Why Grandpa carries a gun: PS. I'm grandpa

[Psparr]

Why would a homicidal maniac bent on killing people worry about getting caught?

[gww]

Ace
I really don't believe in safety classes and figure it is mostly a money grab.  I do believe that if safety classes are required that they should be taught in public school.  I actully was taught in school in probly the 6th grade or so.  I took my 20 gauge simi-auto remington shotgun to class that day, on the buss and everything.  We had a feild day and went to the firing range.  The bigest thing for x-mas was getting a shot gun or a 30-30 for a present.  Me and my cousens were squirl hunting way before it would be leagal for us to own guns today.  They sold guns at all the targets and sears stores and there where no specialty stores that I knew of that sold only guns.

I don't get safety training on something that the only real thing you have to know is to point it in the air or at the ground and keep the safety on untill you are ready to fire.  It doesn't take fourty or eight or four hours to learn that.

My deer rifle is a remington 742 simi auto that though it doesn't look like a military issue works in exactly the same fassion and you can buy large capasity clips on line for it all day.

To your 22 bolt not being a good defense weapon.  All I can say is you are probly correct but I can hit what I aim at better with a little 22 than I can with any other gun but a shot gun.

I reamember in the early 70s of a family that was murdered and now days they say violent crime is actually down.  There is nothing new under the sun except maby the reporting and sociaties distance from food production and this distance giving the reporting with an agenda more credence due to most not being affected by restrictions anymore.  It was bad people that murdered in the 70's just like today.  Bad is bad.

Because it affects me and what I believe is normal, I hate to see the changes that indicate that I am living wrongly.  I do not believe this.  I know many are not affected by the changes but I will be and don't believe it is something that I have earned by bad behavior.

Just my thoughts.
gww

[Michael Bush]

>You have a right to drive a car ... it requires a license and registration
>You have a right to fish ... it requires a license along with limit rules and species that are in season
>You have a right to own a boat ... it requires a registration
>You have a right to own a snowmobile ... it requires a registration
>You have  a right to hunt ... it requires a license and a season for hunting

By definition if it requires a license,  it is not a right.  None of those are specified in the constitution or the bill of rights.

[Kathyp]

You have a right

...No, all the things you listed are privileges given by states and licenced to bring money into states.  Your real rights are protected, not given, by the constitution.  By definition, a right requires no permission.

Following your line of logic, you could be required to be licenced to speak publicly or post on the internet.  You could be required to register the type of church you choose to attend, or secure prior permission to attend group activities.  We all know of people and places that are up to no good, and for the order of society and the safety of the people, it makes sense to have a better idea of what people are up to.

Freedom is messy and sometimes dangerous business.  The other option is for the government to keep everyone safe by controlling everything.  They can do a pretty good job of it.  You didn't have a lot of riots, shootings, etc. in E. Germany, the USSR, or even Communist China.  When something like that did happen, like the mass killing by knife in China, the government is there to swoop in and make sure it doesn't happen again...although the methods they use are a bit harsh...but hey, everyone ends up safe.

   

[Acebird]

Why would a homicidal maniac bent on killing people worry about getting caught?

Because he/she wants to carry out their mission.  If caught in the early stages their plan is foiled.

[Acebird]

By definition if it requires a license,  it is not a right.  None of those are specified in the constitution or the bill of rights.

I am sorry I used the wrong word ... it is a privilege not a right.  I don't see that it changes what I said.

[Acebird]

They can do a pretty good job of it.  You didn't have a lot of riots, shootings, etc. in E. Germany, the USSR, or even Communist China.   

Says who?  E. Germany crumbled, the USSR crumbled, It will crumble again for the same reason, China is becoming so westernized their communist government is going to be short lived.  When it does cave the US will be second in line for the worlds super powers.  Power is money the two are not separate.

[Kathyp]

it is a privilege not a right.  I don't see that it changes what I said.

because the two are very different things.  a privilege is given.  A right is inherent. 

Says who?  E. Germany crumbled, the USSR crumbled, It will crumble again for the same reason,

Yes, and what happened?  You immediately had free markets, people getting rich, AND a whole lot of crime that had not been seen before.  Gangs, corruption, etc.  E. Germany had it better because they were unified with a stable society and one that had not killed off its moral code as had been done in Russia. 

[divemaster1963]

kathyp. you said that east germany was sable? I had many conversations with my father who went into those easten countries. there was no stabliaty, the blackmarket was rampant and murders happened in middle of streets infront of everyone including the military( who where afraid of the blackmarket gangs) to prove there power. the only reason the west someone would say they were stable was that it was never spoken about. only thing that kept people inline over there was fear! not as much from the goverment than from the gangs.

john

my father had a bullet in his upper arm for 35 years to prove that just walking the street in eastern berlin was a roll of the dice.

[Kathyp]

kathyp. you said that east germany was sable? I had many conversations with my father who went into those easten countries. there was no stabliaty, the blackmarket was rampant and murders happened in middle of streets infront of everyone including the military( who where afraid of the blackmarket gangs) to prove there power. the only reason the west someone would say they were stable was that it was never spoken about. only thing that kept people inline over there was fear! not as much from the goverment than from the gangs.

No, I meant they had it better after communism ended because they were rolled into a stable country.  The difference between what happened in Russia and what happened in other countries had much to do with how the culture had survived.  The Russians had been destroying culture since the early 1900s.  Other countries, Poland for example, had not been completely gutted of culture, religion, etc.  Becoming a free country again was much smoother for them. 

The east germans did have issues with reintegration.  They had become accustomed to the government doing all for them.  The west Germans had issues with the lack of work ethic, etc. in the east Germans.  Even so, they have been able to overcome much of that where in Russia there are still problems.  The industrious, criminal or otherwise, have done well, but a lot of the people had no clue how to do for themselves and still don't.  There is a reason many wish for the return of communism in Russia. 

[Hops Brewster]

By definition if it requires a license,  it is not a right.  None of those are specified in the constitution or the bill of rights.

I am sorry I used the wrong word ... it is a privilege not a right.  I don't see that it changes what I said.

And that is where you err, for there is a great difference between rights and priveleges, therefore none of your list are cogent arguments.

The misbelief that rights are assigned by government instead of inherently universal is the common misconception in the arguments of anti-2A crowd.  Our founders clearly stated that we are all born with certain rights, and that the purpose of the government was to guarantee those rights. Not to dole them out special classes like the army, the wealthy and the powerful. 
The 2A is there specifically to prevent subjugation of the common people by the elite.

Frankly acebird, I don't understand how you can claim that you believe in the 2A when your arguments are the stock answers constantly thrown out by those who would remove it.  You clearly do not understand what 2A is, or even the difference between rights and priveleges.

[Dallasbeek]

Hops, I'll take exception to your statement that the purpose of government is to guarantee certain rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.  That amendment doesn't charge the govt. to protect our right, but instead forbids the govt. from taking any action that infringes the right.  The right we have under the Second Amendment is the right to protect ourselves with arms from the government's infringement of OTHER  rights enumerated in the Constitution..  The people had very little trust in governments of any kind and the Bill of Rights was a reassurance to the people of the several states that the government would not be able to impose the thinking of Bostonians and New Yorkers or Philadelphians on the people of Virginia, Georgia,, Maine, etc., on all the people of the other States.  They were (rightfully) distrustful of any government because they had experienced being treated as second-class citizens (subjects) of England's Parliament. 

I could argue with other statements made in this string about civilians rebelling against the Army's might, but I'll only say that our Army is not as likely as it once was to fire upon Americans (Google the Army's firing on strikers at Ford's factory, for example) as it once was.  The Nuremburg trials pretty much did away with the defense of "I was only following orders". When I took the oath as a soldier it was something about following the LAWFUL order of my superiors.

[Dallasbeek]

Well, Inwrote a very profound folloe-up to my last post, which may even have met KathyP's standards, and then submitted it to spell check and lost it -- maybe forever.  Never trust spell check or autocorrect.  DARN!

[Kathyp]

which may even have met KathyP's standards,

I have no standards   

condolences on losing your post though.  I have done that and it sucks a lot. 

[iddee]

KathyP says  "the Bill of Rights was a reassurance to the people of the several states that the government would not be able to impose the thinking of Bostonians and New Yorkers or Philadelphians on the people of Virginia, Georgia,, Maine, etc., on all the people of the other States.""

WOW. That sure didn't work very well in 1860, did it?

[MikeCinWV]

"You honestly believe the second amendment gives you an edge against the federal government?  Your delusional."

The Afghans were able to hold off Russia then us with just small arms and IED's for the most part.  These "war weapons " you refer to I'm assuming you mean ar15s and the like?  What the uniformed don't realize is that if you just change the stock (the non mechanical end piece of the weapon that goes against your shoulder) an ar15 becomes nothing more than a semi automatic hunting rifle.   How ridiculous!!!!  Guns are not the problem, it's totally an issue of culture.  Chicago is a prime example.  Toughest fun laws in the country worst gun crime rate.  What Chicago does have is the majority of its young men growing up in single parent homes not knowing who their dad is.  When we are willing to address the real problem gun violence will plumet.  Where I live every house has at least 8 to 10 guns but gun violence is unheard of.  Now an hour north to Steubenville OH or hour and half to Pittsburgh and it's another story but again you're back to kids running wild in the streets while mom sucks up welfare and 40's of malt while "baby daddy" is in jail or just plain MIA.  If you want to fix the problem then address the REAL problem no matter how politically incorrect it is to do so.

[iddee]

AMEN MIKEC

[Kathyp]

KathyP says  "the Bill of Rights was a reassurance to the people of the several states that the government would not be able to impose the thinking of Bostonians and New Yorkers or Philadelphians on the people of Virginia, Georgia,, Maine, etc., on all the people of the other States.""

I don't think I said that...but there are any number of arguments about that year.  which would you like to take up?   

[iddee]

My apologies, Kathy. It was Dallasbeek in reply #31. I'm sorry.

[Kathyp]

My apologies, Kathy. It was Dallasbeek in reply #31. I'm sorry.

that's OK.  I could make some age jokes....but I'll be nice