I miss my guns.....

[TQ]

Ain't no thang. We knew what you meant.
Of course I can't stand it when I make typos, too.

[wayne_abx]

FA83 454Casull

Primary Boar gun

-wayne

[shootcraps]

Originally posted by wayne_b


FA83 454Casull

Primary Boar gun

-wayne

NOw that's sweet! I've never fired one of those but I want to. I also want to try a .45 Winchester Magnum. Grizzly used to make those, are they still? Tell you a funny story about that later. Getting ready for a trip to the Cinderella Castle.

[shepsan]

A gun is not a toy. It is a killing instrument and should be treated as such (responsibly, safely and with prudence).

The purpose for a non-LEO law-abiding person to carry concealed is for protection not for fun. I am apprehensive when in the presence of a person with a gun who thinks it is fun to carry it concealed.

To my mind, a person who carries because it is fun is imature. As a matter of fact, I consider that person to be dangerous and undisciplined. Such a person is a threat to all within the range of his weapon.

Owing a handgun, obtaining a CCW and spending a segment of time firing at targets does not make one a safe and proficient user of firearms. Having self-discipline (maturity) and allowing the rules of safe gun handling to dominate one’s thinking process while carrying a gun does become the foundation to safe and proficient gun handling.

I carry concealed (by virtue of a CCW) as a means to protect myself and family. I hope that I never find myself carrying because it is fun.

[TQ]

A sober and intelligent point of view, shepscan. I couldn't agree more.

[Bofinn]

No fewer than twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional history, to construe this right out of existence.

They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee.

[TQ]

It's always mystified me that every other article is regarded as protecting individual rights, yet for some odd reason the SECOND (pretty significant placement, IMO) Amendment is somehow to be construed as a collective (militia) right.
An inventive point of view, to put it nicely.

[wayne_abx]

The Constitution make it abundantly clear in its distinction of 'Peoples" rights and 'States' rights. The Second Amendment gives the People the right to bear arms and the States right to form a militia

Courts that 'refuse' to note the distinction in its opinion are doing nothing but Legislating from the bench.

-wayne

[GreyFox]

Originally posted by wayne
The Constitution make it abundantly clear in its distinction of 'Peoples" rights and 'States' rights. The Second Amendment gives the People the right to bear arms and the States right to form a militia

Courts that 'refuse' to note the distinction in its opinion are doing nothing but Legislating from the bench.

-wayne

Don't most courts now "Legislate from the Bench" instead of following the letter of the "law"? Just my opion

[wayne_abx]

Originally posted by GreyFox
Don't most courts now "Legislate from the Bench" instead of following the letter of the "law"? Just my opion

Yes, unfortunately you are correct!

-wayne

[SubZero]

I'd say we could add this to the HD forum... along with the other(s) on this topic.

[PolishManiac]

here in austrlia gun laws are very stringent, we had a bit of a massacre a few years back, the country went nuts, we then had all auto or semi-auto guns banned and any other gun that you wished to hand in to be destroyed you were given money for


Well anyway iv been reading the post and iv got to say you have changed my views on the matter completly, i was a anti gun person i coukd say i still am but i agree, that to protect my family and kids (eventually heres hoping) is paramount although i feel that where i live i have no need for one, if ever in the future i feel the need to get one ill will take all that you have said into view

also the post about englands laws made me sick to the stomach i could not deal with such a feeling of useless ness to have someone there robbing you or endangering you and you cant even do anything well ...now i getting angry sorry

still i like the fact that England has a noone has a gun law but even im not that naive in thinking that someone could get there hands on one if they wanted.

as Robin Williams says
" In England they have no guns, the bad guys have no guns and neither do the police so if the police are trying to catch someone they go "Stop....or ill say stop again"

[Spoonman_abx]

I didnt write the following, but got it through an email passed along ......


"Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history.
Something to think about...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to
1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13
million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced
by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by
their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more
than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up
3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent
(yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with
firearms are now up 300 percent.
(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey
is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of
the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was
expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." The
Australian
experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our
president, governors or other politicians disseminating this
information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and,
yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Criminals
do not care about the law - who would have guessed?

Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind
them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control
message to all of your friends."


Take what you will from this or don't, but it I found it interesting nonetheless. I wonder if anyone from Australia can confirm or deny these statistics?

[Drufuss]

Stastics, statistics, statistics.

I don´t think you can say that the millions of jews killed in the third reich during holocaust was because of to restrict gun laws? Maybe hitler would´ve decided against the "Endlösung" if all the jews had a gun at hand to defend themself.

This goes for all the statistics you presented.
For example Cambodia. A mad dictator, trying to establish an "agro-communistic system", who wanted everyone killed that could´ve been intellectuel. I don´t think that without a restrictive gun-law, everyone would´ve been able to defend himself, and the red-Khmer (i think it was them) would´ve gone back into the jungle, or Pol Pot would´ve fought for capitalism instead.


With a well organized and financed police system, no honest citizen would have to carry a weapon for self defense. Because the system should defend him if necessary, or would take care of the elements he needs to be protected from.
If you feel the need to protect yourself, because the system can´t give you enough protection, something is wrong (with the system or you).
If you feel the need to protect yourself against the system, something is wrong too (with you or with the system).

Greetings

Dru

[StefanPI]

I like to think of alternative solutions to problems i encounter and the standard solution to many criminals with guns and unstable societies seems to be get a gun yourself - it seems to work but not good. I myself have no desire to have a gunfight with a dangerous criminal. I also dont want to watch my step everywhere go and being suspicious of everyone i dont know and always being ready for ultimate violence. No matter how good you are there is always someone better or you might get caught by surprise and the steaks are infinite - you and your family could get killed or permanently disabled.

So i wonder is there an alternative solution to this? offcource without sacrificing personal privacy or freedom.

Originally posted by Spoonman
I didnt write the following, but got it through an email passed along ......


"Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history.
Something to think about...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to
1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13
million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced
by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by
their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more
than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up
3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent
(yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with
firearms are now up 300 percent.
(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey
is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of
the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was
expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." The
Australian
experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our
president, governors or other politicians disseminating this
information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and,
yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Criminals
do not care about the law - who would have guessed?

Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind
them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control
message to all of your friends."


Take what you will from this or don't, but it I found it interesting nonetheless. I wonder if anyone from Australia can confirm or deny these statistics?