A question of trust of fellow citizens

I have been involved in the gun rights movement for about 40 years (I am soon to be 57 and started high level competitive shooting as an ISU skeet Shooter at age 17).

I constantly see gun restrictionists saying they don't want to ban "all guns"

but some tell us that no citizen should be able to own

1) select fire carbines (AKA machine guns)

or

2) semi auto "assault weapons"


or

3) handguns


but they also say that they don't want to ban "other guns"

so here is the issue

If you claim you can trust your neighbor, your doctor, your school janitor or your plumber with a

a) double barrel shotgun

b) a bolt action 30-06 elk rifle

c) or a 357 6 shot revolver

at what number of rounds or rate of fire does that same neighbor become untrustworthy to own say a 15 shot handgun or a 20 shot rifle?

you see, felons etc cannot own any firearm whatsoever. so for you out there who claim you don't want to ban all guns, tell us why you think its ok for honest citizens (or at least those without any disqualifying record) to own a Winchester 700 in 300 magnum but not an AR 15

 

Chicago did not even allow a person to carry a 300 year old flintlock pistol. So for the rabid gun-phobe---no gun will do.

Just because one is a doctor or esteemed professional, does not mean they are trustworthy---just look at the Judas doing jihad at Ft Hood:



The real fear is that more crafty and intelligent radical Islamics already here in their thousands, will begin making IED's and set them off in Jewish and Christian areas. Bombs and IED's, not guns, are what Muslims use to kill most often in the Mid East.

 

I think the gist of the post is amazingly true.

How often do gun owners get accused of being "afraid", or "trying to be manly" when we're not the one's trying to ban an inanimate object? We're fighting for the right for every non-criminal, sane person in the US to exercise their right to bare arms.

The truth is the liberal protectionists are the ones that are afraid to trust their fellow man.

 

the collectivist mindset is based upon a lack of trusting other citizens. To them-its about having a government forcing to people to act "correctly". they don't trust people to act properly without the force of big brother

what is funny is that the government merely accentuates and magnifies the flaws of people. that is what a decentralized government with checks and balances is the least likely to become pernicious

 

And at that point we'd see a mass genocide against Muslims and those perpetrating the social experiments we see today.

 

I'm afraid I don't understand the problem. America was founded on the concept of unalienable Rights. So, it doesn't matter whether or not my fellow man trusts me with my own firearm. If he don't, that his problem.

Government has the power, but lacks the authority to ban guns. Between the ballot box and the bullet box are a wide array of options we can exercise in order to sway the anti - gunners to back down. Let me me explain:

In the 1980s, in the city of Atlanta, the Atlanta City Council banned so - called "assault weapons." It virtually killed the gun shows for a time. Unknowingly, I had doused this flame with gasoline without realizing it. You see, a couple of years earlier I had spearheaded efforts to ban public smoking. We were successful.

Anyway, the Atlanta City Council said that the public had given the government the power to legislate where matters of public health and safety were concerned and to ban certain dangers (like public smoking) so they could ban so - called "assault weapons" on the same grounds. The ONLY reason the liberals did not win that in the end was due to the fact that the state stepped in and said state law preempts local laws.

If the gun lobby had any sense, they would take the liberals cue. Why don't we use the logic of the liberals and go after alcoholic beverages and cigarettes? Once you teach the liberals the danger of legislating away your Rights, they might start backing down. Attach bans to alcohol and cigarettes to every gun law and the laws will never pass. If the alleged objective is to save lives, then the liberals will have no problem with getting rid of alcohol and cigarettes.

At the very least, such strategies gives the gun lobby two powerful allies (whether the brewers and cigarette manufacturers like it or not.) We need to stop complaining and start strategizing.

 

Well hanging on the wall behind me is my cherished M1 Garand Battle Rifle. Even buy Califoristan standards it is not a dangerous "assault rifle".

Lets see, it can kill at ranges far, far beyond any assault rifle. Fires a bullet almost 2 1/2 times the muzzle energy of a AR and I can shoot 8 rounds as fast as I pull the trigger and reload another 8 in about 4 seconds (with practice). What it would do to a human at close range is not to be described here, but ask any WWII or Korean vet....

Gun activists, for the large part, are ignorant.

 

I want to ban all guns. In the spirit of compromise, however, I might would allow people to keep any gun they want as long as it has a chain welded to it and the other one set in the concrete foundation of your house so long as the chain is not long enough for you to leave your property. Works to keep bank pens from being stolen.

 

Put them on boat or a plane, along with all illegal immigrants and dump them back where they came from.

 

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15

Just to add some more flavor to this discussion. Look at the CDC projected defensive gun use statistics. Even more reason we need to fight for gun rights.

 

The strange paradox is that gun owners have fought to the death for your right to say what you believe and your beliefs are antithetical to the very Liberty many died in vain for. Yep. Maybe one day the only people to own guns will be the police and military and we will all be slaves in the Republic our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure.

 

From your lips to God's ears...and please, "gun owners" regularly support destroying Liberty in the name of security.

 

How so?

 

The USA PATRIOT Act; blocking efforts to bring GITMO detainees into the US for Trial come to mind

 

The patriot act was a temporary measure that applied to a credible and specific threat. Planes crashing into skyscrapers and the pentagon has a way of putting the nation on high alert. France is doing the same thing right now.

Were the GITMO detainees US citizens?

 

Ah that's so nice of you to offer to compromise over something when you have no leverage to make me accept it.

 

Sir, I'm on record as having opposed the so - called "Patriot Act" about three years PRIOR to the admission that there was even one under consideration (winter of 1998.) You should know that by now. I've been in court over that gross miscarriage of justice.

Got something else?

 

And Bush's misguided pre-emptive strike policy. What I find funny now is that those gun grabbers that were against the Patriot Act are now full force for more tyranny.

 

Ignored the GITMO thing (and you are not representative of the party that wants to round up people in the middle of the night and throw them across the border in violation of their procedural and substantive due process rights)

- - - Updated - - -

I was kidding. Your bargaining power is as irrelevant as your position. Like I would chain people by their guns instead of their necks

- - - Updated - - -

Rights are not limited to citizens

 

Well bless your little heart you think anyone sane would stand there and let you

 

Does Sharia law guarantee due process? If not, why would we provide it for detainees?

 

Both sides have inconsistent stances in regard to Liberty. What can I say?

The left wants the Nanny State; the right seems to be content to settle for the Police State. Neither position is consistent with constitutional principles.

Ronald Reagan outlawed automatic weapons for civilians; the first Bush advocated ridding the country of semi -autos and he even signed Executive Orders against the importation of same. The second Bush gave us the so-called "Patriot Act" AND National ID. When the Republicans criticize the Democrats, it's been little more than the pot calling the kettle black.

This country cannot afford the likes of Obama and Hillary Clinton, but at the same time, the Republicans aren't offering a substantial alternative. At the end of the debate is a well armed populace that might rebel against tyranny... someday.

 

Your sarcasm has been noted.

 

bought 5 from the DCM including two that were rebuilt with Krieger Citation barrels and brand new stocks

have 3000 rounds of the Greek HPX 150 grain M2 ball ammo

great guns-shot expert on the military course as a teen ager -my dad was a top collegiate rifle shot and he figured shooting a rifle was a skill a boy should have

 

Reagan did no such thing. You can buy an automatic weapon today.

http://www.autoweapons.com/products/products.html