This is why Americans should be armed. Do you think it is an accident that these guys set up shop in California, where they know that any average person they come across has no chance of being armed and able to mount an adequate defense?
The founders of our country saw the need of a well regulated, and well armed militia who was able to defend themselves and their country against impending threats. If defending yourself against illegal aliens, who are growing illegal drugs, and threatening Americans citizens on public lands, isn’t what they had in mind, then I have know idea.
When I commented on the original site that this was “One more reason to always be armed,” a guy named Joe responded:
“Yeah, your single handgun/rifle is going to be real useful against pot farmers with five high powered rifles, equipped with rifle scopes and numerous rounds of ammunition, not to mention greater numbers and a familiarity with the area.
“Good way to get yourself shot, more like.”
Since they moderated my reply (I guess I was too extreme for them) I give the basics of it here. Yes, my “single handgun/rifle is going to be real useful against pot farmers with “five high powered rifles, equipped with rifle scopes and numerous rounds of ammunition.” In fact, that sounds a lot like what I carry in my truck, and my camper.
The fact is that criminals are lazy and unlikely to have adequate training with their weapons. I, on the other hand, took my last Elk on the run at 600 yards and can empty two 13 round magazines into the center of a target at 25 yards in under 12 seconds with my .45 ACP. I’m not bragging, because that doesn’t make me special. Many people I know can do the very same thing.
The point is, the pot growers would have never confronted the campers had they thought the campers posed even the remotest threat, which is why they choose to set up shop in places like California, where they know the public has a 99.99% chance of not being armed.
As I’ve said before, being armed is about making the choice yours. If only your attacker has a weapon, he makes all the choices. If you are armed, you make your own. That doesn’t even mean that you have to defend yourself, and it doesn’t mean you have to shoot anyone. In many situations, caution would dictate that you still comply, and never attack. But, even then, as long as you have a .45 tucked neatly into your waistband, the choice is yours.
This week really wasn’t planned to be an all-pot kind of week, it’s just working out that way. (Today’s the stoner new year, right? But if you’re stoned, isn’t every year basically 1976?) Regardless, in Los Padres National Forest, California, two pot farmers scared off some campers in a high-speed dirt road rally that ended with arrests and confiscation of $26 mill in herb. The Santa Barbara County sheriff’s report reads better than I could rewrite, so here it is in its entirety:
New Cuyama – On Friday, 04-17-09, at approximately 11:30 a.m., two adults, who had been camping in the Aliso Park area west of New Cuyama, came across an active marijuana garden. While in the area, the campers were approached by two Hispanic male adult subjects who were tending to the marijuana garden.
The subjects attempted to converse with the campers, however due to a language barrier, they were unsuccessful. The subjects requested that the campers remain in the area, until the arrival of the ‘boss’ who spoke English. The campers became fearful and packed up their gear and left the area. While the campers were driving down the dirt road, they were approached by a pick up truck traveling the opposite direction. As they passed the truck, they noticed the occupants seemed very interested in them. The truck stopped and the driver exited and waived for the campers to come back. They ignored his request and kept driving, believing he was the ‘boss’ that the two subjects had referred to earlier. The driver returned to his truck and began chasing the campers down the mountain. During the chase, the truck came dangerously close to the campers’ vehicle several times.
Once the campers reached the paved road, they were able to distance themselves from the truck and contact law enforcement. A Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff obtained the information from the campers and quickly disseminated it to local agencies. A short time later, a Taft Police Officer spotted a truck, matching the description provided by the campers. A traffic stop was conducted and as a result Javier Barragan (DOB 1/31/69) and Jose Lopez (DOB 5/3/71) were contacted. Both subjects were positively identified by the campers, as the persons who chased them down the mountains. The two were taken into custody and a search of the vehicle was conducted. During the search, five high powered rifles, equipped with rifle scopes and numerous rounds of ammunition were found.
United States Forest Service and Santa Barbara County Sheriff personnel responded to the marijuana garden to eradicate the plants. Once there, a large scale marijuana garden was found containing 13,300 growing marijuana plants. The estimated street value of the plants is approximately $26,600,000.
Barragan and Lopez were booked into the Santa Maria Jail for marijuana cultivation. Pending further investigation, false imprisonment and/or weapons charges may be added. Their bail is set at $50,000 each. Barragan resides in Maywood, Ca. and Lopez from Paramount, Ca.
The Sheriff’s Department and US Forest Service cautions hikers, campers and hunters that marijuana growing season is upon us. Most outside gardens are located in remote areas of the National Forest and are tended by Mexican Nationals who are usually armed. Do not attempt to make contact with them. Any suspicious activity should be reported to the Sheriff’s Department or the US Forest Service.
re: “The Sheriff’s Department and US Forest Service cautions hikers, campers and hunters that marijuana growing season is upon us. Most outside gardens are located in remote areas of the National Forest and are tended by Mexican Nationals who are usually armed. //snip//”
so, there really is a USFS recognized “growing season” for dope? and, how do they know most outside gardens are located in remote areas? duh. and tended by Mexican Nationals? double duh. oh wait – they need to rent Billy Bob Thorntons’ movie “Homegrown” or any of the Cheech and Chong movies. LOL
and just how many of those 13,300 plants (they counted them?) were for “medicinal use” and can they now claim compensation from the USDA for crop loss? 😉
Plus I also want to be able to bring my guns to sporting events like hockey games. Some of the other fans are real aholes. More guns will keep the drunks better behaved
wow,,, way to be an ass hat John ryan.
You can never count on the police to be with you when you need them.
You can however be armed and able to defend yourself from other armed people or larger numbers.
I’m 6′ 2″ about 260 lbs and can handle most people quite well alone.. but if there are several or they are armed I like to even the playing field..
uhhhh did anyone catch the fact that the bail was set at 50,000? 10% of 50,000 is 5,000 correct? Maybe less because some bonds can be bought lower than 10% if the amount is high enough. They obviously have (had) a crop worth significantly more than that (and who knows how long they have been growing/selling it)…. wouldn’t it be logical to conclude that 5,000 dollars should be easy for them to come up with? Walk back across the boarder, wait a little while and come back. How in the world does our justice system make sense, when that kind of crap happens?
liam09…
Good point. Seems like the bail in cases like this should be equal to some percentage of the “crop”…even 10% would put bail in the 2 Mil range, and 10% of that would be at least $200,000. Still might not stop the cultivation, but at least it would contribute to the Sheriff’s expenses!
We have a riverbed near us. One of the guys was shooting rabbits and found a fairly small marijuana patch (meaning maybe a couple hundred plants, not thousands). We notified the Sheriff’s department, they came out in _shorts_! and said “oh darn…guess we’ll have to come back”. They didn’t. They called my friend(later) and told him they had been down to the patch, and pulled it up the day before they called. He told them they were liars – he’d been down there 3 days earlier and the plants had been pulled out then. The plants were gone, but the roots were still laying on the ground.
We own a lighting store. We have guys come in to buy HID bulbs to “grow flowers (or tomatoes)”. They know nothing about the HID requirements (that they need a ballast, that they cost over $100, that the bulbs and the ballasts have to match, that Metal Halide and high pressure Sodium are different, can’t use the same ballast, and have different lighting properties – among other things). It’s pretty obvious that they’re raising pot. I asked the federal agent I eventually spoke to if they were interested in names, license plates or any other identifying info…he said no. Many people had permits, and there weren’t enough plants for them to bother with.
They don’t mess with the little stuff. The “broken windows” theory and “A stitch in time saves nine” proverb are concepts they don’t observe.
Out of interest – if you could write the gun laws what would you write? Would you have any restrictions as to who can carry arms, what arms would they be, whether they are concealed or not, would they need to be locked away and where could they be carried and not carried?
@GaffaUK
First off, let me give you a reminder…
Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [emphasis mine]
Convicted felons, individuals declared by a court to be mentally ill or an immediate threat to themselves or others, such as part of a restraining order. (strict scrutiny there as not to allow courts to run rampant on it), and people who are not U.S. Citizens would all be restricted from carrying arms. The non U.S. Citizen restrictions could be waived on an individual basis, such as for hunting trips.
Any arms that can be carried on a person would be allowed to be carried by a person. No restrictions on semi automatic or fully automatic weapons. None on bullet size. None on barrel size. I would accept restrictions on explosives. I would also expect militias governed by the individual states to be as well armed, to unlimited extent, as federal forces.
No restrictions on concealed carry.
Nope, they are pretty useless when they are locked away.
Very few restrictions. They couldn’t be carried into a courtroom (without consent of the judge), a jail or a police station (without consent of the warden, the sheriff or police chief in charge), a meeting of publicly elected officials (without the consent of the elected body), a capital building (without the consent of the elected executive ie., President, Governor, Mayor), a mental hospital, or into a bar. They could be carried onto private property unless the private property owner prohibits it.
I would balance the broad rights of the public to be armed with exceptionally strict penalties for people who use guns in the course of committing violent crimes. While many libs across the country are pushing for “hate crimes” legislation, I would have “gun crimes” legislation. Carry a gun in an illegal drug deal…regular sentence +25 years. Use a gun to commit murder…regular sentence +25 years. Use a gun to commit robbery…regular sentence +25 years. Absolutely no leniency on the use of a gun to commit a crime.
Likewise for protecting children against unsecured weapons. I wouldn’t have any requirement for securing a weapon, but I would have severe punishment if you allowed a child to access your weapon and cause death or injury to themselves or others. That would not extend to a situation where a minor trespassed onto otherwise secure property (broke into your home, for example) or otherwise criminally obtained the weapon.
It might be worthy to note that the 14th amendment (the incorporation clause) has not been selectively applied to the second amendment, but as a constitutional purist, I think that is a function of the supreme court trying to exert unbalanced influence.
@ Wisdom
Now those are some gun control laws that I can get behind! The major problem with our CJ system is that punishments no longer fit the crime. This is of course primarily a matter of inadequate funding, as evidenced by the possibility that California may be soon turning out inmates by the thousands because the State cannot afford to house them.
I once chased down a guy that had just fired three rounds at a rival gang banger. He did this about 100 yards from a local high school. He was a prior felon. He had crack on him. He spent a grand total of seven years in Federal lock up.
@Wisdom
So guns could be carried in hospitals, libraries, swimming pools & schools?!
So you pass these laws and then the majority of private owed property malls – such as shopping malls etc put up signs saying no guns. Aren’t they denying you your rights? Anyway I conceal my machine pistol and ignore the sign but I get caught by a security guard. Is that a criminal or civil case and what happens to me – do I just get a fine?
Gaffa, unlike the U.K. the good guys AND the bad guys can carry guns. Whereas over there, its pretty much just the bad guys. When Australia just recently enacted their gun laws, crime skyrocketed. From the figures I could find, violent crime in the UK is up to 5x higher than in the US. Also on just a logical level, if you were a criminal, wanted to break into a house, would you most likely break into a house you /knew/ wouldn’t have guns or a house that could, and would most likely have guns? Break into my house, and I have a friend named shotty-mcShotgun that would take anyone in a fight. Changes the tables around when you have the option to protect yourself. Last time I checked a cricket(baseball) bat did very little against a 44 mag.
The point is not to make guns more restrictive to regular citizens, but to make the punishments that much more harsh for the criminals that use them illegally. Plus, do you think criminals care about a sign on a shopping mall that says, ‘no guns’? I assume you live under the idea that criminals (you know, the guys that break the law?) would follow the rules just because they see a sign. A massive killing spree was diverted where I live (New Life Church) when a citizen carrying a handgun shot the kid carrying semi-auto weapons that was walking into the church while it was getting out.
@ GaffaUK
Hospitals…check. Libraries…check. Swimming pools…check…but I think you might look a little silly with a Glock in an IWB tucked into your speedo while you do a backflip off the high dive. Common sense should dictate rules that the government doesn’t. Schools…check. I should add here that a minor doesn’t gain the full benefit of their rights until they reach majority. That includes the right to bear arms. Teachers, parents, administrators, all would be able to bear arms in a school in places that they have a right to be. In no case, regarding any of my examples, do you have the right to carry a weapon in a place that you have no right to be in the first place.
Another caveat here. Many “privately owned” hospitals, libraries, swimming pools and schools fall under my private property clause. Which leads into…
No, they aren’t denying my rights? I have no engendered right to enter another persons private property. If they insist on a rule that I cannot enter while I am armed, I have three choices. 1. Don’t enter that property. If this is a retail store, like a mall, I could vote with my feet and spend my money elsewhere. 2. I could store my weapon, and enter the property without it. 3. I could ignore the rule, and carry my concealed weapon there anyway.
The hypothetical you present is more of a private property rights issue. While I have a right to be armed, I don’t have a right to enter someone elses property without abiding by the property owners rules. I don’t have the right to climb someones fence, go into their house, and scream out their windows either, despite a first amendment right to free speech.
Misdemeanor offense, not gun related. Since you chose #3 of my above list, you violated the contract that allowed you to enter my private property, so you have trespassed. I put signs up at my stores that say no loitering and no soliciting. When someone decides to ignore the rules for entering my property, and sets up his camp in the restroom where he takes a nap, or another person sets up a booth outside my front door and starts selling his wind chimes to support his dedication to the Rev. Moon, they have violated the contractual agreement that allowed them to enter my property in the first place, and are guilty of trespassing. Now, if you came on to my property to make a drug deal, now you are taking that a step further, and the offense steps up to criminal trespass.
Got any plans for running for federal office anytime soon, Wisdom? Be sure to let me know where to send my campaign donation. :0)
GaffaUK, sorry to say but most of the rules that I Wisdom has listed are in line with the laws we have in place in Kentucky. In my state you can openly carry and CCDW permits are issued for those in need and able to pass the course for the permit. Guess what? We don’t have massive crime or shootings in my State. Strange I know, but that is the difference between our two countries. Here we put the weight of responsibility on the individual not the government to control that person thru laws and restrictions.
@MataHarley
One of these days when Wyoming doesn’t put forth a good delegation. Till then, I’ll stick to sedition and derision.
@Liam
Well we could argue ages over that – why not look at murder rate? If you beaten up you’ll likely live another day. When you are shot then you are less likely to. The states still has a higher murder rate – which is the most serious crime.
I’m not anti-gun per se – but I am wondering just how far some of you guys would go. Anyone who breaks into a house deserves what they get. Of course of the flip side does owing a gun make you safer or less safe than not owing a gun? And how many children will find Daddy’s gun and injury or kill themselves or another child?http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm
So it depends on whether you want to debate using facts & figures (which of course can be disputed on both sides) or simply come down to whether as a society you accept the collateral damage of higher gun crime and unintentional deaths to adults and children – in defense of a right.
@Wisdom
Why not bars? Sure alcohol and guns aren’t a good mix but if you are going to have to defend yourself then a lot of fights where you might have to defend yourself happens in bars. And as you say bad guys are going to ignore that anyway. So would being drunk and carrying a gun outside of bar be okay?
And howabout banks? Yep they are private so I can’t see any of them allowing guns being allowed on their premises. But again a possible likely place for an incident if bank robbers come into the place.
Howabout planes? Again private. You really think post-911 that any airplane or airport would allow firearms on board if the government let them. Should I just sit back and hope there is a sky marshal on board?
And if enough private places request that guns are not allowed on their premises then that’s going to restrict any ‘good’ guy who doesn’t want to trespass. Having a dog to guard a property is fine but it’s not useful as a deterent when going about your normal business in towns etc.
Whilst there should be a crackdown on criminals (the sentences they get are often laughable) – I think the possibility of crime is exaggerated. Most people don’t find themselves in violent situations where their lives are at risk. In some cases a gun would help – but I also feel on balance it can actually make things worst.
@GaffaUK
We had a kid from Leeds, England who stayed at our house for three weeks while he coached the local youth soccer league. He told us that twice his family’s home in Leeds was invaded by armed robbers and both times all he and his family could do was stay at the top of the stairs holding their cricket bat while the robbers carted everything on the first floor out into a moving van. Not once. Twice. Can you imagine what that feels like? To have to stand there and do nothing while someone comes into your homes and does what they want because you are helpless? At least if I am armed, how I react is my choice, not theirs.
My children have grown up in a house full of loaded, accessible weapons. They were taught from the time they could understand what a gun is, what it can do, and that they are more than welcome to handle it or shoot it any time they want to, they only have to ask. Guess what. They did. Sometimes they would ask every day, sometimes they wouldn’t ask for months. Guess what else. They have no fascination at all with guns, and when any of them touch a weapon, the first thing they do is clear it, making sure it is unloaded and un-cocked.
They don’t play with my radial saw either. Or my nail gun. Or my guitar sitting in my living room that is signed by Joe Nichols. Why? Because they were taught better than that.
There are lies, damned lies, and there are statistics. The numbers used by the NEA on that site are conveyed in a way to make them seem larger than they really are. Every statistic that quotes actual violence gleans totals from multiple years, and all of the data regarding children and gun violence is more than 10 years old. One statistic is used that quotes a total from a six year period. One quotes a total from a 22 year period.
Why don’t they use consistent data? I’ll tell you why. Because a group like the NEA has an agenda, and they only provide the data that supports their position. The other thing that they leave out of their version of the data is what kinds of gun violence are involved when children get killed. The fact is that an overwhelming number of the incidents that involve children and guns stem from inner city gang violence, not average kids.
Convenient that you attempt to use facts and figures to support your position, then dismiss them when they are not in your favor. What you also fail to recognize is that the data you referred to came mostly from the nineties, when America had the strictest gun control laws in its history. During the last decade there has been a huge push across the country to empower people to once again claim their second amendment rights. In every state that has expanded the power of their people to be armed, the overall violent crime rates have decreased. That includes armed robbery, rape, and murder.
In Wyoming, where we have broad constitution protections to bear arms, I challenge you to find a single news article that reports a home invasion robbery. 99% of our violent crime is drug related, and has nothing to do with our high gun ownership rate. In fact, if the argument that more guns meant more crime held any water, every one of us “cowboys” would be shooting at each other in the streets every day of the week.
Finally, to answer your last question: Yes. I accept all of the collateral damage that occurs in defense of a right. If we give up our rights, any of them, then we may as well have never declared our independence in the first place. Then we’d all have UK at the end of our nicknames on this site.
From the dictionary:
right
noun – a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.
And once again for the record:
Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You have to laugh at having a firearms and RKBA debate with someone from a country where even their cops are armed only with billy clubs. well, maybe they get to carry various sprays, etal. But guns? Only under “special” circumstances.
Geez Wisdom… talk about having a chit chat with someone on issues above his mental pay grade.
But of course those inexperienced with firearms are indoctrinated to the “victim” children argument. And naturally they’d never comprehend that kids in the US used to engage in firearms sports in schools until the nanny government got a hold of the curriculum. Hang… now the California government even made Olympic shooters felons with their definition of “assault weapons”.
The problem with the anti-firearms types is they know nothing about firearms, and how learning to use them fosters a different attitude. The kids I know that have been raised with the proper use of firearms by adults are some of the most polite, and most respectful kids I know. The same with those that are well trained in martial arts.
You sure you don’t want to run for office, Wisdom??
@GaffaUK
You got me on that one. On further thought, I would leave it to the property/business owner.
Yes. Being drunk and shooting someone with that gun without justification would not be. If you pull your gun out in a drunken stupor and shoot someone, you’re now a criminal, and you used a gun. Regular sentence +25 years. If you are too drunk to aim at the mugger who is trying to rob you and hit a pedestrian? You’re a criminal, and you used a gun. Regular sentence +25 years. The fact that you are asserting a constitutional right does not absolve you of responsibility for your actions.
I carry my gun into the bank every single business day, and I wouldn’t do business at a bank that didn’t allow me to. In fact, there isn’t one bank that I know of that doesn’t allow it. They WANT the kind of customer who bring in enough money that the depositor feels it might be necessary to be armed. Some people use armed and armored car service. Some carry their own weapon. It’s a lot more common than you might think. Do you think a bank is going to tell a business owner to take his millions in deposits and loan interest somewhere else, and that they don’t want them as customers anymore because they want to be armed when they deliver the deposits and payments?
Private businesses. Their call. Do you think I can’t carry a gun on a chartered aircraft that I board without going through a commercial terminal? As for me, if TWA allowed me to carry a gun, and Delta didn’t, I would fly TWA. I would also expect some people to choose TWA for the opposite reason. I would, however, accept a restriction on caliber size and/or ammunition speed, and even a training requirement to be armed on a commercial airplane. It is a pressurized environment, and I accept some restrictions based on the physical volatility of the environment. I wouldn’t expect to be allowed to carry a gun into a gas plant where the flash could ignite the whole place either.
This is a capitalist society. I can vote with my money and not spend any of it where I can’t carry my sidearm. If one business won’t serve armed civilians, then another will open to serve that niche. Unless, of course, our Socialist-in-Chief imposes an “Anti Dog Eat Dog” law on us and doesn’t allow new competition to enter the economy. But then again, that’s why we have a second amendment, and why the “progressives” want us to NOT have a second amendment.
Approximately 1 out of every 20 American people are a victim of a violent crime every year. Statistically, every person in America will be a victim of violent crime more than three times in their lives. I have been the victim of armed robbery. I have also been the victim of assault. Both happened before I made the decision to be armed. Basically, you are wrong.
If you are untrained, and don’t know how to use your weapon effectively, yeah, there is a chance that someone is going to take it away from you and shove it up your…well, you know. But I challenge you to back up your statement? How many times has an armed citizen, who wouldn’t have been victimized in the situation anyway, been disarmed by their attacker and victimized beyond what the criminal had already intended?
@MataHarley
The biggest problem with debating a ‘dearmer’ (kind of like a ‘denier’) is that they truly believe that if you ban guns the criminal will get rid of theirs. No matter how much evidence you present them with to the contrary, they just keep repeating their liberal arts professors words. “guns are bad, guns are bad, guns are…”
Seriously though, if we didn’t think it was worth our time to support our beliefs, FA wouldn’t be here to suck up so many valuable hours of our time. I debate more so the quiet lurker who might be sitting on the fence can see the value of a conservative mindset than to ever convince a guy like Gaffa that he is wrong. He will never change, but his questions provide a springboard that allows us to refine our message and also let that same fence sitting lurker see how ridiculous the progressive liberal vision really is.
I could be bribed….oh wait….that’s not legal is it? Wow, I thought I was a Democrat there for a second. Scary. 🙂 Would bribery with Dead Man’s Ale be an ethics violation?
Gaffa is simply trying to continue the old Liberal practice of taking away our Constitutional rights by slowly whittling them away until we don’t have them anymore. They first get you to bend a little by something that may seem at first reasonable, then they keep slowly pushing the line until you have nothing left but fragments of what used to be rights. It’s the same way they go after religious rights and morals.
@Wisdom
Interesting story about the kid from Leeds but I’m not sure how that adds to the debate as there are lots of stories either way in the crime debate. Here’s an individual story… http://www.childinjurylawyerblog.com/2008/10/boy_accidentally_shoots_himsel.html.
Personally I would rather someone took my TV and video than have that on my conscience. I wonder if that kid was taught well my his parents about gun control as well as you do with your kids?
Absolutely – I believe the NRA does this also – wouldn’t you agree?
http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_story.aspx?storyid=107756
http://www.mlive.com/southwestadvance/index.ssf/2009/04/wyoming_home_invasion_suspect.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-16972201.html
Damn – if only the founding fathers had cars in their time as they could of protected the right to drive whilst drunk because as long as the drunk doesn’t cause a traffic violation then the fact they are drunk shouldn’t matter.
Howabout a commerical aircraft. Do you charter your own flights? So if TWA allowed loaded guns on board their cabin – do you think they would get more or less business? I’m sure that would make Al-Qaeda’s lives easier. Sure they now have to account for the possibility of passengers with loaded guns but they just need to grab a hostage and make everyone to drop their guns. I wouldn’t want to be in the OK Corral tens of thousands of feet in the air.
So 95% of Americans get through each year without being a victim of a violent crime. And what constitutes violent crime? And when you were a victim of armed robbery did you realistically have a chance of fighting back and would you have done that….be honest now.
I never claimed that now have I?
@MataHarley
See I thought you for one were better than that. I don’t agree therefore I must be dumb.
@ditto
I’m not trying to take anyone’s rights away – I couldn’t even if I had to. US is a great country and it was born with guns and has a certain fixation to them. So keep up. Each nation has it’s own history and quirks. If there is a danger that Liz II will send back the redcoats and somehow get past your navy, airforce and army then maybe you will need those high powered handguns etc.
And whenever I see that an intruder gets killed then I think it’s great. It was a shame when the English farmer who shot and killed a kid who broke into his farm was jailed. He had been pestered for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)
However my argument is not that guns are bad but that I feel that some societies (depending where and when) are better off with tighter gun control than no or lax gun control.
@GaffaUK
I wonder if that kid was taught well my his parents about gun control as well as you do with your kids?
Doubt it. That father was trying to be cute for his friends in allowing a very young child to handle a weapon like that. As I said before, exercising a constitutional right does not resolve you of responsiblity.
I think the difference is glaring. the National Riflemen Association represents people who have an interest in protecting their rights as gun owners, and who want to promote the shooting sports that they enjoy. Their agenda is crystal clear.
The NEA, however, is Union who represents teachers in contract negotiations with school districts, and has used the power they have gained as such to become a policy hound that has as many agendas as the United Nations. They use money that is provided them my their members to further agendas that our outside the spectrum of what they claim to represent. Every NRA member knows what their dues will be used for. Ask an NEA member what theirs will be used for, and I bet they won’t know a fraction of it.
All right! You came up with one. I’m sorry, but I won’t count the first two links. #1 was a burglary not a home invasion robbery. There is a difference. #2 Was not a robbery. It was a domestic dispute. I once lived next door to a half-way house and we had several instances where people broke in mistaking our house for the half-way house. Another reason I choose to be armed as an adult.
The eight specific “violent crimes” that are tracked by the FBI: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
I was twelve, my father was thirty three. It was the armed robbery of our family business and I walked up behind the robber while he was in the act. My father was pulling the trigger of his weapon that he held under the counter when I entered the room. He made the choice to put his weapon down and give the robber the money, because he didn’t want to kill someone in front of his son. So yeah, it made a difference. It took the choice of outcomes out of the hands of the robber and put it into the hands of my father.
Do you disagree that your tactic is to whittle away at the argument until you get a concession as ditto contended? As I look back at your posts, on any thread, that is what I see. He is right about it being a tactic, and a highly effective one. But if you are doing it by accident, and aren’t really thinking it through, I guess I can believe that. That would fit more with MataHarley’s assessment of you. So which is it?
I see debate as a way to discuss ideas and opinions. Sometimes it will lead to gridlock when two people have absolutely fixed opinions – sometimes it will lead to some concessions on one or either side. It’s not a sports contest. What’s wrong with a concession? Is that the hyped up feared ‘thin end of the wedge’ theory – that if you concede an inch you suddenly be stripped off all your rights – so it’s best to be bloody minded and even argue against some aspects you may even secretly agree with? lol
I don’t see it being particularly effective on a high level or on micro level. My opinions on here – like most, if not all, of the opinions on here really have little impact on the real world. I don’t see the gun laws changing because what people say on floppingaces.net. And as this is a site which seems to have hardcore conservative ideas then I don’t see my views changing anyones minds to any large degree.
I’m not quite sure what you are asking here. Are my views accidental? Of course not. Are they completed fixed? Nope. Most of my thoughts are thought through but also there may be holes or things which I haven’t considered which I ‘m sure also goes for those on the right and left.
Do I have an agenda? Of course not. I’m just shooting the breeze and debating. Does anyone on here have an agenda where they hope to make real change through a forum? Possibly. It can help rally the troops and be a springboard for organising campaigns, rallies etc. But most of it on here seems to be debate which is healthy. And to have healthy debate it’s good to have different views – rather than make out someone is dumb because they have different views you.
I know it’s easy to pigeonhole my views as being identical as some others who may ‘truly believe that if you ban guns the criminal will get rid of theirs’ but I don’t agree with that either. I just believe that there needs to be gun control – and the debate lies in where the line is drawn. If I was really motivated and interested in changing the gun laws of another country that I don’t live in – then I would move there and activately campaign against it. So don’t worry:)
@GaffaUK
When you are talking about a “right”, any concession, any at all, erodes that right. To quote John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, “Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.” I will compromise on some issues, but not on issues that involve my rights. We have nine original rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, and others that have been guaranteed by later amendments. As far as I am concerned, these rights are sacred and uncompromisable, and I consider ANY attempt to whittle away at my rights as nothing less than an attack on my freedom.
America was created out of the desire of our forefathers to be free from the oppression of your country. In the 233 years since, our country has seen thousands of challenges and threats to the freedoms they fought for, but not a single one of those threats has been greater than the internal threat of disarmament. While most of what I have said in this thread has related to self defense, the truth is that self defense in just a by-product of what the framers really had in mind. The second amendment is primarily about guaranteeing that the citizens of this country are always able to defend themselves against an oppressive government. The threat that they saw wasn’t just limited to another invasion from England, or another country, it was also the threat that the federal government that they founded growing into yet another oppressive ruler.
The individual safety of a few people because of the threat of gun crime pales against the safety of a nation when a rogue President declares martial law and orders the troops under his command to occupy American territories. Sure, it sounds extreme and impossible, because that has obviously never happened anywhere else in the world; Joseph Stalin…Adolf Hitler…Mao Tse-Tung……no one really thought any of them would become the tyrants that history will remember them as either. An armed citizenry is just a guarantee that the next one on that list of dictators that are responsible for the deaths of more that 20 million people doesn’t get his start as our President.
Ultimately, there is only one reason that a government would want to limit their citizens’ right to be armed. It’s so when they start taking away your other rights, there won’t be anything you can do about it. Except, maybe, to stand at the top of your stairs with your cricket bat and hope they don’t come up the steps after you.
@ Gaffa
Stop trying to act innocent. We aren’t buying your B.S.
The problem with making concessions on any Constitutionally protected right, is that there are people who will later try to make you to give up a little more of it, and more. Hand-Gun-Control-Inc has conceded that incremental gun control regulation after regulation is precisely how they have been targeting the Second Amendment, and that their end goal is to make the Second Amendment impotent.
When was the last time you heard Democrats speak out against Sara Brady’s organization, for their continual push for more gun control? The only things that has stopped more Democrat gun control laws is the fear of constituent back-lash, the anti-gun control lobby, most Republicans and (finally!) a Supreme Court ruling recognizing the second amendment as an individual right. (as opposed to the claim by far left Democrats and Hand-Gun-Control-Inc that it was a “collective” right.
All it takes is reading the Federalist Papers, the Anti-federalist Papers, and the other writings of the founders to know why they felt that the Second Amendment was the final fail-safe. They did not write the Second Amendment merely to protect hunting rights, gun collectors and competition shooting. Anyone who tells you different is either a liar or ignorant of the purpose of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is the ONLY Constitutional right that specifically states that the right “shall not be infringed.” Accepting concessions on a right is infringement of it.
Interesting thread.
1) Wisdom – how would you prevent those persons judged mentally incompetent by a court from purchasing a firearm?
2) Gaffa – those links were for a city called Wyoming in the state of MICHIGAN. Not the state of Wyoming. I believe Wisdom was challenging you to find home invasions in the STATE of Wyoming.
@MrObson
If they are caught with firearms, they should be punished. If they are mentally incompetent to the extent that they don’t understand the court ordered restrictions that are placed on them, then they should be committed so they can get the mental health help they need. My business sells alcohol, and as an industry we are expected to make reasonable judgments about whether an individual customer is legally able to purchase alcohol (ie. Are they too young?; Are they visibly inebriated?). The key word there is reasonable. We aren’t expected to take blood samples from our customers to measure BAC levels, and we don’t have to have three forms of ID…one is sufficient. The same reasonable judgments can be expected of those who sell firearms, but the mandates put on them do not have to be onerous.
Good catch. Looking back, the first and second links he posted were from Michigan, the third, which is the only one that really reported a home invasion robbery, was from Wyoming.
@Wisdom
But even you have have limited the 2nd amendment with your own concessions about guns not being allowed in a courtroom, a jail or a police station etc and that you have restricted children being able to carry guns. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t mention children – surely you are infringing their rights! (btw were Slaves allowed to bear arms?) However according to you if you start having such concessions then that erodes that right. At the end of the day – the law has to interpret the 2nd amendment, place in the necessary concessions and balance it with the realities of today and not the 18th century.
Also is 2nd Amendment imposed on the individual states? Do they to follow it? Just look at how messy it would be to drive across the states with a gun…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)
And finally are you as passionate about the 1st amendment and does that have or need any concessions?
Yeah my bad – still after 1 minute of looking I found the house invasion in Wyoming that Wisdom challenged me to find.
Do you really think individuals and small groups with guns would stand a chance against the might of the US military IF they followed President’s orders?
Also did USSR, Germany and China have significant gun control laws? I presume they didn’t so I don’t think that stopped those tryants from gaining power.
@GaffaUK
Pick, pick, pick, pick, pick.
The purpose of being armed, at it’s basest level, is to impose a threat. A threat against criminals who would want to victimize you, and a threat against a government who would want to oppress you. I believe it is necessary that that the basic functions of government are able to be carried out without that threat being directly present. While it is necessary that our elected and appointed officials make policies and set agendas with the knowledge in the back of their minds that their decisions could lead to revolt, they should not, however, be concerned with immediate threats while they do the business of state. I want my leaders to make their decisions based on a whole host of information, not just because someone in the audience will shoot them if they make one that makes the guy unhappy.
Now you are just getting rhetorical, and ridiculous. It is well accepted, and supported by the Supreme Court, that children do not gain access to all the rights of The People until they reach the age of majority. As for the idiotic question about armed slaves–give me a break. What do you think? There were slaves in the mother country back in ‘the day’ too, did they get to carry guns?
Sorry, just because someone says “the times have changed” doesn’t mean I have to accept that same someone putting new restrictions on my rights. How about, “the times have changed, we need to let the military house soldiers in our homes” or “the times have changed, we need to get rid of that pesky fifth amendment” and even “the times have changed, we need to letting people talk so much!”
As Ditto pointed out earlier, “The Second Amendment is the ONLY Constitutional right that specifically states that the right ‘shall not be infringed.’” It doesn’t say “shall not be infringed except by the states.” So, constitutionally, a state should not have the ability to impose any additional restrictions on the right to bear arms. That hasn’t stopped it from happening. On a side note, the first amendment only technically restricts the ability of Congress to prohibit the free exercise of religion, or to abridge the freedom of speech, the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. It doesn’t specifically prohibit individual states from doing those things. It wasn’t until the 14th amendment was approved that the first amendment was applied to all levels of government.
Which leads us too…
I’m here exercising my 1st amendment rights, aren’t I? And, no, I’m not going to get in a back and forth with you on that subject in this thread.
Ah, the power of Google. But my point still stands. Out of half a million people in this state, there was ONE home invasion robbery. A quick search on Google also shows that Stockton, California, a city of 375,000 people, had 23 home invasions in April 2007. California, by the way, has some of the most restrictive gun laws anywhere in the United States. You will find similar disparities in statistics any time you compare any legally armed population in the US with a similarly populated city that has excessive gun control.
Yes. People fighting to defend their homes, and their freedom, can be quite formidable. Especially if they are armed. The American Militias of the US Revolution, consisting mostly of a bunch of poorly trained farmers, common laborers, and a few freed slaves, were able to do quite a number on the most powerful army in the world, you know, the one your King sent over here to put us back in line. And your capitalized IF is well noted. I would hope and expect that the members of the US military would not follow those orders, but I wouldn’t depend on it. Every time in history that this has happened, I’m sure that the people of those countries thought the same thing of their own military. Sadly though, the process that leads to a totalitarian dictatorship begins with the indoctrination of a nations youth to support a specific mindset. For example, the Hitler-Jugend. Or the now forming Obama-Ujana.
No, they didn’t need them. Their populations were already unarmed, and hence, ripe and ready for oppression. Had they been an armed citizenry, as America is, the history of those countries could be quite different. Each of the three despots that I referenced were responsible for the deaths of over 20 million people. There are dozens more who are responsible for the deaths of millions. The overriding factor that links them all is that the people they preyed on, the people that they tortured and slaughtered, were unarmed.
So are you saying that there should be a universal set of gun laws which is imposed by the Federal Government upon all the States?
And because the 2nd amendment say it ‘shall not be infringed’ then does that mean the other amendments can be ignored?
@GaffaUK
Pick, pick, pick, pick, pick…
No, I am saying that there should be a universal LACK of gun laws which is imposed by the Federal Government OR the States.
Back into the rhetorical and ridiculous. Of course that isn’t what it means. Clearly defining one right doesn’t diminish another.
That’s two comments in a row with idiotic, ridiculous, and rhetorical questions. I know you are just trying to trip up my stand on second amendment rights, which you have so far been unable to do, so now you are just reverting to form. I have backed up my claims with damn lying statistics and damn credible real life examples, and if that isn’t enough for you, then so be it. If you don’t want to have a constructive conversation anymore, then I am done with you.