Getting Older and Changing Attitudes


PDA






jahwarrior
June 5, 2011, 03:29 PM
i was sitting here going through my first few posts here, and i did the same thing on other forums i belong to. i was surprised at how much my attitudes and opinions have changed on a number of topics, like gun ownership, here's an example:

this is a loaded question. i personally do believe in a certain level of gun control. i think there are a lot of stupid, reckless people out there, who have no business carrying a potato, much less a weapon. and, before anyone flames me for saying that, yes, i know, there is the second amendment to consider. but consider this: do you want the potential child molester/serial rapist/drug dealer/mass murder to own a handgun? and AR15? i know i don't. i believe in background checks. i think anyone who clears a federal criminal check should be allowed to carry in an unlimited fashion anywhere in the US. i also believe in mandatory firearm safety classes for owners. we require people to get driver's licenses and take a minimum of 2 hours of safe driver's ed, why not guns? i think anyone who has a felony arrest for a violent/sexual crime should not be allowed to own a firearm. any felon/ex-felon caught with a firearm should receive a mandatory sentence of 10 years in a federal penitentiary for gun possession. yes, FEDERAL prison. i personally don't like that gun laws vary from state to state. question: why should i worry about if i can carry my gun with me while on vacation? answer: i shouldn't have to. i think gun licensing should be federal, not state, regulated. i just know people are gonna freak on me about that.

i read this, and i can't believe i thought this way. part of it stems from being a relatively new gun owner. i'm a transplant from NYC, and i had a great deal of misconceptions about guns, and i didn't have as good an understanding of the 2A as i do now. for the record, i think mandatory training to own and carry a gun is a STUPID idea, whether you carry openly or concealed, or only keep your gun at home. i also don't think possession of a gun should tack on additional time for crimes. having a gun while robbing a bank is no different than having a hammer, as far as i'm concerned.

but my changes in thinking isn't limited to guns; i've found a lot of my opinions have changed, while my personality hasn't too much. am i just getting old?:D

i still think some people are too stupid to carry potatoes, and i still think that there should be a national licensing system to cary a gun. but i wouldn't impede someone's right to carry a potato, and i believe the Constitution should be our national license to carry.

who else here has found their opinions and attitudes have changed over the years, and is surprised by their old way of thinking? i wanna see who else got old.:neener: what did you once believe that you no longer believe?

If you enjoyed reading about "Getting Older and Changing Attitudes" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MedWheeler
June 5, 2011, 03:37 PM
I've been lucky in the whole "gun control" deal.. By the time I'd reached age enough to even know much about guns, I had already formed the pro-2A attitude I currently hold.
I did once believe that an AR or similar weapon had no place as a defensive weapon until I learned more about "tumbling bullet" ballistics. Now, I kinda want one. :D

kilo729
June 5, 2011, 04:34 PM
I've been lucky in the whole "gun control" deal.. By the time I'd reached age enough to even know much about guns, I had already formed the pro-2A attitude I currently hold.
I did once believe that an AR or similar weapon had no place as a defensive weapon until I learned more about "tumbling bullet" ballistics. Now, I kinda want one. :D

Be careful!

Ar-15s are a grown mans legos. So many different parts you just want to collect them all!

Standing Wolf
June 5, 2011, 04:40 PM
The older I grow, the surer I become the only sensible firearms-related law is the Second Amendment.

Years ago, I favored this and that moderate restriction, common sensible requirement, and even a few reasonable compromises. Time and experience make it clearer and clearer those are actually infringements.

Could some restrictions actually be needed?

Let's try the Second Amendment alone for a century or so. If actual problems show up, our great-great-grandchildren can deal with them then. I predict none would show up; unfortunately, I also have to predict the Second Amendment is the one firearms-related law America will never try.

4v50 Gary
June 5, 2011, 04:43 PM
Ar-15s are a grown mans legos.

Indeed. They are the first gun since the muzzle loader that an average (wo)man with some hand skills may assemble on his/her own.

Owen Sparks
June 5, 2011, 04:52 PM
I started out as a Reagan Conservitave, now I am a libertarian. I moved so far right that I came full circle and realized that a right is not something that you should have to prove yourself worthy of exercizing.

J-Bar
June 5, 2011, 06:12 PM
Here's a thought that I just thunk up...

Gun laws really don't make any difference. If person wants a gun bad enough, they will find a way to get one, whether it is for lawful self defense or to commit a crime.

Gun laws mainly restrict practicing with a gun. A person in a country with laws against gun ownership will not be able to practice with it openly. A felon in America risks being recognized if he goes to a range to practice. Those of us who collect and reload and cast bullets can do so more publicly in America than those in countries with more restrictions.

I think the fact that there is so much gun violence in those countries that have attempted to restrict gun ownership is proof.

Not trying to hijack or drift the thread, but the OP pointed out how his viewpoints have matured as he has aged. Mine have too.

Owen Sparks
June 5, 2011, 06:39 PM
Gun laws are a form of collective punishment because they treat everyone as a potential criminal before the fact just for having a tool that some people misuse to harm others.

Assault is an action, not a tool.

Plan2Live
June 5, 2011, 06:56 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that when something bad happens, even the most devout pacifist and staunchest pro gun control liberal will summon the Police, you know, someone with a gun. And remember, when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away! South Carolina almost passed a no permit needed carry law this year. Maybe we can get it through next year.

Don't be afraid to admit to changing your positions, it shows you are still alive, growing and thinking.

Ole Coot
June 5, 2011, 07:09 PM
When I grew up in Eastern Kentucky in the '50s I never heard "Gun Control" simply because everyone I knew owned guns and hunted. Friendly shooting matches happened anytime two or more men happened to get on the subject of any firearms. We didn't have a range, we had the Eastern part of the state and shot wherever it was safe. We had never heard of gun grabbers or people wanting to take our guns and if someone mentioned it we just laughed. In school we were taught the 2nd Amendment said we could own firearms and we believed it. Those were simple times, didn't bother to lock doors or outbuildings. We hunted for meat, not sport. In my opinion a better life in a better time.

NCsmitty
June 5, 2011, 07:11 PM
jahwarrior, with you being a transplant from NYC, I can understand how your original "misconceptions" about guns came to be. I'm sure you were inundated with the evils about firearms from your earliest memories, but your eyes were opened as you grew older.

IMO, you have come a long ways from your early beginnings, and now realize that law-abiding citizens are the backbone of the 2A, and concealed carry training can equate to basic police training.
I was born and raised in upstate NY, and had a pistol permit since 1967. I retired and moved to NC in 2004. I've always been pro-2A, and despised the liberals running NYC.
My aging has only reinforced my support of 2A freedoms.



NCsmitty

eye5600
June 5, 2011, 07:27 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that when something bad happens, even the most devout pacifist and staunchest pro gun control liberal will summon the Police, you know, someone with a gun.

I don't follow this. Your "gun control liberal" isn't thinking that society can get along without armed force. He is just (mis)placing his trust in the Police to take care of things.

I'm in favor of mandatory handgun education. There's not much that's as dangerous as a handgun for which education is not mandatory.

shockwave
June 5, 2011, 07:32 PM
There's an incredible blindness here.

The average High Road member wants zero restrictions on ownership, wants - demands - open carry, and would prefer fewer restrictions on full-auto firearms. Coolio.

This person also, however, believes that every gun owner will be the jovial hail-fellow-well-met overweight sweating clown in the next bay over at the shooting range they frequent.

But do remember that some vicious gang-banger would be able to snag a Mossberg 500 PGO and carry it openly into your convenience store and open fire. Legally. And not a dang thing you can do about it.

Violent, lawless gang members, with jackets and colors and so forth, with Glocks and suchlike strapped on their hips. Marching up in your face and demanding $20 "or else."

Maybe, and I could be in the minority, but gun laws as they are currently structured seem to prevent this kind of thing. Maybe, and I could be wrong, but our current laws seem to allow we law-abiding citizens to carry and make it hard for the BGs to do so. Maybe severe relaxation of current law would be a mistake.

BikerRN
June 5, 2011, 07:40 PM
Maybe severe relaxation of current law would be a mistake.

I would say you are wrong.

Freedom is dangerous, but I would rather die free than live in servitude, which gun control is a form of.

BikerRN

Dreamcast270mhz
June 5, 2011, 07:43 PM
I feel that all mainbases should be covered before letting someone own/buy an arm, such as a criminal check, general competence of firearm use. Other than that, a civilian should be able to own anything excluding:

Automatics ( still purchaseable with a few hoops)
Plastic/nonmetal arms (safety concern)

Konstantin835
June 5, 2011, 07:50 PM
Living in Albany NY and coming from very anti gun parents my views have changed quite a bit. Granted, I'm only 16 so I'm still forming opinions about a lot of things but in 3 or 4 years I have went from wondering how anyone could be crazy enough to want an AR or AK to wondering how anyone could be crazy enough to think people shouldn't be able to have them. I'm still sort of in favor of background checks for violent crime but I'm on the fence. As you get older and become more informed views change.

1911Tuner
June 5, 2011, 08:05 PM
Quotes:

>But do remember that some vicious gang-banger would be able to snag a Mossberg 500 PGO and carry it openly into your convenience store and open fire. Legally. And not a dang thing you can do about it.<

>Violent, lawless gang members, with jackets and colors and so forth, with Glocks and suchlike strapped on their hips. Marching up in your face and demanding $20 "or else."<

And those same gang-bangers could just pull up to the store and walk in with the shotgun...

And they could stick the Glocks down into the front of their pants and pull their shirts down over them...and walk up and demand your money...and there ain't a thing you can do about it.

You really believe that gang-bangers will open carry on their way to commit a crime?
Thus far, their usual modus operandi has been to keep the gun out of sight until it's time to start shooting. Restrict guns all you please. The gangstas will have them long after yours have been confiscated. Uh...you know...for the children.

Ole Coot...Born in Harlan County. (Benham)

"In the deep, dark hills of Eastern Kentucky...a place where I trace my blood line.
I saw it was written on a hillside gravestone...You'll never leave Harlan alive."

Sam Cade
June 5, 2011, 08:06 PM
Other than that, a civilian should be able to own anything excluding:
Automatics ( still purchaseable with a few hoops)

How do you justify this?
Do you think that full auto weapons are somehow inherently more likely to be used in a contra-social manner?



Plastic/nonmetal arms (safety concern)

What specific weapons are you talking about here?

What safety concerns?

yhtomit
June 5, 2011, 08:13 PM
But do remember that some vicious gang-banger would be able to snag a Mossberg 500 PGO and carry it openly into your convenience store and open fire. Legally.

How d'ya figure?

Actual brandishing is a legitimate offense.

Opening fire to rob a store is a legitimate offense.

So ... Nope :)

timothy

Owen Sparks
June 5, 2011, 08:18 PM
There is absolutly nothing that you can do with a firearm to harm other people or their property that is not already covered by an existing law.

oldbear
June 5, 2011, 08:21 PM
Many of my opinions and attitudes have changed over the years, surprisingly as I aged I found myself becoming more socially liberal. The one belief I have that has only gotten stronger over the years is anyone convicted of using a firearm, or any weapon, in the commission of a crime has their original sentence doubled. Nor would the D.A.sí be allowed to play letís make a deal this sentence.

Dreamcast270mhz
June 5, 2011, 08:29 PM
Plastic/nonmetal meaning it can pass through metal detectors because it contains no metal parts, ala glock 7.

I do not think automatics are anymore dangerous- in the right hands. In order to purchase an auto from ffl, a person must take a competency class. Would you want someone, who knew nothing about how an automatic can climb so quickly, purchasing and using one, at risk for hurting himself and surrounding bystanders?

Sam Cade
June 5, 2011, 08:36 PM
Plastic/nonmetal meaning it can pass through metal detectors because it contains no metal parts, ala glock 7.

:eek:You are joking right?:eek:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf8sC_1deyM LOL



Would you want someone, who knew nothing about how an automatic can climb so quickly, purchasing and using one, at risk for hurting himself and surrounding bystanders?
Ever shot a machine gun? :rolleyes:


The rules of safe firearms handling are the same regardless of the weapon used.

Dreamcast270mhz
June 5, 2011, 08:46 PM
I have, a 1919 and a KG-9 registered conversion owned by a local C2.

Yeah the same rules I know but still a competency course will make it a bit safer.

And yes I know the G7 is fake, just using an example. But still, a metal detector obviously means NO

Plan2Live
June 5, 2011, 08:55 PM
Hmm, mandatory education for firearms purchases? I suppose you are thinking that a parent or other mentor teaching responsible use is a forgotten practice? And I suppose we should have similar mandatory training for crotch rocket motorcycles or Corvettes or Ferraris or souped up Mustangs or 200mph Bugatti Veyrons? All of those can hurt innocent people if used incorrectly.

Maybe we should determine approximately how much alcohol it takes before a person is legally impaired and limit alcohol sales to slightly less than that amount. Beer could be sold in a two-pack, wine bottled in something similar to the old Coca Cola shorties and liquor only sold in mini bottles and only one per customer.

Do a quick Internet search under "Alvin Greene" and see what a bunch of uneducated voters did right here in South Carolina last year. Maybe we should make voter education mandatory too. That appeals to me as making much more sense than some mandatory firearms class most likely presented by the big egos at the local gun store.

Dang, now I see why there are so many one or two line replies on this site. It sure times you out fast!

1911Tuner
June 5, 2011, 09:14 PM
Even if a gun could be made entirely of plastic...springs, barrel and all...there's still the matter of the ammunition passing through a metal detector. So far, I haven't seen any technology for plastic ammo that provides more than superfluous wounding capability.

Mandatory "competency" training/tests for exercising a fundamental, Constitutionally protected right?

In a perfect world, we'd all be competent at everything before venturing forth into the street...but unfortunately, it ain't a perfect world...and we're only human.

Maybe we should be required to take and pass parenting competency courses before we're allowed to reproduce.

Maybe cooking competency courses and basic firefighting classes before we can buy an electric or gas range. Those things can be pretty dangerous, ya know.

How about competency exams for jogging on public streets?

How about we just drop that whole silly liberty/land of the free notion and ask the government for permission for everything we do?

What part of "Shall not be infringed" are you struggling with?

Owen Sparks
June 5, 2011, 09:27 PM
The only way to keep guns out of the wrong hands is to keep them out of all hands and people who don't obey the law are always the hardest to control.

1911Tuner
June 5, 2011, 09:41 PM
Quote:

The only way to keep guns out of the wrong hands is to keep them out of all hands and people who don't obey the law are always the hardest to control.

Criminals...by definition...don't obey laws and generally do as they please.

Cocaine is illegal. Heroin is illegal. Marijuana is illegal. Drunk driving is illegal. Rape, murder, and robbery are all illegal. Doesn't seem to make a whit of difference to tens of thousands of people...every day of the year.

Why would anyone with half a brain believe that another, tighter restriction on gun ownership would cause a criminal to turn them in and forever cease and desist using guns in pursuit of his criminal activities?

SFsc616171
June 5, 2011, 09:43 PM
The word 'license' as Noah Webster states:" a formal permission to do something; especially authorization by law to do some specified thing.' The Second Amendment states: (3rd clause to end), "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Mr. Webstaer states that, 'infringed', is: 'encroach or trespass on, (to infringe upon their right to privacy). The Constitution, and your theory of 'federal licensing' are not compatible. There are too-many-numbers of gun laws already on the books. You already have the FBI doing national background checks, ever since Oct. 1998. (I was working in a sporting goods store when that fiasco started off, in the middle of elk season.) There is a sitting President, that has stated that he would do away with the 2nd Amendment, as he has done away with a number of The Bill of Rights, because it displeases him!

I applaud your realization of what you have said, and written, and your change of your perspective. Keep going, you'll get there.

FROGO207
June 5, 2011, 09:48 PM
IMHO Trying to legislate out stupidity only tends to tee off those that are intelligent enough to understand the problem in the first place.:banghead:

Oh and if you don't want to be logged off all the time check the remember me box when you sign in.:)

kilo729
June 5, 2011, 09:54 PM
There's an incredible blindness here.

The average High Road member wants zero restrictions on ownership, wants - demands - open carry, and would prefer fewer restrictions on full-auto firearms. Coolio.

This person also, however, believes that every gun owner will be the jovial hail-fellow-well-met overweight sweating clown in the next bay over at the shooting range they frequent.

But do remember that some vicious gang-banger would be able to snag a Mossberg 500 PGO and carry it openly into your convenience store and open fire. Legally. And not a dang thing you can do about it.

Violent, lawless gang members, with jackets and colors and so forth, with Glocks and suchlike strapped on their hips. Marching up in your face and demanding $20 "or else."

Maybe, and I could be in the minority, but gun laws as they are currently structured seem to prevent this kind of thing. Maybe, and I could be wrong, but our current laws seem to allow we law-abiding citizens to carry and make it hard for the BGs to do so. Maybe severe relaxation of current law would be a mistake.

Um. You seem to think legalization of open carry also means that crime would be legal. That's a patently false assumption.

Owen Sparks
June 5, 2011, 10:01 PM
The problem with gun laws is that they treat everyone like the least common denominator or the gang banger mentioned above. I'm pretty sure it is already illegal to threaten or rob anyone.

MedWheeler
June 6, 2011, 12:01 AM
Owen Sparks writes:

There is absolutely nothing that you can do with a firearm to harm other people or their property that is not already covered by an existing law.

This, guys and gals, is sig material here.

achttung
June 6, 2011, 12:42 AM
Maybe, and I could be in the minority, but gun laws as they are currently structured seem to prevent this kind of thing. Maybe, and I could be wrong, but our current laws seem to allow we law-abiding citizens to carry and make it hard for the BGs to do so. Maybe severe relaxation of current law would be a mistake.

Ummm...no.

Here's VT's laws, to the extent that I know.
1.___________


Oh, thats right, open carry, conceal, buy a gun from your neighbor up the street and have the only parties involved be the one with the gun, and the one with the money.
You won't get much closer to untainted 2A.
And for all the freedom, as it was meant to be, Vermont has some of the lowest violent crime per capita in the United States.

Bullies work with fear. Don't fear the bully, and they lose their power, and think twice about what they're doing. Same with armed criminals I think.
If I were going to rob a store, I'd be a lot more comfortable about if I knew I was the only one with a gun. The more (potentially) armed people I might run into, the less comfortable with the armed robbery thing I would be.

MikeNice
June 6, 2011, 02:15 AM
Gun control should be real simple

Have you ever been convicted of a felony involving violence, fraud, illegal drugs, human trafficking, larceny, or sexual exploitation?

Have you been convicted of a violent crime including but not limitted to child abuse, domestic abuse, assault, sexual assault, or rape?

Have you been found or adjudicated mentally incompetent by a court, court officer, or qualifying medical doctor?

If yes to the previous is the finding still binding?

After that there is only one more thing I would add. If you want to carry open or concealed in public you need to be able to score 70 or better with ten shots on a B-34 target. Keep all ten in the scoring area (at 25 feet) and you're on your way.

GD
June 6, 2011, 09:24 AM
There is something about living in a metropolitan area that generally makes a person antigun. I work in a city and live on a farm about 70 miles away. All my neighbors are pro 2nd amendment. Most of my coworkers in the city are antigun. I guess the city folks think they need government involvement in all facets of their life whereas the country folks want much less government in their life.
I grew up in a city and was pretty liberal in my beliefs. Adulthood brought me to the country and then to conservative values. Gun ownership is considered a common sense thing in a rural area. We hunt, protect livestock, and enjoy target practice and find it amusing when we hear of someone who does not own a firearm. In the city, I hear people say "Why do you need a firearm?". They simply don't understand. I had a rabid skunk in my front yard about two weeks ago. I guess if I lived in the city, I would have to call some government official to come and rescue me.

vito
June 6, 2011, 09:46 AM
Regarding changing attitudes as you grow older (and wiser), remember the famous quotation of Winston Churchill (I may not have the words exactly correct): "If you are not a liberal when you are 20 you have no heart, if you are not a conservative by the time you are 40 you have no brain."

Dreamcast270mhz
June 6, 2011, 10:11 AM
Conservatism today as practiced is flawed, but so is liberalism. I think that minimal, CYA regulations should be in place. And no, I'm not of the left but centre, and I believe that it all is a tradeoff. To prove my point, I will live in Canada and HK after College and I will have no problem at all with Canada's current regulation. Both systems, no guns and guns work equally well, but in pro guns it requires armed citizens to outnumber armed criminals.

DAP90
June 6, 2011, 11:03 AM
Your early beliefs, quoted in the OP, are often demonized on this website but theyíre not inherently bad. Theyíre just a bit naÔve.

do you want the potential child molester/serial rapist/drug dealer/mass murder to own a handgun? and AR15? i know i don't. i believe in background checks.

The answer of course is no. Allowing criminals to have access to firearms is actually a bad idea. Admittedly, criminals will always have access to firearms regardless of how many restrictions are put in place. That doesnít mean we should make it easy for them though.

I donít mind background checks. Not to look for potential child molesters/serial rapists/drug dealers/mass murders, which is impossible, but to screen out convicted versions of the above. It wonít stop them but it will limit their options. It doesnít interfere with my ability to own firearms and I believe it probably does save some lives. Itís an imperfect system for an imperfect world.

Whatís the alternative; unrestricted access for everyone? Is that really a better option? If so, how is it better? Is there some way to find a balance?

Those are honest questions by the way.


I have a feeling I'm going to regret posting this.

1911Tuner
June 6, 2011, 11:32 AM
Quote:

>I think that minimal, CYA regulations should be in place.<

They are, and have been since 1968.

Purchase permit from the Sheriff in your county of residence required for handgun purchase.

Form 4473 for all cartridge arm purchases, with lying on the form being a felony.

Instant, national background check added for long gun purchases several years ago.

Felony for straw purchases added more recently.

Note that none of the above have kept the bad guys from getting their hands on guns.
They're not going to hassle with those legal trivialities. They're going to go find their guns the same way they go score their drugs. Only if they're impatient will they not get the exact gun that they want.

Accept that these "Ruling Elite" politicos who champion gun control aren't concerned with gun control or crime control. It's not about gun/crime control. It's about control.
Period.

If you wish to control a population, the first thing that you have to do is take away any efficient means of resisting. That's paramount. Make them helpless by imposing an insurmountable disparity of force. How many people...even enmasse...are going to charge or even resist a platoon armed only with knives, clubs, and pitchforks?

As the saying goes:

"In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is king."

Another one:

"They may promise to govern well, but they mean to govern. They may promise to be good masters...but they mean to be masters."

Carl N. Brown
June 6, 2011, 11:48 AM
getting older and changing attitudes

Some of my attitudes have not changed since the 1960s: I grew up in a tough neighborhood in a "dry" county and knew the location of seven bootleggers by the time I was eighteen. Had no faith in prohibition working at all. And on the gun control hoopla of the 1960s--Senator Dodd and "mail order guns", Carl Bakal "This Very Day a Gun May Kill You" and "NO Right to Bear Arms"--I saw a huge disconnect between hype and reality: most criminals did not have guns, those who did got them black market, most people who owned guns were not criminals, but the proposed gun laws demonized and affected them, not the criminal types. (On mail order guns: if you bought a gun by mail order, they had traceable records of your name, address, signed check or money order: no street thug who I knew or who endangered me bought guns by mail order.)

I have changed my attitudes on some things based on learning: two city detectives and a corrections officer convinced me in the 1970s that a handgun for self defense was a good idea; before that, I was a sporting purposes only Elmer Fudd wabbit hunter with a side interest in civilian marksmanship and military history.

Most people--and James Wright ("Under the Gun") discovered this between 1977 and 1981--believe they have a right to own a gun, accept moderate regulation aimed at misusers, but don't expect gun control to bring about a crime or violence free utopia. Wright discovered that analysis of polls showed that the majority of Americans would not support gun control that went too far--even in the very polls commissioned by gun banners who claimed a 80% support for their position. Most folks support controls kinda on the level of card ID checks to buy beer, but not controls on the level of prohibition. My experience has been that prohibition leads to a uncontrollable black market and all kinds of corruption. Anti-gunners like Bakal in 1959 envisioned deaths due to shootings receding to the vanishing point as all the guns were rounded up--in my view as likely as America becoming an alcohol-free utopia under the Volstead Act 1919-1933. My cynical view of gun control is also colored by the 1950s crusade against comic books and "violent" entertainment like "Popeye", "Superman" and "The Three Stooges" (Fredric Wertham, "Seduction of the Innocents"). I began to see it all as scapegoating or voodoo criminology by the early 1960s and saw the advocates as well-meaning but dangerous ideologues, all the more dangerous because the were crusading from a self-righteous position.

Searcher4851
June 6, 2011, 11:58 AM
Don't reckon my opinion has changed much over the years. I've always been for freedom and liberty. Unfortunately, my opinions seem to be valued less and less over the years by those in power.

semperfi63
June 6, 2011, 12:37 PM
Quote:


Purchase permit from the Sheriff in your county of residence required for handgun purchase.



Uh that is a North Carolina Peculiarity. Back here in God's country (Kansas) we don't need the Sheriff's permission to buy handguns :neener:

mr.trooper
June 6, 2011, 03:27 PM
OP - I understand what you're saying.

I did something similar a few months ago, and couldn't believe some of the things I used to say on gun forums.

7 years ago, I was little better than a troll on some forums - spouting complete nonsense about things, some of which I had never even experienced. I felt so bad about it, that I posted a public apology on that forum.

jahwarrior
June 6, 2011, 03:33 PM
i love how all threads on this forum go off the rails!

:D

it's funny talking to friends who i haven't spoken to in years. some of them have literally recoiled from me, and never spoken to me again. some of them are just shocked, and want to know what i did with the old Jah.

i left NYC many, many years ago. everyone i've reconnected to (thanks, Facebook :rolleyes:) from my old neighborhood has pretty much stayed the same, while i've moved forward, and been exposed to different cultures here in America, and in other countries.

i think my parents are the most shocked, but pleased. i went from being a nihilistic punk kid, to a smarmy young man with liberal leanings, to a guy who decided to be open minded, to an older young guy who is decidely libertarian, and actually cares about the world he lives in, mostly because he has kids to think about.

jiminhobesound
June 6, 2011, 05:54 PM
I think part of the change of attitude, as we age, must be a physical thing as it seems to happen to many of us. My first vote was for McGovern as governor of South Dakota. After the Navy and 12 uears in the defense world Ronald Reagan was just barely conservative enought. Now at 70 I find it difficult to not be a raving right wing lunatic.

aka108
June 6, 2011, 06:46 PM
When I see some of the damages some gun owners do the property on some shooting ranges when no one else is around I really do believe that there are some dumb asses that should really not be allowed to own a firearm. Same for those who shoot road signs from a moving vehicle (or simply shoot road signs).

matrem
June 6, 2011, 06:57 PM
My attitude towards gun control hasn't really changed much in forty years. They were no more or no less than tools when I was too small to shoot them, and that's exactly how I see them today.

One thing that has has changed in my way of thinking within the past few years, is understanding that getting my county sheriffs "pemission" to carry one concealed would save me a lot of headache should I need to use it.

1911 Tuner said:
Accept that these "Ruling Elite" politicos who champion gun control aren't concerned with gun control or crime control. It's not about gun/crime control. It's about control.
Period.

As true a saying as there is!

OP jahwarrior said:
"i love how all threads on this forum go off the rails!"

You did ask for other opinions, eh?

Stevie-Ray
June 6, 2011, 08:24 PM
Be careful!

Ar-15s are a grown mans legos. Hehehehehehe. I love that!:D


Hopelessly conservative 2nd Amendment follower for most of my life.

Dreamcast270mhz
June 6, 2011, 08:36 PM
1911Tuner:

Lets agree to disagree. Can't an honest guy voice his own opinion with getting bashed? Especially by a moderator.

Ole Coot
June 6, 2011, 08:58 PM
I reckon we need more gun control laws. Seems around here the dope heads and thieves are getting low on potential sources of income that fight back and don't play fair. More government intervention will maybe give them an increase in income and make their "job" a lot easier and safer. I heard they were forming a union to justify tighter controls.

MikeNice
June 7, 2011, 04:57 AM
1911Tuner:

Lets agree to disagree. Can't an honest guy voice his own opinion with getting bashed? Especially by a moderator.


He didn't bash you. He simply replied with his opinion.

My opinion is that you need to do more research before making certain statements. America actually has a lower violent crime rate than many European countries and parts of Canada. In 2005 Scotland was considerred the most dangerous "developed" country in the world.

Brazil has a law that forbids selling handguns to any civilian and they have a higher gun crime rate than America. Hugo Chavez refuses to even let his country report the murder rate or gun crime rate. Despite amazingly strict laws (including bans in some areas) the crime rate has exploded during his tenure.

England still has over 7,000 firearm offenses per year. That is down from 10,000+ in the last reporting cycle. Their version of the "Unified Crime Report" stated that it was a reduction in the use of fake guns that changed the rate. In other words real guns are used in crimes 7,000 times a year despite the draconian restrictions they place on their "subjects." That doesn't include the increase in rape, sexual assault, assault, stabbings and other violent crimes.

Being informed goes a lot further than being opinionated. That is especially true when pouting and bad mouthing a highly respected moderator.

lizziedog1
June 7, 2011, 07:41 AM
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I teach at a school for "bad" boys. When we discuss gun rights and the second amendment, they tell me it doesn't apply to them. On the streets they can get any gun they want, anytime they want.

The majority of our kids are under eighteen. Many of them are with us due to gun charges. Proof that gun laws are usless and worthless.

jahwarrior
June 7, 2011, 08:44 AM
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I teach at a school for "bad" boys. When we discuss gun rights and the second amendment, they tell me it doesn't apply to them. On the streets they can get any gun they want, anytime they want.

i can attest to that. hell, when i was 16, i had no idea what the Second Amendment meant, besides being a part of the Bill of Rights. it's not something that discussed in detail in NYC public schools. all i knew was that if i wanted a gun for protection, all i had to do was talk to the Jamaican lady who owned the bakery down the street, and to bring money with me when i did.

Jonah71
June 7, 2011, 12:24 PM
Gun laws are a form of collective punishment because they treat everyone as a potential criminal before the fact just for having a tool that some people misuse to harm others.

Assault is an action, not a tool.
That is a very correct astute point of view. It may even deserve an "Amen!"

1911Tuner
June 7, 2011, 04:07 PM
Not bashing at all, Dreamcast. Just pointing out some illogical notions here and wondering...given the gun laws already in effect...what would you have us do in order to quell the problem? Short of a complete ban, and shooting anyone caught with a gun...we've done about all that we can reasonably do.

Or, another way to look at it...

The only effective way to keep guns out of the wrong hands is to keep them out of all hands...and even that won't work 100%.

JerryM
June 7, 2011, 05:50 PM
From my youth I supported the 2A, and nearly all the time have belonged to the NRA. I cannot think of any change in my thinking.

I still think that the 2A is not without restrictions, and there are those who should not own or use firearms. I believe the restrictions regarding felons are good. Fully auto firearm restrictions are fine, and needed.

I believe that minimum age restrictions are needed, and that alcohol and guns do not mix.

So I have always believed those things, which most here will disagree with.

Regards,
Jerry

1911Tuner
June 7, 2011, 05:55 PM
I absolutely believe in restricting gun sales to violent felons. I say "violent" because there are some truly silly infractions that can net you a felony rap.

But...

A law preventing felons from purchasing a gun from an FFL dealer won't keep said violent felon from getting a gun. It'll just keep him from getting one legally, and...as so many have noted...criminals don't pay much attention to laws. A criminal who wakes up on Saturday morning and decides that he wants a gun can probably have one before the sun goes down.

Owen Sparks
June 7, 2011, 06:01 PM
JerryM Said:

Fully auto firearm restrictions are fine, and needed.


Just out of curiosity, why do you say that?

Dreamcast270mhz
June 7, 2011, 06:20 PM
@1911Tuner

A lot of guns are brought across the borders. I think if we were to improve border integrity, increase the mean population's educated level, maybe the severity of violent crime would be reduced, and it would become less of an issue.

I think, IMHO, that poor, unemployed are more likely to commit crime, and that we treat crime too softly. Two options here, increase the education level or make it more costly to commit crime.

I think, however total anarchy of guns is plain stupid, because in Coban, Guatemala, almost everyone I saw had some rifle, to defend themselves against drug cartels. In Coban, for the week I was there over 60 people were killed, 55 of them civilians. There were two major shootouts between criminals in the hills north of the city resulting in multiple military and police casualties. Armoured cars are more common than cars in the city and every bank has 4 guards, two with M16A2s and two with Mossbergs. Gun laws are in place but not enforced, because many local police themselves cannot enforce laws that must be followed for survival...

I personally am thankful that I live in a developed nation where it is nowhere near as dangerous.

Steve CT
June 7, 2011, 07:14 PM
This is probably going to be unpopular, but:
1) I am OK that not just anyone can legally purchase a firearm, especially a handgun, in my state, Half an hour watching the "shoppers" at the firearms counter of the local Cabela's is proof enough for me.
2) The person who wants a firearm to commit a crime will not be bound by the legalities of acquiring a firearm, and unfortunately the consequences for the illegal use of firearms are far too lax.
3) If I am a law abiding citizen, there should be no unreasonable restriction on my ownership of firearms. I know the definition of "reasonable" will always be difficult, but a full auto firearm is not inherently any more dangerous than a semi auto.
4) Firearms safety should be a required subject in school, in the same way that "health" safety is mandatory.
I don't have a perfect answer, and I'm not sure one exists.

Dreamcast270mhz
June 7, 2011, 07:56 PM
^ Not at all I think thats a well rounded opinion. BTW welcome as I havent seen you here

I think point 4 is valid. Education of safe handling would prevent children from unintentionally discharging parent firearms.

JerryM
June 7, 2011, 08:20 PM
Hi Owen,
It is my view that if fully auto weapons were easy and legal to obtain the gang bangers would have them in large numbers.
Yes, one can get them illegally, but they do not seem to be readily available or too expensive for the gang bangers.

One can make all sorts of arguments, but that is my view. I do agree that one might fun to shoot, but I see no particular useful purpose, but instead the gangs and drive by shootings with full auto would be common, and they are not today.
I do not think they are needed for SD.

Regards,
Jerry

Sam Cade
June 7, 2011, 09:35 PM
I do not think they are needed for SD.

Your house weapon of choice is of course a J.C Higgins 20ga single barrel break down? It is all that is needed.

Dreamcast270mhz
June 7, 2011, 09:39 PM
I personally would go with a short barreled S12 and 10 round mag, buck and ball.

Sam Cade
June 7, 2011, 09:43 PM
I will live in Canada and HK after College and I will have no problem at all with Canada's current regulation. Both systems, no guns and guns work equally well, but in pro guns it requires armed citizens to outnumber armed criminals.

You are ok with a 5 round magazine limit on modern rifles?

In Hong Kong you can get 15 years or so for possession of a Red Ryder BB gun.

1911Tuner
June 7, 2011, 09:45 PM
Quote:

>A lot of guns are brought across the borders.<

Oh. Guns are being illegally brought into the US from Mexico and Canada...

Hmm...

Now, that's an interesting theory. Care to expound?

+1 on securing the borders, though.

Jerry...Illegal full-auto weapons aren't at all hard to get....in the US or anywhere else for that matter. The reason that the gangstas don't have many is the cost. They can buy an SKS for 200 bucks and a semi-auto AK for 500. A select-fire AK47 will easily run over 2 grand...even on the black market. Most street gangs either steal their guns, or buy them from somebody else who did. People who deal in real automatic weapons are generally more careful about storage and they tend to be very close-mouthed concerning their business ventures. Regardless of the trailer loads of military-grade arms shipments that Horatio Caine discovers almost on a monthly basis...it's really not that easy to root'em out in the real world.

Dreamcast270mhz
June 7, 2011, 10:14 PM
@Sam

For all the benefits on living in Canada I have no problem. Guns are far from the top of my list of priorities. And that 5 round limit is only on semi autos, most of mine are bolt action anyways, and if I want more just get a Garand. The US is becoming far too politically minded and cities here are becoming extremely dangerous at night. See previous post regarding vancouver's safety at night.

@1911Tuner

I know that the Los Zetas may have been illegally transporting firearms into VA. Last summer a marijuana field in Farnham, about 30 min up the road, was uncovered and was guarded by three armed men, one with a full auto AKM, and two with MP5ks. Luckily DEA and LEO were able to quash them and nobody was hurt, but over $200 million in dope was seized.
The AKM and the MP5Ks were not registered, and it was concluded that they may have originated in Mexico.

Note when I mean secure borders I don't mean anti immigrant, we need good workers like them but they definitely need to become lawful green card holders or citizens.

JerryM
June 7, 2011, 10:16 PM
Hi 1911,
[Jerry...Illegal full-auto weapons aren't at all hard to get....in the US or anywhere else for that matter. The reason that the gangstas don't have many is the cost. They can buy an SKS for 200 bucks and a semi-auto AK for 500. A select-fire AK47 will easily run over 2 grand...even on the black market. Most street gangs either steal their guns, or buy them from somebody else who did. People who deal in real automatic weapons are generally more careful about storage and they tend to be very close-mouthed concerning their business ventures. Regardless of the trailer loads of military-grade arms shipments that Horatio Caine discovers almost on a monthly basis...it's really not that easy to root'em out in the real world.]

Maybe, but I do not remember of a full auto being used in my area, and I live about 50 miles from the border. We can always make an argument about criminals getting guns, and they can, but I am not aware of any full auto weapons being used by local gang bangers.

For me there is a trade off as to usefulness and criminal use. I consider that the negative side greatly overshadows the unlimited ownership side.
I realize we will disagree, but that is my view.
Thanks for the reply.
Jerry

1911Tuner
June 7, 2011, 10:47 PM
Quote:

>>I know that the Los Zetas may have been illegally transporting firearms into VA. Last summer a marijuana field in Farnham, about 30 min up the road, was uncovered and was guarded by three armed men, one with a full auto AKM, and two with MP5ks. Luckily DEA and LEO were able to quash them and nobody was hurt, but over $200 million in dope was seized. <<

Well, yeah. I guess that people who have 200 million worth of pot in the field can afford those kinds of weapons. Your average teenage gang banger can't.

And Los Zetas is importing FA weapons on what scale? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? A few automatic weapons for specialized use hardly constitutes a mass influx.

There's a lot of widespread misunderstanding concerning hand-held full auto weapons...held mainly by people who don't understand them, and have never actually used them.

In untrained hands, they're not all that effective. Even in trained hands, they're limited on what they can accomplish unless you herd people into an enclosure and pack'em together like sardines before you open up.

Wielded by an individual, they're mostly used for suppressive/indirect fire or for breaking up concentrations of people who are getting together to mount an assault. For general slugging it out...they suck pretty bad in the deadly department. Of course, there's something to be said for hosing down an area and hitting non combatants safely asleep in their beds ...but there's still more air out there than there is meat.

Aimed fire is far more of a threat to those whom you choose to kill. There were some very good reasons that most of the M14s that were used in the early days of our involvement in Vietnam had the selector locks installed for general issue.

Sam Cade
June 7, 2011, 10:47 PM
The US is becoming far too politically minded and cities here are becoming extremely dangerous at night.

Which cities are those, specifically?

Violent crime has been going down in the US for decades.


I know that the Los Zetas may have been illegally transporting firearms into VA. Last summer a marijuana field in Farnham, about 30 min up the road, was uncovered and was guarded by three armed men, one with a full auto AKM, and two with MP5ks. Luckily DEA and LEO were able to quash them and nobody was hurt, but over $200 million in dope was seized.
The AKM and the MP5Ks were not registered, and it was concluded that they may have originated in Mexico.


I remember that story....and it doesn't match what you just said. At all.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/082010/08172010/569077

1911Tuner
June 7, 2011, 11:00 PM
For the record...

I believe that a minimum age requirement for unsupervised possession and use is okay...but there was a time that it didn't really hold. I remember heading off into the woods with a .22 in pursuit of squirrel stew when I was 10 years old...and nobody thought a thing of it when they saw me walking down the road with a rifle.

I absolutely believe that alcohol and gunpowder don't mix.

The "No guns for Felons" law is fine, but it's pure PR, and doesn't work. You can't legislate those things that people are determined to have or do. There's a list of street drugs and controlled pharmaceutical substances that are illegal to have and hold...but that doesn't stop people any more than the Volstead Act stopped people from drinking.

It's feel good legislation designed to make people feel that they government is doing something. The plain truth is that it just isn't, and more laws won't change a thing.

Remember the '94 assault weapon ban when magazines greater than 10 rounds couldn't be sold to the general public? I saw more 20 and 30-round magazines change hands during that period than ever. The only thing that the law changed was the prices.

whalerman
June 7, 2011, 11:08 PM
I never saw anything wrong with education programs as a requirement for getting concealed carry permits. Here in NY we implemented that step, then the local judge limited the number of spaces that were available in the training programs. Needless to say, that gave him the reason he wanted to decline to approve permits. He hid behind the excuse that education was important to anyone who wanted to own handguns. Too much dishonesty. You can't believe anything these people are telling you.

As far as the previous posts not "matching". I think people get into writing with Google searches. Then attempt to match the findings with what point they are trying to make. Lots of times it doesn't work.

Charleo0192
June 7, 2011, 11:49 PM
There's an incredible blindness here.

The average High Road member wants zero restrictions on ownership, wants - demands - open carry, and would prefer fewer restrictions on full-auto firearms. Coolio.

This person also, however, believes that every gun owner will be the jovial hail-fellow-well-met overweight sweating clown in the next bay over at the shooting range they frequent.

But do remember that some vicious gang-banger would be able to snag a Mossberg 500 PGO and carry it openly into your convenience store and open fire. Legally. And not a dang thing you can do about it.

Violent, lawless gang members, with jackets and colors and so forth, with Glocks and suchlike strapped on their hips. Marching up in your face and demanding $20 "or else."

Maybe, and I could be in the minority, but gun laws as they are currently structured seem to prevent this kind of thing. Maybe, and I could be wrong, but our current laws seem to allow we law-abiding citizens to carry and make it hard for the BGs to do so. Maybe severe relaxation of current law would be a mistake.

I have to disagree. If everyone, or a good majority, owned a firearm and were allowed to carry it around, I think you'd see a lot less violence. People tend to think their actions over much more when they have something riding on the line, especially their life.

In my opinion, as long as another person has a gun, I want one too. Even if the world were so lucky or unlucky to have no guns, which ever way you see it, I'd still want one just because I enjoy shooting them.

sorry if I got to off topic, I just felt I had to comment on this.

Owen Sparks
June 8, 2011, 12:53 AM
JerryM,

Your philosophy seems to be based in the collectivist method of treating EVERYBODY like a criminal gang banger in order to control the lowest common denominator. If you want to use that method to keep guns out of the hands of the typical gang member why not just make it illegal for all minorities to own guns? Or all males under 40 from owning guns? Or all people who make less than 50K a year or don’t have a college degree from owning guns?

But that would be unfair to the majority of individuals who fit this profile but never would use a gun in a crime right?

Machine gun laws are no different. They treat the otherwise law abiding citizen as a criminal before the fact based on the potential to commit crime simply for possessing a tool.

Our system of justice is supposed to be based on the presumption of innocents with the burden of proof on the accuser. Gun laws presume guilt based on potential for future criminal action with the burden of proof placed on the innocent. In other words, a person with some unapproved type of gun is considered a criminal because of what he MIGHT do with it. Would you want someone locked up for being black, Hispanic, young, poor or male because they fit the profile of a gang member and MIGHT become one?

No?

Then why would you advocate locking up people for having a full-auto firearm because it fits the profile of a “gangster weapon”? Crime is an ACTION, not a tool and people should be presumed innocent until their actions prove otherwise.

Davek1977
June 8, 2011, 08:15 AM
Shockwave said But do remember that some vicious gang-banger would be able to snag a Mossberg 500 PGO and carry it openly into your convenience store and open fire. Legally. And not a dang thing you can do about it.

Legally, he could walk into a store and open fire? I don't think so! Being able to own and possess a weapon doesn't mean you are free to do as you please with said weapons. Even if a "gangbanger" could legally carry a sawed off shotgun into a convinience store, there would be other applicable laws that would pretain to him opening fire....destruction of private property, discharge of a firearm in city limits, assault/battery, and depending on where it was pointed, murder, manslaughter, or the attempted crime of either. A lack of specific "gun laws" doesn't mean we are advocating total anarachy. Other laws can and will apply to those who misuse firearms. no one is advocating a soceity where those wioth guns can do whatever they want to, and be free from punishment. We just see a bigger picture where ppeole are actually punished for laws they break, not punished by laws themselves!

1911Tuner
June 8, 2011, 08:43 AM
QOTD:

>>Your philosophy seems to be based in the collectivist method of treating EVERYBODY like a criminal gang banger in order to control the lowest common denominator.<<

Wish I'd said that.

If I may expound...

Enacting a law that presumes guilt or penalizes everyone for what they might do lays the groundwork for an ever-tightening noose around the neck of the American people.
It sets a dangerous precedent.

None of which will stop a criminal from getting a gun. All that is required is desire and money...or something that the seller is willing to accept as payment.

There are already some pretty restrictive laws in place...or infringements, as many of us think of them. The hot button seems to be anything capable of fully automatic fire, which have been severely restricted since 1934. In many states, they can't be had...legally...at any price. Making them more illegal won't mean a thing to someone who is determined to have one.

Convicted felons are legally barred from owning guns...yet convicted felons are caught with guns every day of the year.

Cocaine is an illegal drug, with only a very limited medical use. People get busted for dealing...possessing...and using cocaine every day of the year. Moreover, the prisons are filled to the brim with drug law violators, with more entering the penal system...every day.

Flipping the man a bird is a fine, old American tradition that goes all the way back to the Boston Tea Party. Back in '94, I knew people who had no prior interest in AR15s or AK47s, who...when the ban was announced...immediately ran out and bought one, along with a dozen or so magazines.

Owen Sparks
June 8, 2011, 01:47 PM
Anytime you are seen as part of a group rather than as an individual you are always considered no better than the least member of that group or the weakest link. Standards are therefore set for the weakest link in the chain. The federal government conceders you to be part of a group also, “gun owners” right along with gang bangers, Lee Harvey Oswald and the nut case that shot Congresswoman Gifford. That makes you a potential threat that should be dealt with proactively rather than after you have actually misused used a gun.

MOST people, in fact the vast majority would be no more dangerous with an M-16 than they would be with any other type of firearm because they are simply not going to SHOOT anyone no matter what sort of firearm they have. (shoot is a verb denoting an action against a victim) The small fraction of the population who is likely to use a gun in the furtherance of a crime is always the hardest to control because they by their very nature do not obey laws. The solution thus far has been to make criminals out of everyone else in the chain of possession from the gun manufacturers, dealers, delivery people and anyone else who might make, sell, transport or handle a fully automatic weapon because of the unlikely chance that might get in the hands of an actual criminal.

This is a lazy way to prevent crime as well as an injustice to the vast majority of honest people who are now being treated as no better than the criminals even though there is no victim.

withdrawn34
June 8, 2011, 02:37 PM
Also, remember that most of the people who commit violent crime are repeat offenders. They've already been through the "correctional" system.

Many have already committed other violent crimes. I don't understand why they're ever allowed out of prison. We claim to not have enough room in prison, yet lock up tons of people for possession of some personal use powder or plant.

Owen Sparks
June 8, 2011, 02:51 PM
Who is the victim of an unlicensed or unregistered machine gun?

How can there be a crime without a victim?

JerryM
June 8, 2011, 07:22 PM
Who is the victim when one drives 120MPH in a 70MPH zone? If no accident then there is no victim, but it is a crime. You don't need a victim you just need to disobey the law to have committed a crime.
Regards,
Jerry

1911Tuner
June 8, 2011, 07:27 PM
That's a little different, Jerry.

Driving 120 mph on a public highway puts the public at risk...like driving drunk.

Keeping an M16 in a locked vault puts no one at risk.

Yet, a drunk driving charge nets you a year's suspension on your license, and a fine....and on the first offense...you can get priveleges to and from work.

First offense with an unregisteed M16 gets you a 5-10 year all-expense paid vacation at Club Fed and fined up to 10 grand.

Betcha drunk drivers and speed demons kill more people in a week in the US than unregistered FA weapons kill in a year.

Wanna bet?

Where's the justice in that?

Fleet
June 8, 2011, 07:39 PM
QOTD
"Where's the justice in that?"
It's not about justice, it's about emotion. Cool looking black cars should be banned.

sm
June 8, 2011, 07:40 PM
The older I get, the more I appreciate having been born in the "Last Great Decade".

-Back when one was not dressed without a pocketknife, be they boy, girl, lady or gent.

-Back when one WAS concerned, and took prudent steps to protect the Constitution, especially the Second Amendment.

-Back when there was no political correctness.

Political Correctness is Marxism -anon.

-Back when one kept a loaded gun in the home, folks carried, and kids learned to shoot at an early age.

The older I get, the more scared I get for the future of the USA, and Freedoms, and everything else, with the thought of whippersnappers being in charge.

Sam Cade
June 8, 2011, 07:48 PM
Betcha drunk drivers and speed demons kill more people in a week in the US than unregistered FA weapons kill in a year.


I see that bet and raise you. In 2010, roughly 90 people per day died through vehicular misadventure.

Ill say that in one week, more people die in cars than have been killed with illegal machine since 1934.




So, 250,000 legal machine guns in the US and what 2 murders since the registry opened now?

1stmarine
June 8, 2011, 07:55 PM
I think there are a few exceptions you want to keep fiearms away from certain individuals...

Examples:
A) A mentally ill person. Same way you might want to keep other things away from them so they cannot hurt themselves or others.

B) Children. It is ok to make a cool picture or your toddler holding a glock but from there to having them running around shooting pistols and ARs at early age w/o a good gradual mentoring and training program is esentially irresponsible. Firearms education is awesome as they grow but with some limitations and close parent control.

C) Felons. Simply lost the right to legally own a firearm. There should be a process to regain this right like any other rights as they seek reinsertion. Thugs, illegally they are going to get whatever they want, that is one of the many reasons why the rest of the law abiding citizens cannot be forced to be disarmed and be left at the mercy of the wolfs.

D) People that cannot meet simple requirements to responsibly own and carry a firearm. I consider general education paramount. I agree 100% with 1911tuner that having an unregistered firearm should not be a major offense or anything much more than driving w/o a license but the same way that for legally driving a car we have to meet some minimum criteria and requirements to be safe, it should be applied to a firearm education and certification of some sort. This would include a test of attitude. There are a lot of irresponsible citizens out there that think that carrying a firearm is some sort of infinite power and entitlement to swing them around like if they were nothing. And on the other end all that I see is traitors that do not sleep trying to find ways to shutdown some fundamental rights and those few firearm owners with their behavior make the rest of the firearms owners look real bad and give those American traitors all the ammo and excuses they need to put additional gun control in place.
Essentially their plan is to wipe their tukus with "that old obsolete paper that is the constitution", not just the 2nd amendment but the 1st that worries me even more.
Therefore this is why when I see irresponsible firearms behavior, actually any kind of irresponsible citizen behavior, it makes me sick.

Let me know if you want specific examples of what this means.

hermannr
June 8, 2011, 08:00 PM
I have not read all of the posts here, but the original was about a change in attitude (not just as per 2A and firearms) as we grow older and have more experience.

Personally, my attitude has not changed as to the 2A. I still think if my neighbor wishes to park a fully functional Abrams tank or Cobra hellicopter in his yard, that is fine with me. Where it becomes not fine is if he were decide to use those weapons systems in such a manner as to negatively impact myself, my family or my property.

What has changed is my understanding that others cannot bring it to their mind that if you wish to be free, you must allow the other guy to be free to do his thing. (if it is legal)

There are two types of laws...the first controls the actions of government, the second controls the actions of the citizens. Unfortunately, these days, the controls on government are not working, and the controls of the citizen are becoming much too intrusive.

Example: I used my seatbelt back in the 60's because I thought it was a good idea. We used a car seats for our children in the 70's, again because we thought it was a good idea (there was no "law" on these things back then)....However...I do not think it is a good idea to have a "law" saying you MUST wear a seatbelt or use a car seat. If it is good, people will voluntarily do so. If they don't, it is their problem, not society's problem, and laws are supposed to be for the good for society in general, not just restrict someone's freedom.

Wake up everyone, Criminals, by difinition, do not abide the law. It does not matter what controlling law is passed, those that would ignor the law (the criminal) will, and law abiding citizens will suck it up and bear it. Controlling laws only infringe on the law abiding citizens freedoms, not the criminals.

It does not matter what control or restrictions there are on firearms, the criminals will still have them and still use them in an illegal manner, because real criminals do not care what the law is, they only care for themselves and what they want.

rogertc1
June 8, 2011, 08:36 PM
No different for me. Just accumulated too many guns. Have had a carry permit since I was legal. Before i was in the Army.
Never have been around any gang bangers myself.

zdc1775
June 8, 2011, 09:10 PM
While I am still young at 22 I have noticed that my beliefs in general have changed. On the other hand I have always thought that if you're a law-abiding citizen then you should be able to have any weapon you wanted. If you were a criminal you should have them. It's always been that simple with me. I know that a criminal is a criminal and by definition a law-breaker so simply making it illegal for them to have a weapon of any type will not work, they will just continue to break the law and have them anyway. That being said I also believe in general firearm education (at my high school it was actually an elective class, as was archery). Not for ownership or practice but I could "deal with it" for OC or CC (I know it's a violation of our rights but if it keeps the antis quiet). But then again I am still young.

Zack USMC 0311/8152

1911Tuner
June 8, 2011, 09:11 PM
1stJarhead...I'll agree with A, B, and C...and on all but B, I'll ask again:

Short of doing random house searches on known felons and the known mentally unstable...how will that be accomplished? The logistics alone is staggering, and even that won't do it. A psychiatrist friend of mine told me that if I had a clue how many people who I pass on the street in a given day who are on the edge of unbridled violence...I'd stay home. He wernt on to say that fully 25% of such people are completely off the radar, and have zero documentation of their conditions.

I also agree with education. Whole heartedly. Ther was a time that we learned about guns at our fathers' knee...where we're supposed to...but that was long ago in a world far away.

1stmarine
June 8, 2011, 09:42 PM
Jarhead? lol! You just reminded me I need a haircut, it is hot here.
I am not sure how this could be achieved and probably would not be easy.
Maybe the logistics would not be much different than getting to the DMV. In the military they do it too. They don't want any wackos pulling pins off grenades. At the other hand now the truth is that with so many tours so close together they manage to getting a pretty fine young individual and leave it all screwed up with medication addiction included after they are done with you.

I don't know exactly how but with a civil approach to things anything can be done. I think the biggest obstacle is not the will of the people to improve in any areas but the politicians themselves these days that are a cancer.

Education is the first thing and the most important thing. Moreover, that thing you mentioned about that in our fathers' knee would be also awesome if we could have more of that back. it is so true!

Cheers.
E.

Steve CT
June 8, 2011, 09:58 PM
That's a little different, Jerry.

Driving 120 mph on a public highway puts the public at risk...like driving drunk.

Keeping an M16 in a locked vault puts no one at risk.

Yet, a drunk driving charge nets you a year's suspension on your license, and a fine....and on the first offense...you can get priveleges to and from work.

First offense with an unregisteed M16 gets you a 5-10 year all-expense paid vacation at Club Fed and fined up to 10 grand.

Betcha drunk drivers and speed demons kill more people in a week in the US than unregistered FA weapons kill in a year.

Wanna bet?

Where's the justice in that?
The real issue here is ownership versus utilization of the "device". In the same way that ownership of a high performance vehicle is legal, the ownership of a high performance firearm should be legal. If I don't need a special drivers license to own or use a Ferrari, I should not need a special license to own or use an M-16.

Bob Shoots
June 8, 2011, 10:18 PM
As I have gotten older, I find there is much less black and white in the world and a lot more grey. When it comes to firearms, I can see situations where I would not want some people to have unlimited access to firearms. I can see situations where I would not want some people to ever have access to firearms. Like most things in life, there has to be a compromise in this,too. Some restrictions need to be in place to protect us all from those who can't restrain themselves.
When I was younger, I refused to acknowledge that any other opinion was valid. Now I can see that thoughtful people can see the same set of facts and come to different conclusions (look at Congress). I think what is most lacking on both sides of the 2A argument (and many many other arguments) is tolerance and civility. It doesn't mean you have to agree, but it does mean that you don't assume that they are idiots just because they disagree.

daorhgih
June 8, 2011, 10:37 PM
I departed 'Nam serving honorably from 1966, 1967, and 1968. It was leaving a strange world, and stepping into an insane world. I was spit on, called not nice names, and had fires started on my flag, which I had defended (both flag and remonstrance). I knew that things would sort themselves out for the Right (sic). I didn't serve in order to defend the offenders. I learned where those maggots were going to assemble for a " burning" and I would go there, to be able to pour lighter-fluid on the protestors. I was unable to sleep or relax if I were more than 3 feet from my weapon. I still can't. But I smirk at protestors now, don't carry gasoline in soft, conformable containers. But I still need the gun. As for the guns, I have reduced from over 10 calibers, to only 3 (not including my Desert Eagle -- a fine solace). "Trust me." The pocket caliber gets me to the holstered caliber which blows a .4xxx hole in whatever is between me and the .30xxx rifle. But my greatest comfort is still kept in an amber bottle, an it ain't old no. 7. I smirk and smile at some of the egoists (sic) and egotists here on TFL, like I do at Paxifists. But please understand me, I also rely on those personalities to stand and fire, or to stand and talk, in defense of what we will all eventually want to be on point with us. "Point is where it's at"; we'll all be there at one time or another. 73-yrs, and still holding MOA. Just think: If I had not gone to 'Nam, I would only be 70! Semper Fi. We all know what that stands for.

1911Tuner
June 8, 2011, 10:41 PM
Quote:

>You just reminded me I need a haircut, it is hot here.<

Keep it high and tight, the way Chesty woulda wanted it.

>>Education is the first thing and the most important thing. Moreover, that thing you mentioned about that in our fathers' knee would be also awesome if we could have more of that back.<<

Roger that.

Semper Fi, Dog.

withdrawn34
June 9, 2011, 03:03 AM
Who is the victim when one drives 120MPH in a 70MPH zone? If no accident then there is no victim, but it is a crime. You don't need a victim you just need to disobey the law to have committed a crime.
Regards,
Jerry

Not quite. A better analogy would be me buying a Corvette ZR1 and parking it in my garage. 1/4 mile in 11.2s @ 135 MPH and a top speed of 205 MPH. I could absolutely do some very stupid stuff in that car and end up hurting innocent people.

But just owning it means nothing. You cannot call me a reckless driver if my ZR1 is just chilling out in the garage.

9mmforMe
June 9, 2011, 05:16 AM
Some of my opinions have changed over the years and I expect some of them will change again depending on what I experience internally and externally. I'm not high on labels since I think they confine a person to a certain set of ideals and remove flexibility. I will say that I love my guns and feel they are needed for my safety and happiness. I also think that some sensible restrictions that are already in place are fine. At this point I think we need no new restrictions since all the bases seem to be covered if we just adhere to some of the ones currently in place.

MikeNice
June 9, 2011, 05:29 AM
But just owning it means nothing. You cannot call me a reckless driver if my ZR1 is just chilling out in the garage.

Nor can you be called a reckless driver if you take it out and test the limits in a sanctioned SCCA race.

I find it mildy iritating that gun owners ger so up tight over select fire and automatic weapons. I always want to ask, "so that .45acp doesn't make you a blood thirsty criminal, yet an automatic will, right?"

Of course there is the "if it gets stolen," argument. Well if somebody steals your shotgun, pistol, and rifle they can do just as much damage. They could walk on to a college campus and just unleash havoc.

Heck a person could do infinitely more damage by stealing a few supplies from Tractor Supply Co.

RichBMW
June 9, 2011, 05:29 AM
My attitude about firearms has changed totally in the last few years. I lived in NY most of my life and knew very few people who owned guns. To me most gun owners were red-necked, conspiracy-believing, beat-up-pickup-driving maniacs. And the NRA was a nazi, right-wing fanatical organization.
Since moving to Florida I have become friends with quite a few gun owners. In fact, my best friend in my new state, a guy who has my complete trust and respect, is a gun owner. After many long discussions with him, my attitude began to change. I did research, visited gun shops, spoke to other gun-owners. I began to see that gun owners were just like everyone else. Lots of smart, well-informed, rational people owned firearms. In fact, most firearm owners are reasonable folks. Imagine that!

1911Tuner
June 9, 2011, 07:27 AM
Let's take the Corvette/M16 analogy a little further since I've owned at least one example of both in the past.

Get caught driving 100+ mph on the interstate, and you're charged with reckless driving.
You pay the fine, and if you've got a smart lawyer...and you've got deep pockets...
you get to keep your license. You may even be able to pull off a PJC.

Rip off a burst within a residential area...even into the ground or a good berm, and you can go to jail for reckless endangerment...lose your rifle and maybe your right to own a gun...and if it's unregistered...you head straight for federal court, and probably to Club Fed. If you've got a clean record and very deep pockets...you may be able to avoid the prison sentence, but you can bank on a long, meaningful relationship with your probation officer and guaranteed loss of the right to own a gun.

shiftyer1
June 11, 2011, 04:09 AM
My opinions have changed alot also as I have matured (<kinda) or maybe I just got older. At one point I was convinced i'd buy a full auto rifle. Then I realized how much they cost AND what it would cost to feed it!

Rules and Laws like padlocks are there to keep honest people honest. A bank robber doesn't stop at the bank doors to put his gun back in the car because it's illegal!

I don't have a problem with background checks but I can't figure out why I can buy a firearm but I need a special permit to carry it.

Neverwinter
June 11, 2011, 01:20 PM
A psychiatrist friend of mine told me that if I had a clue how many people who I pass on the street in a given day who are on the edge of unbridled violence...I'd stay home. He wernt on to say that fully 25% of such people are completely off the radar, and have zero documentation of their conditions.
Of those who break and descend into violence, how many are going to be treated for their conditions after they've gotten into the system? How many of the drug offenders discussed in this thread are being rehabilitated through addiction treatment? Each of the drug offenders in the prisons take up one more spot that could be filled by a repeat violent offender.

The rules on automatic firearms and drugs are a twisted perversion of the "Possession is 9/10ths of the law" concept; the mere possession is sufficient to incarcerate despite any harm done.

NMGonzo
June 12, 2011, 11:42 PM
I care less about rules and more about getting along with everybody.

If you enjoyed reading about "Getting Older and Changing Attitudes" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!