NFR 5 Deer Hunters Shot

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by coonrad, Nov 21, 2004.

  1. Nooksack Mac

    Nooksack Mac Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    Bellingham, WA, USA.
    Griswald:

    You raise some interesting issues. Unfortunately, you quickly make a mess of most of them, relying on some assumptions common among authoritarian/liberals. But I'm not attacking you personally. Ad hominum arguments are so easy to slip into, and so pointless.

    You say that private ownership of arms is no defence against a repressive government, because the govt. need only declare martial law, and that would be the end of effective resistance. For an easy refutation of that notion, see Iraq today. Or remember the USSR about 15 years ago. One of the strongest, most repressive regimes in human history tried the "tanks in the streets" approach, and failed. How do you think it would work here, in a nation of more than 100 million gun owners (and using National Guard units headed by young Billy Bob, who was de







    livering your newspaper a few years before)?

    You used a cliche: "The only thing handguns are good for is to kill people." To which the answer is: DUH! This requires clarity of thought and control of emotion, but sometimes killing somebody is the very best thing that could happen. (Ask a cop how he feels about cleaning up the aftermath of a violent confrontation, where it's the homeowner/pedestrian/female/senior citizen/car owner who is shaken and perhaps injured, but alive, and the would-be home invader/mugger/rapist/disgruntled ex-spouse who's inside the chalk outline.)

    The right to life is the most fundamental of rights, without which all other rights are meaningless. Handguns aren't the best tool for premeditated agression (think: if you were actively hunting an enemy, wouldn't you choose more firepower than that?) but they are portable, and like portable pensions and medical coverage, are a good thing.

    Police are reactive; they're not bodyguards. As with most other aspects of human life, we're responsible for our own personal safety. It's not enough to be safe in one's own home, and legally vulnerable to "What's in your wallet/bra/gullet?" when out in public. Gun ownership and possession is very much about the personal, about what's most important to you. (Driving, on the other hand, beyond your driveway, is civic in nature, done on public streets and roads. And by the way, there's no active lobby to deny other citizens the right to drive.)

    Certainly, gun ownership and use requires an acceptance of stringent responsibility. And yes, many of our citizens aren't capable of that. I don't think it's possible to limit gun ownership to the level-headed and self-controlled. But careless use of firearms, although it can produce tragedies, isn't a major risk. Accidental shooting rates were never high, and have declined in recent decades. Obviously, the real risk is from those among us who use guns with malice aforethought. And here's something that can be done about that: Possession of firearms by convicted felons is forbidden, for the most part. But it's never enforced, as a practical matter, until after the next crime, when the harm is done. Why not subject all discharged felons to lifetime "audits?" Every police or sherrif's dept. should have a few officers who inspect the homes, bodies and cars of ex-cons at any time, without notice. That should reduce the possession of guns among our criminal class, with a corresponding reduction in homicide rates.
     
  2. Nailknot

    Nailknot Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,909
    Media:
    38
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Nice examination of the 2nd's intent, Griswald. The thoughtful post is appreciated. Nooksack- I'm not sure where you're coming from with the Red Dawn analogy (and is driving a constitutionally protected right, or where did that analogy come from? and I'm assuming you don't support the war in Iraq, given the armed people's militia there?) Anyway, I don't believe we're anywhere near heavy gun control, and never had been. Another right paranoia issue. Question: given a strict interpretation of the 2nd, shouldn't any individual be permitted to own any arms? i.e. m1 abrams tank, or land mines, or even nukes?
     
  3. cuponoodle breakfast

    cuponoodle breakfast Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,707
    Likes Received:
    345
    Location:
    Arlington
    "I believe that handguns should be illegal, and so should automatic weapons."

    Automatic weapons have been illegal for decades. I've been in several online discussions about this issue and in every one of them, the anti-gun people show just how much they know about guns and gun laws.
    To drive a car on public roads, you need a driver's license. To carry a handgun in public, you need a concealed pistol license.
    Those who have a documented history of being irresponsible (felons, domestic abusers, the mentally unstable) are already prohibited from owning firearms. Enforcement of current laws would do more for society than writing new laws that would get the same half-hearted enforcement.
     
  4. Griswald

    Griswald a.k.a. Griswald

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Vashon Island, Wa.
    Cuponoodle, my rebuttal will be swift and effective:

    "I believe that handguns should be illegal, and so should automatic weapons."

    Automatic weapons have been illegal for decades. (I already knew that and assumed our audience did too Thank you for pointing out the obvious.)

    I've been in several online discussions about this issue and in every one of them, the anti-gun people show just how much they know about guns and gun laws. (I am not anti-gun, I have been a multiple gun owner for over 25 years.)
    To drive a car on public roads, you need a driver's license. To carry a handgun in public, you need a concealed pistol license. (Again thank you for stating the obvious to our audience)
    Those who have a documented history of being irresponsible (felons, domestic abusers, the mentally unstable) are already prohibited from owning firearms. Enforcement of current laws would do more for society than writing new laws that would get the same half-hearted enforcement.

    (Why wait for someone to prove they are an irresponsible gun owner...why not tighten things up on the front end, surely those with nothing to hide will be fine with this---I am.)

    And anyone who would like to have a debate regarding my "knowledge of fire arm types, their development and implementation in both military and civilian applications, weapons history,ballistic statistics, uses and interesting stories, I would welcome any and all to speak freely- I warmly embrace your attempt to "expose" me as a anti gun guy who knows not what I speak of. :)
    Griswald
     
  5. Bob Triggs

    Bob Triggs Your Preferred Olympic Peninsula Fly Fishing Guide

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    4,085
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    797
    Location:
    Olympic Peninsula
    Home Page:
    Not to be argumentative, but many fully automatic firearms, and some other "dangerous and destructive devices" can be legally owned in many states, under differing state's qualifications, and with a "class III federal stamp" permit, which is issued by the ATF,(Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms.), after a solid background check. And of course a hefty fee,(tax), is paid for it.

    It is still illegal for people to misuse these firearms. And in the cases where automatic firearms are used in crimes, many of these firearms are posessed illegally; without a permit or stolen etc.

    Once apon a time my dad had a beautiful, mint condition, Browning Water Cooled .30 cal. machine gun, mounted on a tripod, in his living room. The aircooled wwII aviation version took up too much room in his bedroom.

    Most automatic firearms collectors are using them for investments. They may have a few to shoot for fun,( a damned expensive hobby at $2-$5 a burst!), but most of them are too valuable as investments to be carried afield or fired.
     
  6. BOBLAWLESS

    BOBLAWLESS New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,861
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Port Ludlow, WA, USA.
    A machine gun? In the living room? Never heard that :confused: one before.

    Bob, the :confused:
     
  7. cuponoodle breakfast

    cuponoodle breakfast Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,707
    Likes Received:
    345
    Location:
    Arlington
    Sounds to me like someone who wants automatic weapons banned. My appologies for misunderstanding your post.
    If you follow these debates then I'm sure you have heard people ranting about automatic weapons, like they can be purchased at Walmart. They're usually the same people who want "cop-killer bullets" banned.

    My comment about driver's licenses and CPLs was for the person who raised a point about citizens needing a license for a car but not a gun.
     
  8. coonrad

    coonrad New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    156
    Media:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    marine area 10
    Tagging on my 2 cents to this extendo thread...

    Since we have (or used to have) a "government by the people and for the people." Then naturally if the government can have guns, so can and do the people. It's in the constitution, and will probably never change unless the government starts to shift radically to the left or right and decides to throw the constitution out the window.

    In the meantime, the debate seems to revolve around what type of guns the citizens should be allowed to have.

    I think the debate comes down to two things: risk perception and power.

    From a risk perception standpoint, more people die from automobile accidents then firearm deaths each year. However, you see very little debate on the idea of outlawing automobiles, or say reducing national speed limits and requiring all drivers to wear helmets (sure helmets sounds crazy, but think of how many lives would be saved if every driver wore a helmet).

    So based on risk perception if the anti-gun people are not just as concerned about automobile deaths as firearms, then it must not be the loss of life they are concerned about, but the power that a firearm represents.

    The power argument comes down to who do you think should have the power? The people or the government, in deciding who can have guns and what kind.

    With regards to people that would like to outlaw firearms, I would contend that the arguement is not so much about firearms, but about a core belief that most people are generally stupid and the government is therefore required to step in and regulate what these people can and can not do.

    I would counter this argument by saying that the government is generally stupid, and is very irresponsible with their own weapons. Take for instance the US giving Anthrax spores to the Iraq government, or say the fighter jet that just shot up a school in New Jersey. Or the disastrous state of the Hanford Nuclear facility. Or the same government that sent Visa extensions to the 9/11 hijackers after they had blown up the WTC. Ad infinitum.

    So there you have it, the people and the government ran by people have a tendency to be irresponsible with their weapons. So I don't buy the argument that the people are any less to be trusted with weapons than the government. Plus I like what Ed Abbey said "A true patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." Only problem being that the government has all the big guns now.

    Which leads me to my next point, wilderness conservation is not only beneficial for the preservation of fish and wildlife and scenic beauty but as a base of political resistance. Let's say that the government of George Bush (if you're a liberal) or Hillary Clinton (if you're a conservative) decided that things were a little out of control in the good ol' USA and they decided to suspend elections and institute a military dictatorship.

    If everyone is neatly packed in to the cities and all the wilderness is blown up, cut down, mined, extracted and paved over. At this point our cities basically become large concentration camps and any sort of political resistance is neutralized. Look at how the US military surrounded Falluja and basically moved in and destroyed any form of resistance. Now contrast this with the Taliban. During the Afghan war, the Taliban, rather than face destruction by a superior military power, melted away in to the mountains and countryside of wild Afganistan. More reason to save what remains of our wilderness heritage :)

    One more point regarding firearms, the US has experienced a rash of school shootings. If you look in to these cases, most if not all of the shooters were on some sort of psychotropic medication...Zoloft, Paxil, Prozac (flavor of the week). This combined with the fact of the FDA just announcing that children on these drugs have an increased likelihood of suicide.

    In a nutshell, I think if we stopped poisoning our children (and adults) with dangerous, poorly tested psychoactive medications there'd be a lot less crazy sh*t happening out there.

    coonrad

    </end ramble>
     
  9. Troutnut

    Troutnut New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    Home Page:
    That's in my county!

    Crazy stuff...
     
  10. Tom Hawkins

    Tom Hawkins Newbie is fine w/me, I havent been FFing too long

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    60
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oak Harbor, WA (on Whidbey Island)
    Ah So, what country might that be....?

    and.....

    as for adjusting the the US population by ethnic makeup, whats that supposed to mean...?

    As far as "we" should be concerned, our ethnic makeup is considered to be "American", not us'ens and 'dems.....crypts or bloods.....

    In case you havent noticed, some of the late comers to our "party" are dissatisfied with the rules of order.....or wanna make new rules, the answer lies within....

    One common language, by law and by God, is the first step.....

    Education is the next ......

    Respect and responsibility is somewhere in the equation......

    Law and order is a must.....

    Judges to carry out the laws coupled with a system to punish....

    A short list, but thats a start.....

    You don't hear the Iraqis hollerin' about prison reform, they dont have any...!

    Get a few of those American VALUES back in place and the guns will become more "silent"......

    Thats gun control, 200+ years of AMERICAN tradition, checkout the history.....

    Bartender, proceed. :beer2:
     
  11. Tom Hawkins

    Tom Hawkins Newbie is fine w/me, I havent been FFing too long

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    60
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oak Harbor, WA (on Whidbey Island)
    Whats your point, there is no debate. Read the Constitution.
    The gun question is a non-question. FORGET it!
    There are more guns guarding the Constitution than......well, think about it....
    The automobile/gun relationship is simple.....
    "Drive Defensively, Carry a Gun"

    Its fun sociallizing with youse'ns....

    Bartender, proceed. :beer2:
     
  12. Tom Hawkins

    Tom Hawkins Newbie is fine w/me, I havent been FFing too long

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    60
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oak Harbor, WA (on Whidbey Island)
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Matthew Grunwald
    I believe that handguns should be illegal, and so should automatic weapons. Call me a bleeding liberal, but in my opinion, I believe that they serve no purpose, save for killing people. It is what they are designed to do. I believe they are NOT the root cause of the issues we face today---the people who use them are---or are not, but simply put, many people can not handle the responsibilities that go along with owning that type of gun.

    Of course I welcome your comments.

    You may know flyfishing, but you don't know squat about history.....our founding fathers had it right, dont even debate f___ing it up over some mini point.....

    Freedom is not only preserved by THAT strong military, but also by the "unknown" phenominon in this country often referred to as gun ownership,
    how many, who knows, who cares.....?

    Hitler disarmed the populace, and then he procececeeded......

    Bartender, proceed. :beer2:
     
  13. Monk

    Monk Redneck

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    709
    Media:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Marblemount, WA
    "Not to be argumentative, but many fully automatic firearms, and some other "dangerous and destructive devices" can be legally owned in many states, under differing state's qualifications, and with a "class III federal stamp" permit, which is issued by the ATF,(Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms.), after a solid background check."

    Not to be argumentative, but do you know what goes into this background check? It is an FBI style background check. Your chances of passing all the requirements to own this gun: slim to none.
     
  14. Tom Hawkins

    Tom Hawkins Newbie is fine w/me, I havent been FFing too long

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    60
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oak Harbor, WA (on Whidbey Island)
    Lets face it, Abrams tanks and Nukes werent on the radarscope of the founding fathers,the bad guys will agree with you, the citizens with common sense......will prevail. :beer2:
     
  15. Bob Triggs

    Bob Triggs Your Preferred Olympic Peninsula Fly Fishing Guide

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    4,085
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    797
    Location:
    Olympic Peninsula
    Home Page:
    Monk; if one has a clean record and meets the security criteria they get the permits. It is that simple. I now the industry intimately.
     
  16. Tom Hawkins

    Tom Hawkins Newbie is fine w/me, I havent been FFing too long

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    60
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oak Harbor, WA (on Whidbey Island)
    Of the six dead and two wounded, there was ONLY one gun, who was hunting who/what.....mmmmmmmmmm, and if the Wisconsin-ites were hunting legal (w/max 4 round clip) and only one gun, where'd all the shots come from so says the guy from Minnesota........mmmmmmm.....how many shots were left in the clip......
    Wonder how this guys golf game is, it may come up in his trial like Scott Peterson's did......
    Wonder how their going to get a jury of his peers, to speak and understand
    English or are they going to require interpreters...... :beer2:

    Bartender, proceed.
     
  17. Calvin1

    Calvin1 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    620
    Media:
    20
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Sorry, I haven't read through the whole thread, but just to throw my own two cents in, I to think that handguns should be illegal. It is interesting that the second amendment to the constitution is the only amendment with a preamble and/or qualification. "A well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state". This indicates to me that the founding fathers intended to provide a means whereby this amendment could be limited. Section 2 of Article 2 of the constitution discusses when the militia's of the several states are to be placed under the power of the president. I believe that the current National Guard is what the founding fathers envisioned when they placed the preamble in front of the second amendment. Accordingly, I do not think it would be a current infringement of anyone's constitutional rights to make handguns illegal.
     
  18. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,402
    Media:
    85
    Likes Received:
    941
    Location:
    Glenraven Ranch
    You're entitled to your opinion, but let's look beyond it's simplistic nature. How fast do you think your average criminal type is going to turn in the illegal handgun? Does anyone ever think beyond their desire to the implementation?

    All the laws we have today don't prevent crimes, they just prosecute the offenders.

    Until we look at the nature of our being and are willing to change, all else is spit in the wind... :ray1:
     
  19. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    204
    Location:
    .

    Bob, haven't you seen The Omega Man with Charleton Heston? (Well, maybe it wasn't his living room.)
     
  20. Calvin1

    Calvin1 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    620
    Media:
    20
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    You may think my opinion is simplistic and I could say the same about yours. If our concern is that criminals have handguns so us law abiders need them as well, then we might as well pass them out to everyone. The point of my post was to address the point that people raise regarding their constitutional right to own a gun. My point is that I don't believe that the constitution, as written, provides this right.

    Hopefully this is not too simplistic.
     

Share This Page