Its funny that you use the phrase "pro-gun". It seems that people familiar with firearms tend to support private ownership of firearms, even those that choose not to own one themselves. While those unfamiliar with firearms tends to be against private ownership. Familiar as in having gone shooting to some small extent at some point in their lives. Unfamiliar as in what they "know" they "learned" from the mass media, TV and movies. What does that tell you?
I am entirely familiar with firearms, and grew up with them around me in the country in the UK. However, they were used for hunting and that was it. Handguns and automatic rifles are only useful for killing people. So I have no problem with handguns and automatic rifels being illegal here.
Automatic weapons are also outlawed here in the U.S. The "assault weapons" ban in the U.S. would outlaw semi-automatic firearms that when equipped with a 5 round magazine are functionally identical to common semi-auto hunting rifles. The differences are entirely cosmetic appearance.
Semi-autos are also used in tournament shooting. Again, a 5 round magazine is all that is required. Even in the tournaments sponsored by the U.S. military no more than 10 rounds are fired at a particular stage. These stages are timed and a reload is required, so two 5 round magazines work perfectly.
Semi-autos are also used for pest control. For example feral pigs, coyotes, etc on farms and ranches.
And of course semi-auto are also used for plain old informal target shooting.
Semi-autos have many perfectly legal uses in the U.S. that involve harming no one. This includes the "assault weapons", which again are functionally identical to regular hunting and sporting semi-autos when equipped with a 5 round magazine. I believe such firearms manufactured in the U.S. ship from their factories with such magazines to be compliant out-of-the box with hunting regulations.
... I'm defenceless to rise up in armed revolution against the goverrnment...
The preparation for armed revolt thing is just coming from a small fringe that the media loves to high light. The media is somewhat biased in the U.S. regarding gun control and seems to intentionally provide a distorted image. I am not making up the following, the following was actually broadcast on TV during the nightly news the last time an "assault weapons" ban was proposed in the 1990s. A lawyer working as a PR representative for a national gun control group was interviewed to provide the pro ban argument. To be "fair" a representative from the anti ban side was also interviewed. The national gun rights group had its own lawyers working as PR representatives, was one of these interviewed? No. They interviewed the first guy with facial hair and wearing camouflage that they could find exiting a gun store. You may not be getting an accurate portrayal of U.S. gun owners from your local media either.
having an unloaded locked up gun around the house does not. Smart people tend to go with the later option.
Since most people claim "self defense from home intruders" as the reason they need a gun at home,...
That would surprise me. I expect hunting and sporting to be the primary reasons, self defense a secondary reason. I think self defense is merely a more common talking point since it represents an established legal principle, and because as some anti-gun folks toss out high emotion arguments some pro-gun folks toss out their own high emotion arguments.
... what good does it do to have it properly secured?
Unlocking and loading can be done rather quickly, even in the dark. A scenario where there is no time to do so is so unlikely it is not worth worrying about. The scenario where someone gets hurt with an unsecured loaded gun is far more likely.
What most pro-gun people don't tend to consider is that when everyone has guns, it's more likely that someone will lose their cool and fire one in anger at someone else. Or just be a dick and use one to commit crimes.
Switzerland proves otherwise. They have universal conscription and have hundreds of thousands of genuine fully automatic assault rifles in private homes. Plus they also have hundreds of thousands of so called "assault weapons", semi-auto and capable of accepting military high capacity magazines, in private homes as well. However given universal conscription the gun owners have had proper training in safe handling, the guns are stored locked and the owners have had a background check.
I grew up in a part of the U.S. where hunting and firearms ownership was fairly common. A region with town populations generally in the low tens of thousands, a few over a hundred thousand. Our per capita crime rate involving firearms was low, far lower than more urban regions where firearms were banned or severely restricted.
Its not the guns. Its the lack of training, proper storage and background checks that seem to be the problem.
Its funny that you use the phrase "pro-gun". It seems that people familiar with firearms tend to support private ownership of firearms, even those that choose not to own one themselves. While those unfamiliar with firearms tends to be against private ownership. Familiar as in having gone shooting to some small extent at some point in their lives. Unfamiliar as in what they "know" they "learned" from the mass media, TV and movies. What does that tell you?
Again, just to be clear. Private ownership is one thing, however I think both the pro and anti sides generally agree that safety training, safe storage and background checks are all good things.
If you can't hunt without a semi-automatic weapon, you utterly fail at hunting...
Apparently you have not hunted pigs/boar, duck/geese, etc; nor have you had to deal with pigs, coyote, etc on a farm or ranch. Semi-auto's are very popular among many hunters for very good reasons.
And since killing animals is immoral in any case...
The homeless shelters and other charities that accept donations of venison and pork from hunters disagree.
What is the moral difference between a hunter and someone who pays Ronald MacDonald or the Burger King to kill the animal for them? Our species eats meat, get over it.
Sincerely, The Sane and the Moral
The tone and content of your post suggests that you are neither. Thank you for choosing not to own a firearm. However please stop projecting your shortcomings on the rest of us.
While having an accessible loaded gun around the house does in fact increase one's risk, having an unloaded locked up gun around the house does not. Smart people tend to go with the later option.
Err...that unloaded, locked up hard to access gun isn't going to do you much good in a time of emergency when you need to shoot some fucker that has just broken into your home, and is likely armed with a real, unlocked, loaded and cocked gun.
That home invasion type scenario is so remote in probability it is not worth worrying about.
Plus locked up does not have to be slow to access. As for time to load, dropping a shell into the ejection port of a 12 gauge pump shotgun takes nearly no time at all. Filling the magazine tube can be done at one's leisure since the sound of the pump action being worked has probably caused the "bad guy" to change his mind and leave.
There is that statistic about the accessible loaded gun creating a risk for its owner, but I wonder if it decreases the risk (of crime victimization generally) of its owner's neighbor? I imagine that a whole block of armed people will have less crime than a block of unarmed people.
The unloaded locked up guns would seem to provide the same effect. Loading takes little time. There are locked boxes that are designed to be quickly opened, even in the dark. A scenario where a homeowner, or even more so the neighbors, does not have the very brief time period necessary to unlock and load a firearm is so remote its not worth worrying about.
You do understand that laws don't work by magic, right?
Some laws are not intended to work, the actual intent is to get politicians the type of press coverage that they desire. The public is largely ill-informed regarding firearms in many regions and giving them a placebo gets votes. Real solutions would take too much time and distract a politician from fundraising.
Just outlaw semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines. It's not difficult. Jesus fucking Christ.
Why outlaw semi-auto rifles if high capacity magazines are outlawed? There are an awful lot of ordinary hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns that are semi-auto in operation, far far more than there are the so called "assault weapons". For that matter, if an "assault weapon" has a 5 round "hunting" magazine in it why outlaw it? Because it has a black plastic stock, or is it the attachment point for a flashlight?
Smart people never own guns, because smart people know guns are more harmful than they are helpful
Given your ignorance on this topic you are hardly qualified to discuss what smart people know.
While having an accessible loaded gun around the house does in fact increase one's risk, having an unloaded locked up gun around the house does not. Smart people tend to go with the later option.
The NRA is full of memeber who ahve no wish to actual confront this issue.
With respect to firearms you have things absolutely backwards. Unlike with video games, the NRA is well informed and has the facts on their side regarding firearms.
... and a serious look at the that data about gun control. Something they stop wanting about 15 years ago when the data very clearly shows a decrease in killing when guns are severly restricted.
You are mistaken. The data actually shows no correlation. There are regions in the US with severe restrictions where the murder rate is low and there are regions with lax firearms regulations where the murder rate is low. Its not the presence or absence of firearms itself that leads to a low murder rate, there are some other factors that do so. More likely it has something to do with education and poverty. Lets look at Switzerland where many households have real assault rifles (fully automatic), high capacity magazines and 300 rounds of ammunition in their home. One difference between the Swiss and the US is that the Swiss did receive proper training and keep the weapon and ammunition locked up.
You want more real data? Hunting related accidents dropped dramatically after hunter safety classes became required in the US in order to get a hunting license. Anyone who has had such a class can testify that the majority of the class is basic firearms safety. 1/3 of firearms deaths are accidents. Many of these deaths could probably be prevented by requiring firearms owners to take a safety class before they get their first gun, much like hunters are required to take their safety class before they get their first license.
As far as the NRA goes with respect to reasonable legislation. They have helped write some. When naive gun control types got all hysterical over cop-killer bullets these folks drafted legislation that would outlaw all ammunition with some sort of coating. This would have outlawed nearly all ammunition over.22 calibre, basically anything with a full or partial copper jacket. The NRA helped rewrite the legislation so it applied only to the teflon coated ammunition notorious for penetrating body armor. Again naive gun control types got all hysterical over plastic guns and drafted legislation to outlaw everything without some number of ounces of steel. The problem here is that many firearms that are perfectly detectable in metal detectors are using metal alloys that are not technically steel. The NRA helped rewrite this legislation so that it only banned firearms that were not detectable in the metal detectors of the day.
Similarly the "assault weapon" bans are also largely hysteria. There is no difference in capability between the so called "assault weapons" and normal semiauto hunting rifles. Both fire the same ammunition and when a hunting magazine (5 round max) is inserted into the "assault weapon" it fire no more rounds and no faster than the hunting rifle. On the flip side when a military magazine (say 30 round capacity) is put into the hunting rifle it has the same capability as the "assault weapon" with such a magazine. The only differences between the "assault weapon" and the semiauto hunting rifle are cosmetic, appearance not function.
NRA members and many firearms owners understand this. That is why the last time an "assault weapon" ban was passed firearms owning republicans, democrats and independents who had no interest in buying an "assault weapon" threw out many of the politicians who voted for the ban. They rightfully feared that their regular semiauto hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns were in danger of being banned next. It happened in various European countries. The original "assault weapon" ban legislation in the US specifically listed certain firearms designs that did not include regular hunting and sporting firearms but this legislation also allowed the Secretary of the Treasury (oversees Alcohol Tobacco
---gun owners, in at least one study, were 4 times more likely to be injured by a gun than non-gun owners. And gun owners with an opportunity to defend themselves with their weapons were over 5 times more likely to be injured or killed by a gun than non-gun owners. You are right not to have a gun in the house, when you have children. In addition to the accidents that can occur, it's sobering to consider that nearly half of teen suicides are committed with guns. Yes, some of those suicidal kids will find another way, but I can't help thinking that making suicide harder to accomplish at least reduces the impulsive acts, and that could lead to finding treatment. The statistics about domestic abuse and guns are even more depressing.
And proper training would eliminate most of these accidents and child suicides. The requirement to go through a hunter's safety class in order to get a hunting license greatly reduced the number of hunting accidents. When I went through the class it was mostly firearms safety and statistics similar to what you offer were brought up. However the solution was to keep firearms securely locked up and/or partially disassembled (ex. remove the bolt from the rifle and lock up the bolt - only need a small box not a large case). We were taught that keeping a loaded firearm laying around for defense actually put us at risk and that keeping the firearm locked up in some manner reduced the risk back to a household without any firearms. Our class was taught by a state game warden and "books" were state publications.
please, then, explain your interpretation of the first phrase of the 2nd amendment, which qualifies the second phrase. That is, are you part of a well regulated militia, and tell us how you are "well regulated"?
All able bodied males 18-45 are in the militia according to US federal law. The militia has two parts, first the active part which includes but is not limited to the National Guard, the second is the inactive part that includes everyone else. Active/inactive refers to whether you are expected to train periodically. "Regulated" in its 1776 context is also referring to being trained so one performs in an efficient manner, it is not referring to be licensed or restricted.
Sorry no link, this was discussed in an ROTC class in college where the organization of the US military was being described. Regular, active reserve, inactive reserve, federalized national guard, active militia, inactive militia,...
I think you are confusing the perspective of ACLU lawyers with the perspective of military veterans.
Members of the military being confused as to exactly what they're fighting for? That's a shocker.
According to the Supreme Court military veterans are not defending fighting words.
"Fighting Words
Inflammatory words that are either injurious by themselves or might cause the hearer to immediately retaliate or breach the peace. Use of such words is not necessarily protected "free speech" under the First Amendment..." http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/fighting-words-term.html
As for the combat veterans I have known they seem perfectly fine with the notion that some speech will get you a kick in the ass or a punch in the face from your fellow citizen.
As long as they're perfectly fine with spending the day in jail and having an assault conviction on their record.
Plus unlikely to find a jury to convict a combat veteran of assault on WBC member at a funeral for a simple kick in the ass or punch in the face.
Also, you realize that combat veterans have demonstrated the ability to do what is right, to protect others, rather than what is in their personal best interest?
If they were picketing a kids funeral and the father or uncle went up and punched them in the nose and I was on the jury I would find them not guilty
Why do you want to corrupt my court system by deciding a case not on the facts but on your little feelings?
Because he wants justice. Justice being something that the letter of the law occasionally fails to deliver. Its one of the reasons we have jurors, to cover such omissions of the legislature.
Also, it seems a fact that the protester in this case deserved a punch in the nose.
Can a funeral or memorial service be declared "private?" That is, perhaps a military funeral in a military cemetery can only be considered public (I don't know; it's just a perhaps), but like some weddings, cannot some funerals be declared private and cemetery managers reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?
Many cemeteries are private property open to the public. However the owners of the property are within their rights to declare permissible
and prohibited conduct, terms of use if you will. Violating the terms of the owners allows the owners to ask you to leave. If you fail to leave you are now trespassing and may be arrested. This happens at shopping malls every day.
Free speech is not just speech you just like. It's any speech.
Wrong. The constitution only prevents government reprisals or discrimination against a speaker. Private citizens are under no such prohibition. Private citizens are free to punish speakers, that is what recent boycotts against Chick-fil-A were. All we can really say is that Anon is choosing to punish in an illegal manner.
You would destroy all of the freedoms so many have died for you to obtain -- if only because a group is using speech you deem unacceptable. Shame. Shame on you sir.
I think you are confusing the perspective of ACLU lawyers with the perspective of military veterans. As for the combat veterans I have known they seem perfectly fine with the notion that some speech will get you a kick in the ass or a punch in the face from your fellow citizen.
You seem to have made the error that freedom from government consequences somehow implies freedom from consequences from your fellow citizens.
"Even if Russia would have attacked with the atomic bombing they would be quite busy on the mainland for many more months."
Not really. The USSR had defeated the Kwantung army (with 600000 vs 12000 dead in favor of the USSR) a couple of days after the first bombing, so militarily Japan had nothing to wage a serious war with.
Its not that simple. The terrain favored the massive mechanized assault in that case. Other regions were not so accommodating and the Russians never touched them. Matter of fact they remained in place long after the surrender as a "police" force under Allied control. It would have taken the Russians a while to secure the mainland regions if Japan had not surrendered.
The war was basically over. The main part of the Japanese Army was on the Chinese mainland.
The forces in Japan were more than sufficient to inflict massive casualties on the US. Look at what they managed at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the previous two battles on Japanese soil. Plus they were training their civilians to resist and fight. Plus we now know they were planning on using chemical weapons on the invasion beaches when the US landed. Plus they had been holding back kamikaze aircraft and suicide boats, again look at Okinawa. Plus they had also perfected the aerial dropping of bubonic plague infected fleas, they even tested it on Chinese villages, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731. Marry this with their new submarines that could launch 2 or 3 aircraft, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine, and they would have the capability to target San Francisco not just invasion beaches. We have no idea what would have happened if the war went on until Spring 1946, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_japan.
Even if Russia would have attacked with the atomic bombing they would be quite busy on the mainland for many more months. Plus the Russians did not have an amphibious capability, they could not invade the Japanese home islands in force even if they wanted to.
Again, the vast majority of the Japanese army was on the Japanese mainland.
The millions of Japanese casualties that the previous poster referred to would have been predominately civilian. Some fighting, some caught in the middle, some suiciding... again see Okinawa.
This is very true. When I was in Germany I went to the dachau camp. It was a very somber experience. There was plenty explaining exactly what happened on the grounds. It was preserved and rebuilt in some ways, but it was never "endorsed"
I felt some pride at the gate looking at the plaques commemorating the U.S. 20th Armored Division and U.S. 42nd Infantry Division, they liberated the camp. A member of my family was in the U.S. 101st Airborne Division and they liberated of one of the sub-camps nearby. I was proud of the guys who shut down these camps and destroyed the government that created them.
But, yeah, once my eyes moved from the plaques to the original motto on the gate things became quite somber.
Spending locally can benefit you, or divert harm from you.
Fundamentally either you're paying the salary of a sales clerk or the salary of a UPS/truck/postal deliveryman.
Not really. Only a very small portion of your payment goes to their salary. However when buying brick and mortar there is more opportunity for other parts of your payment to go into the local economy.
Follow your own advice. Pay attention when they mention the phrase "comparative advantage."
Do you understand that phrase? The theory of comparative advantage was developed for a brick and mortar world. Goods that are imported are still sold by locals in that model. Consumers are *not* buying a product directly from a distant vendor and merely waiting for goods to show up in the mail.
... my requirements for quality, selection, availability and price... To choose vendors on arbitrary 'feel good' sloganeering deprives me of the best value...
You need to take an economics class. Spending locally is not merely feel good sloganeering. Where you purchase and where things are made do matter. Where you spend your money improves a community, if not your then someone else's. The health of your community and your local government's ability to provide you services also provides you a value. With respect to the local government, if they don't get taxes from local businesses they will get it directly from local residents. If things get too extreme or too out of balance the community crashes.
There is a balance to all things and to not consider locality among your other considerations actually does negatively contribute to the environment you live in.
That's an interesting way to approach life. But let me ask you this: if everyone followed your philosophy, would the world be a better place or worse? Sure, you buying locally will help your local community. But if other people in other communities restrict their shopping to their local shops, wouldn't your local community suffer because it no longer has any markets to export to?
No. Because not everything is made or available locally.
Plus there are little complications such as when price is the only factor in a purchasing decision it destroys competition by favoring larger organizations that can leverage economies of scale, externalize costs (manufacture in regions with poor environmental laws, recognize profits in regions with little to no taxes, etc), engage in monopolistic or other unfair practices, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Its funny that you use the phrase "pro-gun". It seems that people familiar with firearms tend to support private ownership of firearms, even those that choose not to own one themselves. While those unfamiliar with firearms tends to be against private ownership. Familiar as in having gone shooting to some small extent at some point in their lives. Unfamiliar as in what they "know" they "learned" from the mass media, TV and movies. What does that tell you?
I am entirely familiar with firearms, and grew up with them around me in the country in the UK. However, they were used for hunting and that was it. Handguns and automatic rifles are only useful for killing people. So I have no problem with handguns and automatic rifels being illegal here.
Automatic weapons are also outlawed here in the U.S. The "assault weapons" ban in the U.S. would outlaw semi-automatic firearms that when equipped with a 5 round magazine are functionally identical to common semi-auto hunting rifles. The differences are entirely cosmetic appearance.
Semi-autos are also used in tournament shooting. Again, a 5 round magazine is all that is required. Even in the tournaments sponsored by the U.S. military no more than 10 rounds are fired at a particular stage. These stages are timed and a reload is required, so two 5 round magazines work perfectly.
Semi-autos are also used for pest control. For example feral pigs, coyotes, etc on farms and ranches.
And of course semi-auto are also used for plain old informal target shooting.
Semi-autos have many perfectly legal uses in the U.S. that involve harming no one. This includes the "assault weapons", which again are functionally identical to regular hunting and sporting semi-autos when equipped with a 5 round magazine. I believe such firearms manufactured in the U.S. ship from their factories with such magazines to be compliant out-of-the box with hunting regulations.
... I'm defenceless to rise up in armed revolution against the goverrnment ...
The preparation for armed revolt thing is just coming from a small fringe that the media loves to high light. The media is somewhat biased in the U.S. regarding gun control and seems to intentionally provide a distorted image. I am not making up the following, the following was actually broadcast on TV during the nightly news the last time an "assault weapons" ban was proposed in the 1990s. A lawyer working as a PR representative for a national gun control group was interviewed to provide the pro ban argument. To be "fair" a representative from the anti ban side was also interviewed. The national gun rights group had its own lawyers working as PR representatives, was one of these interviewed? No. They interviewed the first guy with facial hair and wearing camouflage that they could find exiting a gun store. You may not be getting an accurate portrayal of U.S. gun owners from your local media either.
having an unloaded locked up gun around the house does not. Smart people tend to go with the later option.
Since most people claim "self defense from home intruders" as the reason they need a gun at home, ...
That would surprise me. I expect hunting and sporting to be the primary reasons, self defense a secondary reason. I think self defense is merely a more common talking point since it represents an established legal principle, and because as some anti-gun folks toss out high emotion arguments some pro-gun folks toss out their own high emotion arguments.
... what good does it do to have it properly secured?
Unlocking and loading can be done rather quickly, even in the dark. A scenario where there is no time to do so is so unlikely it is not worth worrying about. The scenario where someone gets hurt with an unsecured loaded gun is far more likely.
What most pro-gun people don't tend to consider is that when everyone has guns, it's more likely that someone will lose their cool and fire one in anger at someone else. Or just be a dick and use one to commit crimes.
Switzerland proves otherwise. They have universal conscription and have hundreds of thousands of genuine fully automatic assault rifles in private homes. Plus they also have hundreds of thousands of so called "assault weapons", semi-auto and capable of accepting military high capacity magazines, in private homes as well. However given universal conscription the gun owners have had proper training in safe handling, the guns are stored locked and the owners have had a background check.
I grew up in a part of the U.S. where hunting and firearms ownership was fairly common. A region with town populations generally in the low tens of thousands, a few over a hundred thousand. Our per capita crime rate involving firearms was low, far lower than more urban regions where firearms were banned or severely restricted.
Its not the guns. Its the lack of training, proper storage and background checks that seem to be the problem.
Its funny that you use the phrase "pro-gun". It seems that people familiar with firearms tend to support private ownership of firearms, even those that choose not to own one themselves. While those unfamiliar with firearms tends to be against private ownership. Familiar as in having gone shooting to some small extent at some point in their lives. Unfamiliar as in what they "know" they "learned" from the mass media, TV and movies. What does that tell you?
Again, just to be clear. Private ownership is one thing, however I think both the pro and anti sides generally agree that safety training, safe storage and background checks are all good things.
If you can't hunt without a semi-automatic weapon, you utterly fail at hunting ...
Apparently you have not hunted pigs/boar, duck/geese, etc; nor have you had to deal with pigs, coyote, etc on a farm or ranch. Semi-auto's are very popular among many hunters for very good reasons.
And since killing animals is immoral in any case ...
The homeless shelters and other charities that accept donations of venison and pork from hunters disagree.
What is the moral difference between a hunter and someone who pays Ronald MacDonald or the Burger King to kill the animal for them? Our species eats meat, get over it.
Sincerely, The Sane and the Moral
The tone and content of your post suggests that you are neither. Thank you for choosing not to own a firearm. However please stop projecting your shortcomings on the rest of us.
Err...that unloaded, locked up hard to access gun isn't going to do you much good in a time of emergency when you need to shoot some fucker that has just broken into your home, and is likely armed with a real, unlocked, loaded and cocked gun.
That home invasion type scenario is so remote in probability it is not worth worrying about.
Plus locked up does not have to be slow to access. As for time to load, dropping a shell into the ejection port of a 12 gauge pump shotgun takes nearly no time at all. Filling the magazine tube can be done at one's leisure since the sound of the pump action being worked has probably caused the "bad guy" to change his mind and leave.
There is that statistic about the accessible loaded gun creating a risk for its owner, but I wonder if it decreases the risk (of crime victimization generally) of its owner's neighbor? I imagine that a whole block of armed people will have less crime than a block of unarmed people.
The unloaded locked up guns would seem to provide the same effect. Loading takes little time. There are locked boxes that are designed to be quickly opened, even in the dark. A scenario where a homeowner, or even more so the neighbors, does not have the very brief time period necessary to unlock and load a firearm is so remote its not worth worrying about.
You do understand that laws don't work by magic, right?
Some laws are not intended to work, the actual intent is to get politicians the type of press coverage that they desire. The public is largely ill-informed regarding firearms in many regions and giving them a placebo gets votes. Real solutions would take too much time and distract a politician from fundraising.
Just outlaw semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines. It's not difficult. Jesus fucking Christ.
Why outlaw semi-auto rifles if high capacity magazines are outlawed? There are an awful lot of ordinary hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns that are semi-auto in operation, far far more than there are the so called "assault weapons". For that matter, if an "assault weapon" has a 5 round "hunting" magazine in it why outlaw it? Because it has a black plastic stock, or is it the attachment point for a flashlight?
Smart people never own guns, because smart people know guns are more harmful than they are helpful
Given your ignorance on this topic you are hardly qualified to discuss what smart people know.
While having an accessible loaded gun around the house does in fact increase one's risk, having an unloaded locked up gun around the house does not. Smart people tend to go with the later option.
The NRA is full of memeber who ahve no wish to actual confront this issue.
With respect to firearms you have things absolutely backwards. Unlike with video games, the NRA is well informed and has the facts on their side regarding firearms.
... and a serious look at the that data about gun control. Something they stop wanting about 15 years ago when the data very clearly shows a decrease in killing when guns are severly restricted.
You are mistaken. The data actually shows no correlation. There are regions in the US with severe restrictions where the murder rate is low and there are regions with lax firearms regulations where the murder rate is low. Its not the presence or absence of firearms itself that leads to a low murder rate, there are some other factors that do so. More likely it has something to do with education and poverty. Lets look at Switzerland where many households have real assault rifles (fully automatic), high capacity magazines and 300 rounds of ammunition in their home. One difference between the Swiss and the US is that the Swiss did receive proper training and keep the weapon and ammunition locked up.
.22 calibre, basically anything with a full or partial copper jacket. The NRA helped rewrite the legislation so it applied only to the teflon coated ammunition notorious for penetrating body armor. Again naive gun control types got all hysterical over plastic guns and drafted legislation to outlaw everything without some number of ounces of steel. The problem here is that many firearms that are perfectly detectable in metal detectors are using metal alloys that are not technically steel. The NRA helped rewrite this legislation so that it only banned firearms that were not detectable in the metal detectors of the day.
You want more real data? Hunting related accidents dropped dramatically after hunter safety classes became required in the US in order to get a hunting license. Anyone who has had such a class can testify that the majority of the class is basic firearms safety. 1/3 of firearms deaths are accidents. Many of these deaths could probably be prevented by requiring firearms owners to take a safety class before they get their first gun, much like hunters are required to take their safety class before they get their first license.
As far as the NRA goes with respect to reasonable legislation. They have helped write some. When naive gun control types got all hysterical over cop-killer bullets these folks drafted legislation that would outlaw all ammunition with some sort of coating. This would have outlawed nearly all ammunition over
Similarly the "assault weapon" bans are also largely hysteria. There is no difference in capability between the so called "assault weapons" and normal semiauto hunting rifles. Both fire the same ammunition and when a hunting magazine (5 round max) is inserted into the "assault weapon" it fire no more rounds and no faster than the hunting rifle. On the flip side when a military magazine (say 30 round capacity) is put into the hunting rifle it has the same capability as the "assault weapon" with such a magazine. The only differences between the "assault weapon" and the semiauto hunting rifle are cosmetic, appearance not function.
NRA members and many firearms owners understand this. That is why the last time an "assault weapon" ban was passed firearms owning republicans, democrats and independents who had no interest in buying an "assault weapon" threw out many of the politicians who voted for the ban. They rightfully feared that their regular semiauto hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns were in danger of being banned next. It happened in various European countries. The original "assault weapon" ban legislation in the US specifically listed certain firearms designs that did not include regular hunting and sporting firearms but this legislation also allowed the Secretary of the Treasury (oversees Alcohol Tobacco
---gun owners, in at least one study, were 4 times more likely to be injured by a gun than non-gun owners. And gun owners with an opportunity to defend themselves with their weapons were over 5 times more likely to be injured or killed by a gun than non-gun owners. You are right not to have a gun in the house, when you have children. In addition to the accidents that can occur, it's sobering to consider that nearly half of teen suicides are committed with guns. Yes, some of those suicidal kids will find another way, but I can't help thinking that making suicide harder to accomplish at least reduces the impulsive acts, and that could lead to finding treatment. The statistics about domestic abuse and guns are even more depressing.
And proper training would eliminate most of these accidents and child suicides. The requirement to go through a hunter's safety class in order to get a hunting license greatly reduced the number of hunting accidents. When I went through the class it was mostly firearms safety and statistics similar to what you offer were brought up. However the solution was to keep firearms securely locked up and/or partially disassembled (ex. remove the bolt from the rifle and lock up the bolt - only need a small box not a large case). We were taught that keeping a loaded firearm laying around for defense actually put us at risk and that keeping the firearm locked up in some manner reduced the risk back to a household without any firearms. Our class was taught by a state game warden and "books" were state publications.
please, then, explain your interpretation of the first phrase of the 2nd amendment, which qualifies the second phrase. That is, are you part of a well regulated militia, and tell us how you are "well regulated"?
All able bodied males 18-45 are in the militia according to US federal law. The militia has two parts, first the active part which includes but is not limited to the National Guard, the second is the inactive part that includes everyone else. Active/inactive refers to whether you are expected to train periodically. "Regulated" in its 1776 context is also referring to being trained so one performs in an efficient manner, it is not referring to be licensed or restricted.
...
Sorry no link, this was discussed in an ROTC class in college where the organization of the US military was being described. Regular, active reserve, inactive reserve, federalized national guard, active militia, inactive militia,
I think you are confusing the perspective of ACLU lawyers with the perspective of military veterans.
Members of the military being confused as to exactly what they're fighting for? That's a shocker.
According to the Supreme Court military veterans are not defending fighting words.
..."
"Fighting Words
Inflammatory words that are either injurious by themselves or might cause the hearer to immediately retaliate or breach the peace. Use of such words is not necessarily protected "free speech" under the First Amendment
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/fighting-words-term.html
As for the combat veterans I have known they seem perfectly fine with the notion that some speech will get you a kick in the ass or a punch in the face from your fellow citizen.
As long as they're perfectly fine with spending the day in jail and having an assault conviction on their record.
"... If the hearer is prosecuted for assault, claiming fighting words may establish mitigating circumstances."
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/fighting-words-term.html
More likely charged with disorderly conduct.
Plus unlikely to find a jury to convict a combat veteran of assault on WBC member at a funeral for a simple kick in the ass or punch in the face.
Also, you realize that combat veterans have demonstrated the ability to do what is right, to protect others, rather than what is in their personal best interest?
If they were picketing a kids funeral and the father or uncle went up and punched them in the nose and I was on the jury I would find them not guilty
Why do you want to corrupt my court system by deciding a case not on the facts but on your little feelings?
Because he wants justice. Justice being something that the letter of the law occasionally fails to deliver. Its one of the reasons we have jurors, to cover such omissions of the legislature.
Also, it seems a fact that the protester in this case deserved a punch in the nose.
Can a funeral or memorial service be declared "private?" That is, perhaps a military funeral in a military cemetery can only be considered public (I don't know; it's just a perhaps), but like some weddings, cannot some funerals be declared private and cemetery managers reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?
Many cemeteries are private property open to the public. However the owners of the property are within their rights to declare permissible and prohibited conduct, terms of use if you will. Violating the terms of the owners allows the owners to ask you to leave. If you fail to leave you are now trespassing and may be arrested. This happens at shopping malls every day.
Free speech is not just speech you just like. It's any speech.
Wrong. The constitution only prevents government reprisals or discrimination against a speaker. Private citizens are under no such prohibition. Private citizens are free to punish speakers, that is what recent boycotts against Chick-fil-A were. All we can really say is that Anon is choosing to punish in an illegal manner.
You would destroy all of the freedoms so many have died for you to obtain -- if only because a group is using speech you deem unacceptable. Shame. Shame on you sir.
I think you are confusing the perspective of ACLU lawyers with the perspective of military veterans. As for the combat veterans I have known they seem perfectly fine with the notion that some speech will get you a kick in the ass or a punch in the face from your fellow citizen.
You seem to have made the error that freedom from government consequences somehow implies freedom from consequences from your fellow citizens.
"Even if Russia would have attacked with the atomic bombing they would be quite busy on the mainland for many more months." Not really. The USSR had defeated the Kwantung army (with 600000 vs 12000 dead in favor of the USSR) a couple of days after the first bombing, so militarily Japan had nothing to wage a serious war with.
Its not that simple. The terrain favored the massive mechanized assault in that case. Other regions were not so accommodating and the Russians never touched them. Matter of fact they remained in place long after the surrender as a "police" force under Allied control. It would have taken the Russians a while to secure the mainland regions if Japan had not surrendered.
The reality also is that conventional weapons pf that era weren't that effective.
The fire bombing of Tokyo produced more casualties than the atomic bombings, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo.
The US had already been firebombing Japanese cities for years. And the Japanese could have made that effort very expensive for the result ...
If they could have resisted they would have done so already. The fire bombing raids were primarily at night and the Japanese fighters were few and the antiaircraft ineffective, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#Firebombing_attacks.
The war was basically over. The main part of the Japanese Army was on the Chinese mainland.
The forces in Japan were more than sufficient to inflict massive casualties on the US. Look at what they managed at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the previous two battles on Japanese soil. Plus they were training their civilians to resist and fight. Plus we now know they were planning on using chemical weapons on the invasion beaches when the US landed. Plus they had been holding back kamikaze aircraft and suicide boats, again look at Okinawa. Plus they had also perfected the aerial dropping of bubonic plague infected fleas, they even tested it on Chinese villages, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731. Marry this with their new submarines that could launch 2 or 3 aircraft, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine, and they would have the capability to target San Francisco not just invasion beaches. We have no idea what would have happened if the war went on until Spring 1946, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_japan.
The Russians were already invading in the north.
Wrong, Russia did not invade Japan until after the atomic bomb was dropped, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan.
Even if Russia would have attacked with the atomic bombing they would be quite busy on the mainland for many more months. Plus the Russians did not have an amphibious capability, they could not invade the Japanese home islands in force even if they wanted to.
Again, the vast majority of the Japanese army was on the Japanese mainland.
The millions of Japanese casualties that the previous poster referred to would have been predominately civilian. Some fighting, some caught in the middle, some suiciding ... again see Okinawa.
This is very true. When I was in Germany I went to the dachau camp. It was a very somber experience. There was plenty explaining exactly what happened on the grounds. It was preserved and rebuilt in some ways, but it was never "endorsed"
I felt some pride at the gate looking at the plaques commemorating the U.S. 20th Armored Division and U.S. 42nd Infantry Division, they liberated the camp. A member of my family was in the U.S. 101st Airborne Division and they liberated of one of the sub-camps nearby. I was proud of the guys who shut down these camps and destroyed the government that created them.
But, yeah, once my eyes moved from the plaques to the original motto on the gate things became quite somber.
Spending locally can benefit you, or divert harm from you.
Fundamentally either you're paying the salary of a sales clerk or the salary of a UPS/truck/postal deliveryman.
Not really. Only a very small portion of your payment goes to their salary. However when buying brick and mortar there is more opportunity for other parts of your payment to go into the local economy.
You need to take an economics class.
Follow your own advice. Pay attention when they mention the phrase "comparative advantage."
Do you understand that phrase? The theory of comparative advantage was developed for a brick and mortar world. Goods that are imported are still sold by locals in that model. Consumers are *not* buying a product directly from a distant vendor and merely waiting for goods to show up in the mail.
... my requirements for quality, selection, availability and price ... To choose vendors on arbitrary 'feel good' sloganeering deprives me of the best value ...
You need to take an economics class. Spending locally is not merely feel good sloganeering. Where you purchase and where things are made do matter. Where you spend your money improves a community, if not your then someone else's. The health of your community and your local government's ability to provide you services also provides you a value. With respect to the local government, if they don't get taxes from local businesses they will get it directly from local residents. If things get too extreme or too out of balance the community crashes.
There is a balance to all things and to not consider locality among your other considerations actually does negatively contribute to the environment you live in.
That's an interesting way to approach life. But let me ask you this: if everyone followed your philosophy, would the world be a better place or worse? Sure, you buying locally will help your local community. But if other people in other communities restrict their shopping to their local shops, wouldn't your local community suffer because it no longer has any markets to export to?
No. Because not everything is made or available locally.
Plus there are little complications such as when price is the only factor in a purchasing decision it destroys competition by favoring larger organizations that can leverage economies of scale, externalize costs (manufacture in regions with poor environmental laws, recognize profits in regions with little to no taxes, etc), engage in monopolistic or other unfair practices, etc.