• Who we are
  • Archives
  • Categories
  • Guns and Roses

    2013 - 01.20

    Today’s Forum has a number of stories and letters, most representing individuals who are against any increased government regulation of firearms.

    Save for one article, which brilliantly outlined the differing needs of firearms as it relates to hunting enthusiasts vs. police and military, all the others made it pretty clear the people who encourage the government to regulate which laws should apply to Ricky and and I and which should not are very much against any regulation that may keep them from buying a machine gun.

    They’re also probably comfortable with regulating which medical services are available and which are not available to people they’ve never met.  And these same people seem to be willing fight to the death for the stranger down the street to keep a gun that can kill 100 people a minute unsecured in his basement.

    A photo of protesters on the Capital steps stuck with me all morning.

    I got to wondering what would happen if someone tried an experiment.

    If I were able to get my hands on one of those TV sound trucks, and play a recording of a machine gun firing with the speakers aimed toward the Capital steps; I wonder what the protesters reaction would have been?

    Would they puff out their chests in pride and accomplishment?

    Would they break out in cheers of victory?

    Would they be impressed their work was being recognized so quickly?

    Or . . .

    Do you think they would have dived for cover?

    Would they have thrown themselves on top of their children, bargaining with God to take them and save their son?

    Would they have wondered where the police were and how long it was going to take them to get there?

    Would they have been appropriately armed and prepared to defend themselves, their children and their co-protesters?

    And if they were, how many people would have been shot before they learned it was only a homo in a hijacked TV sound truck doing an experiment?

    Today’s Gay Agenda: This one still has no easy answers, other than doing nothing is probably not the right one. Be very careful what you work toward protesters. You may have a change of heart when a crazy person bursts through your door and kills your family with the machine gun you forgot to lock up last night.

    15 Responses to “Guns and Roses”

    1. opinionated says:

      Ciao squirrel. If you are ever dumb enough to try that loud speaker experiment please tell me ahead of time so I can video your carcass being dragged off to jail for inciting a riot. You’ll find several new boyfriends in jail and just love the decor so I strongly advise you do it ;-O

      I almost hope some days that they do try to make gun ownership illegal in this country and to take our guns away from us. The gene pool would receive its biggest cleansing in history when they tried to enforce it. No way the good citizens of this country would allow the liberal press and leftists to get away with that one. I wouldn’t hurt a dog or cat or anything else above that of an insect, but try to remove my gun rights and I’d be up on the front lines with a truckload of brass gladly ready and able to defend myself. I think a significant percentage of our population feels the same way.

      Besides, take away the gun rights of the decent citizens of this country and the bad sector would run rampant and free to do as they pleased…and they would. The legal and honest gun owning citizens of this country do more to deter violence and crime every single day than all law enforcement officials of this country rolled together. The fact that there might just be a loaded weapon pointed at their skulls when they break into someone’s home to do them harm is quite a deterrent. I whole heartedly believe more innocent lives are saved by this than the few extreme cases of accidental deaths reported each year.

      Praise whomever you consider to be your Lord, whatever nondenominational and/or specific religious structure you choose to follow, and Pass The Ammunition!!!

    2. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

      Why do gun rights activists see it as an all or nothing proposition? Normal people are not advocating removing all guns from society. They’re working to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of crazy people or those intent on harming others to achieve some agenda.

      I don’t give a rats ass if you have a nuclear warhead in your basement. However, I will sue your ass and take your home and every penny you have if your warhead harms me or my loved ones. Whether you are the one who uses it or not.

      Also, I can say with 100% certainty that no one I love will every be harmed by my high capacity assault rifle if I don’t own one.

      Making dope illegal worked so very well. Sane people know making all guns illegal is stupid. Your type works stupid Beufords into a frenzy that someone is going to take Paw-Paw’s shotgun away and he won’t be able to defent the virtue of his busty yet slutty sister Patsy.

      (great imagry, huh?) :)

      • Avatar of Kory Kory says:

        In all actuallity no rifle is a weapon of mass destruction(WMD). That is a phrase that people like Piers Morgan who has no first hand knowledge of an AR platform rifle call a military styled rifle instead of a bomb/ chemical weapon/ biological weapon that a WMD really is.

        The AR is a .223 round one of the smallest center fire rounds on the market and designed by the military not to outright kill, but to wound. The wound actually takes three people out of the fight instead of the kill only taking out one. The three are the injured and the two people caring and evacuating the injured from the battle.

        Can it kill? Sure, but in the article linked to today so can a .22 once again a firearm calibler that wouldn’t be affected by any proposed ban.

        Besides a semi auto 1 round/ trigger squeeze will not put more than 100 rounds (even that is unlikely) out in a minute unless someone has a finger that moves like a teenager hiding an “adult mag from Mom” non stop. Horrible analogy, but meant to induce a chuckle. Now who NEEDS to be able to fire that is a good question, but who are you or I to ask who needs anything that the large majority of people who own anything that harms no one else? Most owners use them at a range in a responsible manner and while I don’t own one I have a lot of experience with them and would consider myself an expert with them. As a career military member I know several of my buddies who do own them shoot a civilian model a lot to make them better with the service rifle they only get to shoot once a year.

        I could ask the same of who NEEDS more than one property? Once again it isn’t a question that is up to anyone other than the owner of the item so long as it is being used correctly.

    3. Avatar of Kevin Kevin says:

      Machine guns are not the same as semi-automatic rifles.

      • Avatar of Mac Mac says:

        In the hands of bad people I suspect they would have similar results.

        Personally, I think I’m onto something with the liability thing. If the person who makes any kind of weapon availble to someone who shouldn’t have it were to get the same penalty as the person who committed the crime, I think things may change.

        Nothing like losing your gun shop and your weekend home at the lake and spending the next 20 years in jail because you blew off a background check and you sold some crazy a weapon who shot up a family of four on their way to a movie.

    4. June says:

      They could just pass a law that it would be illegal to kill any other human being — with or without a gun. Surely that would take care of the problem ………. LOL

      Seriously, explain please, how laws work to protect people?? It is against the law to drink and drive [regardless if you kill somebody or not]; it is against the law to beat somebody into a pulp; it is against the law to sexually abuse children; it is against the law to take illegal drugs; and I could go on and on.

      IF laws worked, there would be no need for police or criminal courts. But then that would put a lot of people out of work, wouldn’t it?

    5. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

      Hey, why isn’t anyone responding to how they think the protesters would have or should have reacted?

      (I used the TV truck model because I didn’t dare even imply I’d show up at a place with real weapons to try my experiement)

      June, banking laws protect my money because banks are forced to give it to me when I come in and write a check, rather than keep it all for themselves.

      Automotive safety laws ensure my sexy new convertible has airbags and passive restraints.

      Zoning laws protect me from having a chicken coop go up in the yard next door.

      Background checks (help) protect my grandchildren from being taught by child molesters.

      Santitation and food safety laws help ensure the food I order at a restaurant is reasonably safe to eat. Likewise with grocery stores.

      Okay, I’m tired. You get the point.

      • Avatar of Kory Kory says:

        The crowd would most likely react with a “Mob mentallity” that is to run away without concern for who gets hurt trying to escape. Think Black Friday with a $100 57″ flat screen, but in reverse.

        However, whoever would be dumb enough to do a stunt like that would deserve the punishment that would be forthcoming. Inciting a riot, disorderly conduct, potentially manslaughter etc…

        It would be great to see the gunshow loophole closed and full background checks enforced. But to take away the ability to own something that is being used by nearly every owner responsibly is wrong.

        Now just so you know I am fairly conservative (fiscal) but I’m socially accepting. To treat any group unfairly is wrong and should be corrected. That goes for the person who likes to collect weapons or the person who wants to marry the person of choice no matter the gender. The Constitution is meant to be the law of the land and should be looked to for guidance. This is supposed to be the land of liberty and should apply to all. Laws should be passed expanding that liberty, not limiting them.

    6. June says:

      Excuse me, I thought we were discussing a topic, and I guess I should have added the word “life”, so that it read … “protect people’s life” [not lives, life].

      As you want to play games, starting at the bottom and working up …

      You never have gotten bad food in a restraurant or grocery store? Where did the bad melons come from? Or lettuce?? Or was it spinach? to name a couple. If you haven’t your time will come.

      I pity your grandchildren if you really think background checks are protecting them. Can you say Penn State?? How many little boys were not protected?? And in our own backyard, educators are being charged …………. far too often.

      You might just be a lot healtier with a chicken coop next door, if you were nice to your neighbors and they gave you and Ricky chem free eggs for breakfast. Besides, I thought chicken coops were legal in some of our local cities.

      Air Bags on a converticle?? Make you feel safe?? If you have need for the air bags I suspect you will need a lot more than air bags to be safe.

      And banking laws, yup, they might protect your money — if they have any left. But then the Feds will come in and you will have an “entitlement” from the taxpayers.

      And finally, as for the topic at hand, IF the laws on the books were better enforced, there would not be need for MORE laws that are going to be selectively enforced. Maybe our Finest should spent less time chasing prostitutes. Let’s see, if I want to go to the Ho Do for dinner and then reward the man picking up the tab, all is fine. But if I say skip dinner and I will take the cash, we both do time?? And they spend how many hours on this??

      For the record — I am all in favor of stopping underage or forced employment in any situation. But you all need to remember that HONEST people are most likely to be law abiding. You can write all the laws in the world and the DISHONEST person will NOT follow them. Don’t take guns away from law abiding people thinking you are better protected.

      • Avatar of maverick maverick says:

        Well said.

        @Mac if you can tell me one law that has been enacted that a bad person hasn’t been able to circumvent I’ll think about changing my position. As of this point I cannot think of one law where it impacts the criminals and makes them go ‘oh wait maybe I shouldn’t do that’

        Say what you want, but there is no law that prevents crime. There are only laws that dole out a punishment for crimes that were committed.

        To put it into perspective. You travel, you travel quite a bit.. Well more than the normal home body. When you go overseas have you ever tried to bring back European wines? Legally I do believe you can bring back two bottles. Did you ever try for three? Did the law telling you that you could only bring two bottles stop you?

        Yes I know it is not the best example but the issue is still the same. Laws only restrict the people who actually follow them.

        • Avatar of Mac Mac says:

          Yes, I’ve heard that argument and there are some valid points. Does murder being illegal stop murder? Obviously no. Does it REDUCE it? Maybe. Does it attempt to keep people who kill someone away from general society. Yes.

          Speed limits do not stop people from speeding but it discourages those of us who like to drive 100 mph and therefore makes the roads safer.

          I’m a little nervous about smuggling anything questionable back, so I don’t push the envelope on bringing things back from Europe, so I’m probably not the best one to ask on that. I’d rather give up a kidney than my passport!! :)

          • Avatar of maverick maverick says:

            :D Yeah well I pushed when I was coming back and was stationed there.. Luckily I was able to ship back a bunch as well.

            I’m not against reforms. I am for the right reforms however. Stop people who have no business owning guns from getting them. Not a problem in my book. Close the Gun Show loophole. Again not a problem in my book. Take away my choice to own one of those weapons.. A weapon that I am highly trained on and am an expert marksman with.. We have a problem. I actually have two. It isn’t that I’m afraid of anyone or anything in all actuality, but it boils down to my premise in life.. Choice. I want the choice to own one or more.

            You want to exclude someone because they have domestic violence on their record.. Cool. No problem. They shouldn’t own anything larger then a blunt pencil. Me on the other hand, I know I’m good. I install systems for government agencies like Homeland Security. I’m clean and can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

            Don’t take away my rights because a crackpot chips. Find a way to deal with them and their issue.

            Peace.

    7. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

      Ah June, I’m glad we can agree on something. I think the prostution thing going on in town is another example of this region’s complete obsession of who is having sex with whom, and for what reasons they’re doing it, and if it fits in with certain religious belief systems.

      Love the HoDo dinner example.

      Oh, speed limits make our roads safer and reduce the chances of me being killed in my convertible. :)

    8. Barbara says:

      Why is it that so many supposedly intelligent people seem only able to think in terms of “all or nothing at all”? They trot out their quotes from the Constitution, the Bible, the law books and statistics to support their belief that since no effort (toward anything) is 100% effective, we should just chuck any and all efforts to keep lawlessness and recklessness down to a minimum. We’ve become a nation of toddler-think!

      • Avatar of maverick maverick says:

        My only problem is once we give an inch.. They take a mile. There are things in this life that I think people should have the choice to pursue. One of them is what Brad and Rickie would like to have, the choice to be legally married in the state of North Dakota. I support their right for that choice. I support a womans right to choose whether or not she is mentally, financially and spiritually ready to bring a life into this world. Some of my rights were taken away this last year even though I was over considerate of others. On this I stand firm. I won’t give up my right to own weapons. I won’t give my rights to my AR’s. I’m tired of people taking the quickest solution and not actually thinking things out, and then only the law abiding citizen gets screwed.

    Your Reply