon safety from a very young age."
Sadly, her Father neglected to teach her about the Constitution or about world and American history because if he did her Big Brother gun tracking program idea would have never occurred to her in the first place.
To buttress her case, Lewis recounts a story where a local Florida man accidentally shot himself with a .22 and seems to imagine that this is something extraordinary. But, this sort of silly singling out of an accident obscures the fact that humans are sometimes careless. Further, it's a fact that gun accidents are not nearly as wide spread as other types of accidents. Car accidents, for instance, far out weigh gun accidents by many magnitudes of percentage. Does Miss Lewis want to restrict cars because of these accidents? I doubt it ever even occurred to her.
But, let's get to her brilliant idea.
Of those I know who are responsible with their weapons, I could guarantee that not a single one would be opposed to a simple proposal using GPS tracking chips, which are incredibly small and have become rather inexpensive to manufacture.
I find it hard to believe she knows anyone with a gun (except maybe her Constitutionally illiterate Father).
So how would this "responsible idea" work? Big government, of course.
Of course, the database and tracking system would take a bit of time to implement, but wouldn't it be worth it to have this substantial resource at hand?
"Of course" the system she proposes would take a "bit" of time? How about the costs? Then we'd have to have a new government agency to govern this program we cannot forget. That means more government employees, more of those "resources" Lewis casually mentions going to government instead of you and me, more money eaten up, and -- lest we not forget -- more TAXES needed to fund this program.
Bloating Big Brother government. Yeah, real “responsible,” Miss Lewis.
Then we get this bit of starry-eyed illogic:
When weapons are stolen, we could track them down more easily, and in the incident of a violent act, we would be able to more reliably piece together the chain of events leading up to the gunfire.
OK, so we have this "database" and these GPS chips in guns. Then there is a shooting incident. We turn on the GPS system. And we get the feedback locating thousands of guns in the area of the crime. Which gun was involved? We don't know. So what do we have to do to find out? Launch a giant drag net with hundreds of storm troopers and confiscate EVERY gun in the targeted area, violating the rights of thousands of people at once. And this will happen with every gun incident!
This woman hasn't a clue, does she?
Now, let's review why people are against gun registries. We have but to look to one historical lesson that occurred just before a little incident that has come to be called Kristal Nacht.
Stephen P. Halbrook wrote of what happened just before Hitler's henchmen began their campaign to murder Germany's Jews prior to WWII. It just so happened that a previous gun registration law made Hitler's campaign of mass murder just a bit easier. You see Hitler was able to sweep through the country and disarm his targeted victims because every firearm was registered with the government. Armed with those government records, Hitler was able to quickly and easily identify which homes had those he wanted eliminated and which might pose a problem because a firearm was present.
Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938.
Thanks to Miss Lewis, any next Hitler might be able to flip on the government computer and id his victims from the comfort of his office. How helpfully "responsible" of her.
But, even if we count out the admittedly extreme Hitler example, we still have the rights to self-protection and freedom from government oppression guaranteed in the Constitution. I give Miss Megan four little words: "Shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment is not an option, Miss Lewis. It is a right duly recognized by that thing we follow as the law of the land!
Meagan wraps up her call to Big Brotherism by telling us what she isn't "afraid of."
As one who is capable of handling a firearm responsibly, I would love for others to be able to see weapons in a different light. I am not afraid of guns; we have only to fear the people who choose to use them inappropriately.
Wanna know what I am "afraid of," Miss Lewis? I am afraid of people like you, do-gooders that don't care about human rights or the Constitution and have no clue about human nature or history attempting to make “responsible” rules for the rest of us to be ruled by. I’m afraid of the yoke of oppression people like you are readying for us all to wear. I am afraid of people like you who have no knowledge with which to base your “responsible” ideas upon, yet you go off attempting to force them on us anyway. All I can say is that you and your Dad need an education and until you get one, leave the “responsible” ideas to people who know better.














Comments Policy
Ya.....it will make them easier to.........
June 23, 2008 - 14:18 ET by BEGRUNTfind, once they begin to confiscate them. Brainless moron!!
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
The "Hitler used registry to grab guns" example
June 23, 2008 - 14:24 ET by sarcasmoIs IMO more like "typical" than "extreme," considering post "Never Again" genocides like Cambidia's & the various killing fields of the African kleptocracies. Ignore the media-favored NRA on this one and see www.jpfo.org, especially this part, for more historical context.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
media-favored NRA
June 23, 2008 - 14:42 ET by wizardjrPlease document that phrase. The "media", as in main stream media, have been spitting on the NRA for at least 30 years. They always cast the NRA as extreme, and out of touch with America. The NRA is a "right wing" gun organization that wants to protect the right to "blood in the streets" and the "rights of criminals" to bear arms and the free distribution and use of "cop killer bullets". I could fill pages with their anti-NRA rhetoric. So then, what media are you referring to that favors the NRA?
I'll document it
June 23, 2008 - 14:47 ET by sarcasmoBy comparing their treatment of the NRA (which was deeply involved in evil and anti-self-defense compromises like the 1968 GCA and the later 1986 "FOPA") to the treatment of JPFO, which is NOT covered due to antilibertarian bias. The lazy-as-hell news media favors the NRA for their penchant to compromise and for their easy, inside the beltway, one stop shopping nature. The very existence of a GOA, JPFO, etc. etc. etc. says the NRA ain't exactly the cat's meow when it comes to individual rights. Why reinvent the wheel??
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Y'know, the press may turn
June 23, 2008 - 18:49 ET by Indiana JoeY'know, the press may turn to the NRA more often because it's the biggest, most visible, and best-known of the various pro-gun orgs. Maybe this one particular thing isn't the result of "antilibertarian bias."
sarc, be sure and keep your powder dry.
June 23, 2008 - 23:20 ET by R D HelmNo sh....I mean, feces. :-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
→ Numb & Number
June 23, 2008 - 14:24 ET by Cool ArrowProof positive. You really can make this sh|t up.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
democrat is a rag
June 23, 2008 - 14:33 ET by tropicalreportI live in Tallahassee and scan the Democrat newspaper for basic news. Here in Florida, we have plenty of robberies and other crimes, which the Democrat reports upon. However, they rarely if ever mention the race or any particulars of use when describing perps. Look out for a guy in a tee-shirt type of stuff is what you get. Journalists here are not the cream of the crop for sure.
Megan Kristen Lewis works at the finance department at the Tallahassee
Democrat and is a freelance journalist. She graduated in May from
Flagler College. This is not the Columbia School of Journalism but an online college. U of Phoenix...
Excellent article &
June 23, 2008 - 14:34 ET by NBFExcellent article & rebuttal.
Furthermore, any criminal could easily put the gun in a microwave for a few seconds, destroying any circuitry, while leaving the mechanics of the firearm unaffected.
So when the Hitlerian gun confiscation occurs, the good folks are disarmed victims and sitting ducks, while the criminals are armed to the teeth.
Brilliant.
You got it
June 23, 2008 - 14:48 ET by wizardjrI was about suggest the same thing. It takes outlaws no time at all to defeat any man-made security feature. This GPS chip is about as useful as the Illinois Gun Owners ID Card. It will tell you where the honest folks are. Great. That'll really help in a drive by shooting scenario. As suggested above, the cops will Gestapo the entire area's honest gun owners only to find out that none of those weapons were involved. Then it'll take five years to get your weapon back. By now its a pile of rust as they kept it in a wet basement storage area. Think New Orleans.
Providing that all of her
June 23, 2008 - 14:36 ET by bassndudeProviding that all of her claims are true, i.e. pro-gun, this woman is nothing less than a moron. However, I suspect she is a gun grabbing lib.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Her support of firearms and
June 23, 2008 - 21:18 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveHer support of firearms and people who own them sounded a lot like "not that there's anything wrong with that" to me.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
History is SO instructive...
June 23, 2008 - 14:37 ET by c5thenIt's ashame Liberals don't learn about it before coming up with "bright ideas".
In 1746 England finally defeated the Scots (Jacobites) and slaughtered their army and any by-standers in the process. The first thing that happened was that the Government made it illegal for any Scots to own weapons, wear plaids or speak Gaelic (it was already illegal for comon Englishmen to own weapons). A few years later, they decided to re-organize how the Scottish land was used and just burned out any inhabitants who happened to have their home in the "wrong spot". Of course they couldn't be resisted because NO ONE HAD ANY WEAPONS. Then they parcelled out the "homesteads" in 2 acre lots, making it impossible to support a family by farming.
This was all accomplished by 1770 and resulted in many thousands of Scotts immigrating to the Colonies to try and find a better life.
All of this was well known by the Founding Fathers and was the primary reason why the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place.
The Constitution is PRIMARILY a document that RESTRICTS the power of the Federal Government. Similarly the 2nd Amendment is there to protect against a tyranical government.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Well said c5......
June 23, 2008 - 14:54 ET by BEGRUNTToo many people are ignorant of history, and the reason certain things were put into the Constitution. The 2nd amendment was to ensure that when the government was no longer representative of the people (tyranny), it is the peoples right to remove said government.
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
Technically no way
June 23, 2008 - 14:48 ET by metroxFrom:
http://lojack.com/gps-vehicle-tracking.html
GPS tracking equipment relies on a visible antenna that can easily be found and broken off.
GPS vehicle tracking products require a direct line of sight between the equipment and orbiting GPS satellites in order to track the object's location.
And, don't forget, GPS tracking requires the object being tracked to communicate back to the satellites (or via radio or cell phone). All these technologies, currently (and probably always) require a POWER SOURCE...i.e. a battery or perhaps a solar panel?
You can never track a gun with GPS,
a. signal only can be transmitted when the object has clear line of site to at least 3 or 4 satellites.
b. Any tracking, satellite, radio and cell phone tranmissions require a power source, to do tracking the GPS position requires line of site to a satellite
c. any contraption added to a gun or other object not normally used outside or with a builtin or attached power source cannot be 'tracked' (RFID is the closest possibility but you would have be near an RFID scanner and if you wrap the object in aluminum foil, no scanning occurs)
not to mention the constitutionality of this!
it is perhaps possible
June 23, 2008 - 14:53 ET by wizardjrIf you take the grips off a revolver and look, there is usually enough room for the cell phone/gps combo inside. Pistols are another thing altogether. Unless you bury it in the clip, I don't see where it can go. Perhaps the pistol will have an ID chip in it that the clip mounted cell phone/gps chip will use to ID the gun and the clip. For goodness sakes, don't let the Brady Bunch see this or we'll have a bill in Congress the following week.
GPS can be beat by coffee can.
June 23, 2008 - 15:07 ET by TjexciteI friend of mine drove a big rig 18 wheeler. He was always getting short changed on his pay. On the day he quit he parked the truck and put a metel coffee can on the GPS dome sensor, until he got all what he was owed. He then told them where the truck was. Not really legal to hold for ransom but, he got his money within 24 hrs and in cash not cheque.
I just wonder when we will get the GPS chip implanted into our brains and then hooked up to the Borg collective to not only share the money but share our thoughts.
Resistance ( to
June 23, 2008 - 22:39 ET by red_dragon311Resistance ( to democrate bull sh!t ) is Futile
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Gerald Ford
LOL.....resistance is futile,,,,,,,,,the...
June 24, 2008 - 12:10 ET by BEGRUNTObama-collective.
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
GPS receivers determine
June 24, 2008 - 12:58 ET by DarkCurrentGPS receivers determine their position by analyzing the relative delay of ultra-precise timimg signals from several TRANSMITTING satellites.
"GPS chips" do not transmit their location back to the satellites - to do so would take a lot more power/antenna, not to mention processing power and bandwidth for uplink signals if that were the case.
In other words, GPS satellites do not track the location of receivers, receivers passivly track the location of transmitting satellites.
Just put a tracking collar on the gun owner.
June 23, 2008 - 15:12 ET by JTPHe can then wear the battery pack on his belt.
When it's time to find him just hop in your Land Cruiser or single engine plane and start pointing the tracking antenea in all directions until you get a strong signal.
It works for bears and whales doesn't it?
The 2ND Amendment exists to secure the rest
Tyranny exists
June 23, 2008 - 15:22 ET by AgentAmericanPut the GPS on criminals and felons (especially on child molesters and sex offenders). This Lewis is a tyrant, since she wants to punish innocent people.
Drill ANWAR
since she wants to punish innocent people
June 23, 2008 - 18:52 ET by wizardjras always
GPS Stupidity
June 23, 2008 - 16:32 ET by CobraMan"I am not afraid of guns; we have only to fear the people who choose to use them inappropriately."
And I'm not afraid of reporters; we only have to fear the stupid ones who use their power of suggestion (via the press) inappropriately.
To allay that fear, I suggest that those GPS tracking devices should be placed in all reporters(and their property), as a means to ensure that they're not using their power in an inappropriate manner.
What's that Madam? You think that's a terrible idea? You don't think that law-abiding citizens, or their property, should be tagged and possibly monitored simply because they MIGHT be used in an unlawful or harmful manner at some time in the future? Well, welcome to the REAL world!
Get this through your thick skill, Madam. When you tag and monitor personal property, you tag and monitor the OWNER of that property as well. You’re calling for the tagging and monitoring of law abiding citizens and you don’t even understand the ramifications of what your suggesting. That’s just plain dumb!
Ten reasons to ban guns
June 23, 2008 - 16:36 ET by mattmTen reasons to ban guns
Just great!
June 23, 2008 - 17:38 ET by ThalpyJust great! Remember: "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."
don't track guns.
June 23, 2008 - 17:40 ET by oregon_jiimtrack the bullets. put a serial number on every bullet and casing. then you can track every bullet from the manufacturer to the wholesaler to the retailer to the gun owner. if you use your weapon for legitimate reasons (sport, self defense) you have nothing to worry about. if one of your bullets ends up in the body of a shooting victim, you have some 'splaining to do.
just something i thought about while reading this story. anybody have any reasons why this might be a bad idea?
"an endorsement of communism is an endorsement of slavery"
I see a rash
June 23, 2008 - 18:10 ET by Mivvisof ammo thefts in the future. Not to mention the removal of numbers from the bullets.
Just my .02 Criminals are pretty good at adapting to new regulations
if a number is burned or
June 23, 2008 - 19:21 ET by oregon_jiimif a number is burned or stamped into the casing and bullet, no matter what a criminal does to remove it there are still methods to recover the original number. this number doesn't have to be visible by the naked eye either.
No it's great idea, apart
June 23, 2008 - 18:34 ET by SickofLibsNo it's great idea, apart from the 500 billion dollar infrastructure required to make it work. But that would be excluding the criminals who commit the majority of crimes involving weapons who wouldn't be buying govt-registered rounds at K-Mart.
TWO strikes and you're off to jail for weapons crimes (or deported), plus installing sane judges are a better solution IMO.
TWO strikes?
June 23, 2008 - 19:00 ET by Indiana JoeYou're more forgiving than me.
Use a gun in a crime, go to jail for the full time. No parole, no time off for "good behavior." First time, every time.
make your own or import
June 23, 2008 - 18:55 ET by wizardjrwe banned alcohol, how did that work out?
we banned a number of recreational drugs, how did that work out?
Is there any reason to believe that the underground will not supply guns, ammo, whatever is desired regardless of laws? Why would I buy stupid government ammo when I can cast and load my own?
i would think that less
June 23, 2008 - 19:31 ET by oregon_jiimi would think that less bullets would fly if criminals had to make their own. i've never loaded my own, but i know guys who do and it looks like a tedious waste of time.
anyway, thanks for the input. the only reason i thought about tracking bullets is that they are always left behind at the crime scene. guns on the other hand stay with the criminals.
Bullet casings are not
June 23, 2008 - 21:13 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveBullet casings are not "always left behind at the crime scene" And tracing slugs or casings to a particular weapon is next to impossible unless the authorities actually have the weapon in their possession. Not to mention the terrible disfigurement of a slug when it impacts something. All the CSI bullet matching crap you see on TV is just that...CRAP! It is never that easy.
Reloading is not a tedious waste of time. Once one gets set up and has the right measurements, it goes relatively quick.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
Not the first to think this...
June 23, 2008 - 19:03 ET by Indiana JoeCalifornia (what a shock!) is looking into this. But it's rapidly becoming apparent that it's not feasible. Of course, that won't stop those pushing for it. I wouldn't be surprised if they mandate only selling "tagged" ammo when it's not even available.
I will never live in
June 23, 2008 - 21:10 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI will never live in California unless it's gun laws are all repealed. I don't care how much money a company offers, I will not live in California because of their gun laws. Same goes for NYC, Chicago, and D.C.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
Most bullets are made out
June 24, 2008 - 13:10 ET by DarkCurrentMost bullets are made out of lead, a very malleable metal with low melting point. It wouldn't be too difficult for anyone who wanted to avoid tracking to make their own and load their own cartridges. In fact some people do that already.
And casings don't need to be left lying around at the scene.
oregon_jim, thats just
June 24, 2008 - 13:18 ET by bassndudeoregon_jim, thats just insane. Bullets do not maintain any of their original shape, for the most part. A good bullet deforms to about twice its diameter on impact. Many times, a hollow point at close range from a medium caliber firearm, goes to pieces. You cant even get good results on the land and grooves in the lab. You can identify the cal. but not the type of gun that fired it. How are you going to find the markings?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
a tiny silicon insert
June 24, 2008 - 14:47 ET by oregon_jiimabout the size of a grain of sand in the center of the projectile could contain a serial number and more. You would only need a microscope to read it. You could make 1/2 million inserts on a single silicon waffer making them cost less than a penny a piece. This is 40 year old technology.
Even if the technology doesn't work the liberals might think they have won a major battle and move on to saving the polar bears instead of banning more guns.
"an endorsement of communism is an endorsement of slavery"
"Even if the technology
June 24, 2008 - 19:53 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"Even if the technology doesn't work the liberals might think they have
won a major battle and move on to saving the polar bears instead of
banning more guns."
1. The liberals will NEVER stop trying to ban guns.
2. Prices of ammunition are already higher than they need to be because of needless regulations and bureaucracy. Let's not add more regulations and bureaucracy...they both cost even more money and have ZERO benefits. In fact it will open the way for a black market for foreign ammunition. It would put American companies out of business.
3. Stolen ammunition would cause innocent citizens a lot of legal trouble. One wouldn't be able to buy a buddy/loved one ammunition as a gift or repayment because of the need to register for the ammunition at the time of purchase.
4. Your proposal is about as whacked as the reporter's idea that this thread is all about.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
Great!! Then, lets track
June 23, 2008 - 18:12 ET by mostlymoderateGreat!! Then, lets track everybody's automobile. Then, let's track every single website and email that a person is active in. Then, let's completely do away with cash so that we can track everyone with their credit cards. Mein Kampf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sieg heil!!
While I would personally
June 23, 2008 - 18:34 ET by Cureboy675While I would personally never own a gun, I just think they are far too dangerous. I wouldn't intrude on anybody's right to protect themselves or their family with a gun.
But under no circumstances is this woman's idea the slightest bit realistic. How many thousands of murders happen because of a domestic squabble and somebody grabs the gun and shoots somebody else right there in their own home? That GPS thing wouldn't do much good there.
And while I agree there are some places that guns just don't belong, like an airport or a high school or a presidential speech, you don't need to have a GPS to control that. Seems to me that a metal detector would serve that purpose just as well. And you wouldn't have to track somebody's every waking movement in the process.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
"I wouldn't intrude on
June 23, 2008 - 19:00 ET by NL207"I wouldn't intrude on anybody's right to protect themselves or their family with a gun. "
This is a crock. You will vote for Obama and HE will not hesitate to intrude on this right. by extension, YOU will intrude on this right.
NL
June 23, 2008 - 19:09 ET by RESTLESS 1And that's how they get around being the "bad guy". THEY wouldn't take gun rights away, but they sure as hell vote for people that will.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
concealed carry
June 23, 2008 - 19:16 ET by jefflebowskiEvery able and willing adult shoud consider a concealed carry permit. The police cannot be everywhere. I choose not to be at the mercy of some merciless criminal. I canny a gun because I can.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Good point Jeff.......
June 23, 2008 - 20:01 ET by BEGRUNTbeing a retired police officer, I can tell you first hand, that by the time we get there it is to contain a crime scene, after the fact. Most rank and file police officers support the concealed carry law. It is the political police chiefs that are against it. All of those worries about the "OK Corral" on american streets, never materialized after the concealed carry laws were inacted in the different states. There is no hope of a CCW here in California, were content to let the illegal gangbangers shoot away as we do nothing, but get killed.
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
Begrunt, do you remember when Concealed Carry was first allowed?
June 23, 2008 - 20:56 ET by jefflebowskiThe liberal mantra was guarantees of shoot-outs in traffic and lawful people killing each other indiscriminately. Liberals fail to realize that there is a huge difference between law abiding citizens and criminals. Of course, they love criminals and try to take rights away from us law abiding people.
Just as in every other instance of liberal predictions, they were found to be wrong. I have my carry permit, my 66 year old mother just got hers and my 18 year old daughter wants hers in three years. We refuse to be victims!
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Congratulations to you,
June 23, 2008 - 21:03 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveCongratulations to you, your mother, and your daughter!
My wife just received her CCW permit last week. She carries our 8 month old daughter on one hip, her .45 on the other, and our two other daughters in tow. While I am stationed here in Korea for a year I have no worries about her being able to protect herself and my daughters back home. She's even getting some of her friends interested in owning/carrying firearms from her example. It's the ultimate in feminine protection.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
Hey Dr. Love... Good to
June 23, 2008 - 21:16 ET by bigtimerHey Dr. Love...
Good to see you here...thrilled for your newest addition to your family, thank you sir for your service...and your wife is my kind of gal..she will be just fine for sure.
Thank you all..from my family to yours...our gratitude is sent.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Mean Gene, thanks from Lebowski
June 23, 2008 - 22:26 ET by jefflebowskifor your service to our country. I hope you have the opportunity to give ol' Kim Jung Il a slap!
Congrats on your daughters and fine family. You're a lucky man. Your wife will definitely be safe with the .45. I myself carry a .40 Glock. Anyway, thanks again for what you do!
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Oh Ya.......and the reasons I listed above were the...
June 23, 2008 - 21:14 ET by BEGRUNTreason dejour for not allowing CCW's in liberal minds. At least I'm safe here, because I can still carry.
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
OK. So this means I have
June 23, 2008 - 22:22 ET by Cureboy675OK. So this means I have to agree with every single policy decision that a candidate holds? Okay. Well that leaves out Obama, McCain (and for that matter) Clinton, Huckabee, Ron Paul. That also means I shouldn't have voted in 2006, or 2004, or 2002, or 2000, or 1998 or 1996. Because nobody in any of those contests had the exact same beliefs as me on every single policy.
Wow. This also means that if my own sister runs for office, I can't vote for her either. Because there are some things we don't see eye-to-eye on.
So congratulations to you, NL207. No doubt every candidate you ever voted for had the exact same beliefs as you. I'd say you're pretty lucky.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
Cureboy, no big deal
June 23, 2008 - 22:29 ET by jefflebowskiIf you don't want to own and carry a gun, it's ok. Like Dirty Harry said, "a man's got to know his limitations."
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Some people (like me) just
June 23, 2008 - 22:40 ET by Cureboy675Some people (like me) just have no business owning a gun. I'm careless, I make stupid mistakes. I couldn't live with myself if one of my nephews accidentally shot themselves because of my own foolishness. Plus, given my legal escapades, I don't even know if they'd let me have a gun if I wanted one.
I'm not passing judgement on anybody. Just please tell me you agree that owning a gun is a huge responsibility and shouldn't be taken lightly.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
Cureboy, it IS a tremendous responsibility to own a gun
June 23, 2008 - 22:56 ET by jefflebowskiIf you are careless as you say, at least you have the intelligence to not own a gun. Anyone who shoots guns knows of the destructive power that guns have. Any gun owner agrees that it is a tremendous responsibility to own a gun. In Texas where I live, a person must sit in a 12 hour class where they review and beat into you every gun law...what you can do and what you cannot...where you can carry, where you cannot, you must pass a written test and pass a shooting test. Also, anything more serious than a speeding ticket disqualifies someone from a carry license.
We respect your right to not own a gun and appreciate you respecting our rights to be gun owners.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
You are correct gun
June 23, 2008 - 23:15 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveYou are correct gun ownership is a big responsibility...but so is owning a car.
I believe everyone should learn how to use a gun...even if they never intend to own one. The reason being is so everyone knows how to safely handle a gun. Accidents happen because of lack of training, complacency, and horseplay. Good training and practice reduce both complacency and the chances of horseplay. If everyone was trained on how to use a gun, they would know how to unload/clear the weapon and insure it is safe to handle.
I have 3 very young daughters. I am already teaching them gun safety and handling. Both my five year old and my three year old can safely shoot a BB gun without any problems and hit their intended target with minimal assistance (and always with supervision). Teaching children and taking them shooting breaks down their curiosity and also instills in them a respect for firearms. Witnessing a pumpkin blown to bits from a few hollow points leaves a lasting impression on a young mind and reinforces the responsibility and discipline required to handle a gun. Not to mention a visual reminder of the destructive power of a firearm.
Take a look at this website: www.corneredcat.com it has a lot of great information that may get you thinking a little differently about gun ownership. As long as you aren't a convicted felon you can usually still legally own guns, but check your local laws for accurate information.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
Thanks for that link. And
June 23, 2008 - 23:40 ET by Cureboy675Thanks for that link. And I mean it when I say this: I believe that 99% of the people in this country who have a gun own it legally and have received all the necessary training and they realize its a big responsibility. Unfortunately there's that criminal element that makes up the remaining 1% that everybody pays attention to.
But I agree with the car analogy. Most people drive safely. A few people drive drunk and unfortunately people die. And yet we haven't stopped selling automobiles. But we do punish those who drive drunk (Yeah, with only a 30 day suspended license, but that's a bitch-fest for another time). Just like we punish people who have a gun they shouldn't have.
But I've been thinking about my earlier dilemma: Living life going through a metal detector or living life where everybody is armed but me. I could live with the second life. If I were the only unarmed man in a room with a gun-wielding maniac and 20 other people who were armed...I'm pretty sure I'd end up walking out of that situation alive.
I'm just going to have to disagree with Mr Obama on this one. Simply because I agree with him on so many other things that are more important to me (And please don't think I'm being insulting by saying that...Thats not my intention. People just have different issues that they hold most dear)
But as for me carrying a gun. I'm not even going to look into it. My legal problems were never felonies or anything like that. But I also have a history of mental problems (it was a long time ago and as long as I have my meds I'm good). Its just not a good idea for me at all.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
Cureboy... At least you
June 23, 2008 - 23:46 ET by bigtimerCureboy...
At least you seem honest...I sure respect that...not that it matters one way or the other, but I have been following this thread...so far I just want to thank you for your honesty.
I respect your decisions here.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
I'm glad I could help. And
June 24, 2008 - 00:01 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI'm glad I could help. And I'm glad you have an open mind about this subject. I also respect your limitations and that you have made your choice cognizant of those limitations. There is no shame in that.
Gun rights are at the top of my list of priorities because all other rights are guaranteed by our right to keep and bear arms. So it always weighs heavily on my decisions when I cast my ballot.
Here's another link that you may be interested in: On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs. Great article with some very excellent points.
If you want more information on firearms you can PM me. I have a whole reading list ready to go. Several of my friends have found it informative and helpful. And even if you aren't going to own firearms, I still recommend that you learn how to use them. Have a friend teach you and take you shooting sometime. Your local range/gun club probably offers classes too.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
I love that line. It's one
June 23, 2008 - 22:51 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI love that line. It's one of my all time favorites. And I just finished watching the Dirty Harry series (again) a couple days ago. Great movies even if they are a bit unrealistic.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
I disagree. Guns belong
June 23, 2008 - 20:56 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI disagree. Guns belong anywhere and everywhere responsible hands can carry them.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
Hey. If you can find a way
June 23, 2008 - 22:30 ET by Cureboy675Hey. If you can find a way to guarantee that only responsible people will have guns at a high school, an airport or a presidential speech, I'm more than happy to do away with the metal detectors. I hate digging for my keys and the spare change in order to be allowed through those check points.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
Cureboy, you can't guarantee
June 23, 2008 - 22:38 ET by jefflebowskithat only responsible people will have guns. That is the precise reason why law abiding and able citizens must be allowed to carry guns. Don't you think that those people who were shot down in that mall last year wish they had guns once that crazy man started executing them?
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Oh no doubt. I remember
June 23, 2008 - 22:53 ET by Cureboy675Oh no doubt. I remember that mall shooting very well. It happened right here in Omaha. If more people were armed, that very well could have saved some lives. Damn. You're making me second guess myself.
I was sitting here trying to rationalize the fact that there are some places that guns don't belong like airports and so forth...So metal detectors are a good thing. Then you got me thinking: Well what about the Westroads Mall, where eight people were killed. Should they have metal detectors in malls, restaurants, libraries?
Do I want to live in a world where I'm constantly passing through a metal detector? Or do I want to live in a world where everybody is armed but me? Neither sound very appealing to me. Damn. I've trapped myself in my own logic.
To tell you the truth, when it comes right down to it. I'm not quite sure how I feel about it in the grand scheme of things. I'm good at arguing in the hypothetical. But when it comes down to the ultimate bottom line...I'll admit I'm undecided on this one.
"I don't want your 'us or them'..." -- The Cure
Cureboy, I used to be
June 23, 2008 - 23:14 ET by lotrCureboy, I used to be "pro-gun" (or, should I say "pro-choice," or "pro-gun-rights"?) simply because I liked hunting as a teenager (incidentally, I took it for granted and did not consider it a political issue -- to me, a shotgun was no different than a fishing rod -- you had to be careful and responsible with both). Now that I'm all grown up, I find the most compelling reason is based roughly on the Hitler example above, as well as that little war called the American Revolution, whereby humble (but armed) rustics defended themselves against tyranny.
My tagline sums it up
June 23, 2008 - 22:38 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveMy tagline sums it up perfectly. Responsible firearm owners keep criminals in line.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
guarantee?
June 24, 2008 - 12:27 ET by CobraManHow do you "guarantee" that people will act responsibly in any situation, at any venue? That's impossible. Humans are creatures of emotion and, sometimes, those emotions are not under our conscious control.
To answer your question:
June 24, 2008 - 19:44 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveTo answer your question: "How do you 'guarantee' that people will act responsibly in any situation, at any venue?"
I submit: "Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
That's how we can guarantee that people will act responsibly.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
Here's a thought...
June 23, 2008 - 19:14 ET by Indiana JoeSuppose this were implemented. And, as Warner points out, they'd have to throw a dragnet over every gun owner in the area after a shooting. A clear civil rights violation! Oh, how will we solve this?
So, to "protect the rights of the innocent," they'd just leave the system active all the time. That way, they could track exactly which gun was at the scene when the crime occurred. And the innocent would have nothing to fear. After all, that's a reasonable argument in favor of random searches, isn't it?
Of course, they could also show up at your door if you had a gun out of it's "safe, secure storage," in violation of any local ordinance. Boy, that would sure impact gun crime, wouldn't it?
How about adding a sensor that showed if you loaded the gun? You know, to track compliance with D.C.-type laws.
The possibilities are endless... and very, very frightening.
GPS IMPLANTED IN DUMB JOURNALISTS
June 23, 2008 - 20:47 ET by Der AlteI think we should have a law where we implant a GPS in every journalists. That way when they write something dumb about guns the government can locate them and post their location so gun owners can track them down and ridicule them!
Dumb ass broad!