Getting Older and Changing Attitudes

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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.

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.

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.

Who is the victim of an unlicensed or unregistered machine gun?

How can there be a crime without a victim?

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

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?

QOTD
"Where's the justice in that?"
It's not about justice, it's about emotion. Cool looking black cars should be banned.

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.

1911Tuner said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

1911Tuner said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

... as I matured ...

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.

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.

JerryM said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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!

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.