BANG !

[Uji]

Silly Uji ... we need gun show loophole so every crazy coot in America can arm himself agin' the gummint!

Now that we got comnist gummint, I guess they need those guns all the more.
The way I see it, most of these hand guns -- if they get used for defense at all -- will be used on somebody in the household that owns them, if I understand the stats correctly. I mean, I'm quite content arming myself against marauding ground-hogs and hen-killing racoons. I'll let Darwin sort out the hand-gun crowd.

[Truckie]

Great clip, WiseOne. (Great that I can finally watch these, too!)
So, what possible objection could there be to requiring background checks with ALL firearm sales?
Truckie?

I vowed to give up on this thread. But, since you hailed Uji, I'll visit, albeit briefly, and not truly prepared nor motivated to argue.

The snippit provided by Wise is a scare tactic with an obvious left swing. I will admit that I cringed a little when guys with counters full of guns claimed "private collector." I also shuttered over the conversation concerning passing background checks, with the buyer and vendor saying that they probably couldn't.

My first observation is this, if they were taping "illegal" activity, they have an obligation to report the "crime." This is the old, "just because you drove the getaway car" argument. My next, the propaganda statement of, "30 percent of illegally trafficked guns are connected to gun shows." That is broad brush statement, and one intentionally misleading IMO. I am convinced that the authors want the layman to read, "30 percent of illegal guns, i.e. crime guns, are linked to gun shows." That is not what their carefully worded claim actually says, nor can I substantiate their claim of 30% percent of "illegally trafficked..." Wonder where they got it?

As for private sales of guns and background checks? Against it, yep, you assumed correct. I do not want the government in my private business, nor does it have that Constitutional authority.

There is no gun show loophole. Such claim is anti propaganda, and sadly it's working. Criminals that want guns to ply their trade DO NOT attend gun shows to purchase arms; they simply shop the streets.

Just for fun, http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba349 and this, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
This hasn't changed much, if at all, in the passing 12 years

[Uji]

Thanks for that, Truckie. Assuming your data's correct, then gun shows don't seem a significant source of handguns for criminals. That's what I'd love to see, here: more data!

Your main point, however, seems to be about the Constitution and "activist" judges. I'd just like to point out a couple of things: First, the second amendment is quite clear, I agree: It states that a "well-regulated" militia was essential to the health of the republic, and that in order to secure that well-regulated militia, a citizens right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

The object is the well-regulated militia, the means is "the right of citizens to keep and bear arms."

And here's the problem: We have a well-regulated militia in the National Guard and reserves -- the object is achieved. The issue of private ownership of handguns is, now, an independent issue. The objective of the second amend is the well-regulated militia, not the ownership of fire-arms.

The interpretation of the constitution changes over time, and has for the entire history of our republic. How can that be? Why isn't it held unchanging? Because of the ninth amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

For example, the 7th amendment sets $20 as the lower limit for a jury trial -- a wholelotta money in 1787. That makes no sense any more, clearly. Jury trials are now reserved for much more considerable sums. Is that the result of "activism"? No, just common-sense -- and the belief that our founders were no more idiots than we are.

The right of the people to be free from fear of other folks toting deadly weapons is as much a right -- if so deemed by the courts -- as the second amendment. That's not "activism," that's the 9th amendment.

Let's talk sense here. Noone wants to take away your guns. We just want them well-regulated, just as your militia is.

And thanks for coming back to the discussion. If we disagree, we need to talk. That's how the constitution got made in the first place.

[coondog]

Dudes & Duddettes

This is a warning!

I got a call from the NRA.They wanted me to take a survey.............based on a statement from their director, Biff de la Pierre, (sp?).

The prelude to this was some verbal disinformation from the caller concerning the UN taking away our guns.....and this was supposedly supported by Hillary Clinton and the liberals in congress.

Well, I'm not as dumb and uninformed as the NRA might hope. The entire premise is bogus. The referenced UN initiatives and support by the US has nothing to do with private gun ownership in this country. In fact, the contrary is specifically true.

Knowing this, I refused to take the survey. I hung up....but not before lecturing this guy about lying and explaining to him that this was just the sort of subversive BS that prompted me to drop my membership in NRA in the first place.

Likely, this went in one brain dead ear and out the other...... and he went on to abuse someone else's sense of rationality.....probably with greater success.

I used to have some respect for the NRA. After all, Charlton Heston played Moses! But, no more!

They can kiss my fuzzy doggie butt.

Coondog

[lexingtonrick]

I own a handgun and used to have a permit to carry when I lived in the big city. After a while I realized that it was more a danger to innocent people then to a criminal.
At that time I didn't realize how few legal shootings took place.

[quote="Uji"]Thanks for that, Truckie. Assuming your data's correct, then gun shows don't seem a significant source of handguns for criminals. That's what I'd love to see, here: more data!

DATA: In 2006, there were 30,896 gun deaths in the U.S: 12,791 homicides (41% of total deaths), 16,883 suicides (55% of total deaths), 642 unintentional shootings (2% of total deaths), 360 from legal intervention (1.2% of total deaths) and 220 from undetermined intent (.8% of total deaths).
(Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2009.)

In 2004 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:
5 people in New Zealand
37 people in Sweden
56 people in Australia
184 people in Canada
19 people in Japan
73 people in the UK
11,344 people in the United States
(Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence)

Survey of Hunters Shows Support for Some Gun Violence Prevention Issues
In the spring of 2002, Field & Stream magazine took an informal web survey of 2,897 F&S readers about the state of hunting in America. The results from this informal survey were published in F&S in the spring of 2003. Below are responses to a few questions relative to gun violence prevention issues. Questions are numbered as they were in the survey.

15. Do you consider assault-style rifles to be legitimate sporting guns?
67% NO
33% YES

28. Do you think people who want to purchase rifles and shotguns should be given background checks before they are allowed to buy the guns?
66% YES
34% NO

29. Do you belong to the National Rifle Association?
57% NO
43% YES

Well at least it's good to know that a majority of hunters are thinking about safty

[Uji]

... I refused to take the survey. I hung up....but not before lecturing this guy about lying and explaining to him that this was just the sort of subversive BS that prompted me to drop my membership in NRA in the first place.

Way to go dog! I'm so sick of these telephone zombies -- whether the DNC, the NRA, or the IRA. It's time we started telling them what we think of their spiel. I know it's preaching to the this-is-just-my-job working poor, but maybe it will slow down this nonsense.

And LexRick, thanks for the data. On the number of deaths chart, I'd love to see that matched with population so we've got a better sense of the relative insanity of the US.

Not that we need much more data on that point...

[lexingtonrick]

And LexRick, thanks for the data. On the number of deaths chart, I'd love to see that matched with population so we've got a better sense of the relative insanity of the US.

Good Point:

In 2004 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:
5 people in New Zealand 4,097,000
37 people in Sweden 9,041,262
56 people in Australia 21,468,700
184 people in Canada 33,271,000
19 people in Japan 127,449,000
73 people in the UK 60,943,912

Total population 256,270,000, 374 total handgun murders

USA population 302,741,000 12,791 gun homicides

[Truckie]

A lot of varables in there lexingtonrick... but, your post plays to the dramatic to say the least.

First, to quote anything from the Brady Bunch is irresponsible. The BB statistics and propaganda are so widely discounted that only in liberal circles does anything it says receive merit.

A main varable is societal influences, an often overlooked, yet important aspect of "subject" behaviors.

I do not know if you made a typo or possibly I'm simply too sensitive to such things. You cite "total handgun murders" from five countries. Then, you cite "gun homicides" for the U.S. There's a Brady tactic in all of its glory. Also, research of several sources does not substantiate your numbers.

Give this place a poke around if ya'll dare http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... per-capita
One may be amazed at the numbers... to include the U.S. ranking 24th per capita for all murders, and the violent crime stats are interesting.

[Wise One]

I really appreciate seeing LexingtonRick's reasoned and honest use of facts and analysis ... it is so refreshing to see a discussion of issues and facts, without ideological diatribe and name calling. And Coondog's exposing the actual facts of how NRA conducts its "surveys", crudely planting lies to skew the results, is commendably on the mark.

Truckie, on the other hand, cannot seem to resist off-point barbs like "anything from the Brady Bunch is irresponsible", "only in liberal circles does anything it says receive merit", " a scare tactic with an obvious left swing." Invective is a poor substitute for persuasive argument.

But Truckie really had me rolling on the floor over his data. To his credit, the data themselves appear to be solid. What is skewed is cherry-picking a fact about 'oranges' to argue a point about 'apples'. His cited data refer to murders per capita, all causes ... not just firearms, putting the US at 24 out of 62 which sounds kinda average until you look at the hell holes on that list that rank worse than us. (Think drug lords in Colombia and Mexico hacking rivals to pieces with machetes, and tribal rivalries in South Africa settled by machete.)

The very same data source has the statistic that counts more in this argument: murders per capita, firearms. Hell hole countries again lead the list and we come in at number 8 out of 32, not so good eh? We are absolutely the worst of all the developed and affluent countries, in the middle of a pack of hell holes. You finally reach the second developed country down at #18 on the list!.

But finally, and most emphatically, NRA apologists always argue crime statistics alone. They are not the important statistics. The important statistic is deaths by firearm, a much larger number that describes the actual public health consequences in a Nation with guns at home. More to follow.

[Truckie]

Wise, you are always quick to point out "ideological diatribe and name calling" blah, blah, blah as some sort of lessening of another's comments. I must say, reading through your posts, I shall make no apology for my comparatively soft off-point barbs.

I'd say 8th isn't such a bad spot to be in considering many, including yourself, including the BRADY BUNCH, would incinuate that the U.S. is the most violent and bassackwards of the developed and affluent countries.

I am glad that you speak of machete wielding thugs. Why? Because your comparison speaks to an exact point that I've made prior. The guns are not the problem or issue. The ill intentions of people are the apex of this problem. Remove firearms from their equation, and the mass killings continue; remove the machetes, and they'll brain each other with rocks.

Add firearms to, let's say Japan, and you'll see very little increase in homicide by firearm. This is about the willful intent, the rogue people, and the societal impacts and ideals. This is not about an inanimate tool, a concept, which you et al wish us to buy into, and snort in disgust when we (AHEM) "crazy coots" refuse.

[Truckie]

Uji,

I will make some assumptions here, assumptions that I hope do not come back to bite me. If you have done what I'm about to suggest, please forgive my forwardness. I just cannot see that you have when reading your last post.

You have read as a thoughtful and investigative, intelligent person. I challenge you to extensively research the writings and accounts of our Founding Fathers. When the quest complete, I cannot conceive any way that you will conclude that they were speaking to anything other than private, individual, ownership of firearms. Ownership of arms for the protection of the Country, yes. However and more over, ownership of arms for the protection of self, family and property. There is rare mention of gathering game with arms as a source of food and pleasure. But, their pens clearly claim that arms are for defense, and offense against tyranny.

We, us 21st Century folks, also must make adjustments for the 18th Century use of our language. Our bending and evolution toward "American English" tends to wane and drift from the English spoken during the 17th and 18th centuries. Investigate this, as I think you may find adjustment of our ancestor's intended use and definitions.

Investigate James Madison and his total disgust with being forced to pen the Bill of Rights. He felt such a document horribly unworthy and unnecessary. Madison predicted that writing the document would skew things in years to come. However, he reluctantly did so to appease the Left of his time. Also read the early drafts of the Second Amendment. When first penned, it was very clear. Upon radification, the Second had fallen to the difficult to interpret and watered down version we have today. The Left was strong even in those times.

Read accounts of the first battles of the Revolution. Our brave Freedom Fighters went head on into the Brits... while our unarmed Subjects cowered and hid. Many unarmed fleeing to the safety of armed households.

Like the Federal Second, most state constitutions speak to a militia but, further to the individual right to "keep" (hide from common knowledge and observation, to hold as personal property) and "bear" (to have, to carry) arms. If those inking state constitutions misunderstood the Federal document, then they grossly did so.

Twas written that the entire body of the common people were defined as the militia, not some portion or unit of those peoples. Well-regulated meant to be trained in the use of arms, not speaking to some constraint or guideline.

The Second Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. The National Guard was organized in 1903. The Second does not speak of the Guard, which by the way is a Federally legislated entity.

[lexingtonrick]

"First, to quote anything from the Brady Bunch is irresponsible. The BB statistics and propaganda are so widely discounted that only in liberal circles does anything it says receive merit.
I do not know if you made a typo or possibly I'm simply too sensitive to such things. You cite "total handgun murders" from five countries. Then, you cite "gun homicides" for the U.S. There's a Brady tactic in all of its glory. Also, research of several sources does not substantiate your numbers".

Hi Truckie Last point first: Truckie I knew you or someone else would call me on that, I looked and couldn't find a reference for American Handgun homicides just the number of gun homicdes. I looked again and since one good turn deserves another check out this site :
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics "Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns". As best as I can tell reading their chart It looks like on average if you had 10,000 Hand Gun Homicdes in a year you would have an additional 3500 other guns homicdes. That ratio seems to be the norm since 1976.

The Brady quote was accurate but since you mistrust them the next time out I'll quote the Brady Family.

[Truckie]

But Truckie really had me rolling on the floor over his data. To his credit, the data themselves appear to be solid. What is skewed is cherry-picking a fact about 'oranges' to argue a point about 'apples'. His cited data refer to murders per capita, all causes ... not just firearms, putting the US at 24 out of 62 which sounds kinda average until you look at the hell holes on that list that rank worse than us.

Wise,
I don't know why I feel the need to address this but, for some reason... possibly I feel so because you seem to highlight the surface in the attempt to incite snicker toward opposing views. Didn't I say, "poke around" when referencing that site? I posted the murder rate front page on purpose. My expectation was that fellow board members would point and click. But, HoHum, you took that and ran.

P.S. I feel, may I add very strongly, that per capita is surely a merited approach. This is simple math. To reiterate examples made in previous posts. Of course one crashes their car more often within 20 miles from the home, that's where 90% of one's driving takes place; a statistical given. Of course semi drivers strike more deer than common folk, professionals have many more miles traveled; another statistical given. So goes gun violence, more guns, more people, more opportunity for people to create problems. I think per capita is certainly relevant.

[Wise One]

I think per capita is certainly relevant.

It certainly is, no quibble from me on that one. But that was not my point ... read it again.

[Uji]

Thanks, Truckie, for that thoughtful response. A couple of things...

First, I didn't mean to suggest that James Madison invented the National Guard, only that the National Guard serves the function of the 18th c. militia. I may be wrong in that assumption, I don't really know.

Second, as to the "intent" of the founders: That's a slippery slope. On one hand we've got what they intended (as guessed from their letters, etc.), and on the other we've got what they did -- the US Constitution and its amendments. Madison may not have liked the bill of rights, and Jefferson definitely objected to the entire Constitution, but that's irrelevant: The Constitution and bill of rights were adopted and both Jefferson & Madison swore to support and uphold it -- the whole thing, not the part they agreed with.

So, "intent" is not the be-all and end-all of interpretation. The founders clearly "intended" $20 to be a substantial sum. But it no longer is. Do you imagine if we could ask Madison what he things we should do, that he would say, "Stick to $20?" Of course not.

The problem with "intent"-interpretation of the Constitution is the same as with fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible. No text -- whether written by men or the Great Spaghetti Monster -- has only a single interpretation. Sometimes that is simply the result of language's inadequacy to express certain things; but, just as often, that's the result of intent. Smart people craft language in such a way that it stays relevant and useful despite changes in habit, custom, and law. That's beauty of the Constitution. But it's also why amendments are necessary: Sometimes to alter the intent of the Constitution (to elect Senator directly, for example), or to clarify an interpretation (the color of your skin makes no difference to your rights under law).

So, it does not surprise me at all that individuals recently mired in a war for independence would equate the ownership of fire-arms with protection from tyranny. But that is not the issue: Once again, you are equating "taking away your guns" with regulation of fire-arms.

You are, in essence, saying that because the founders thought we should be able to keep muskets and bayonets in order to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, that every citizen should have the right to own and display any sort of weapon system they care to acquire. That's just silly. My neighbor has a right to protect himself, but I have an equal claim to feel safe in my home and property from irresponsible neighbors. Does my neighbor's right to practice automatic weapon fire in his back yard trump my right to be free from 9mm fire while I'm flipping burgers? I don't think so.

If we are to have any sort of useful discussion, you've got to stop talking as if it's a digital choice: complete control or no control. Let's at least be as reasonable as the founders, who compromised on a constitution that didn't completely satisfy any of them.

[Truckie]

Thanks for the reply.

I really don’t have much to say. However, I’ll just take the liberty to slap out a few random thoughts.

Certainly guns are involved with homicides. I’ve admitted this before, unlawful use of guns make murder easier, ‘cleaner’ and less personal than say knives, rocks and fists do. But, murder is murder, no matter the tool… and one Hell bent on such a heinous act will do so with whatever means are available. AND because you cannot ever, shall never, rid the unlawful of their arms… I am grateful that the law abiding have an avenue to equal the playing field.

Penalizing the lawful is the only and sole accomplishment of any firearm legislation. Criminals do not obey laws, period. A fact the Left just seems to plainly and simply, or maybe conveniently, fail to grasp.

Most gun homicides in our country are thug on thug or at the least perpetrated by thugs. If we could figure out a way to cease that fact, gun stats would plummet.

The handgun is a convenient tool for the lawful, as well as the unlawful. Handguns hide well, carry well and quickly, covertly deploy. In reality though, to become skilled in their use is difficult. Police are the largest civil base to routinely carry and deploy handguns. Although the PC way to say this is that police are trained to "shoot to stop" an assailant, the truth is that police are trained to kill with a handgun... yet, few police shootings result in the death of the perp.

The majority of shootings involving handguns are not fatal. Handguns are under powered and require relatively close distances to be effective. I only make this point to say, many would banish handguns on a whim, while embracing long guns as the compromise. Yet, other than the convenience of handguns, they’re a pretty weak combat platform. Tis said in my circles, my handgun is only good to fight my way to the rifle (or shotgun).

The Brady quote was accurate but since you mistrust them the next time out I'll quote the Brady Family.

Teeheehe… cute, ty. I can only say, I don’t question that you accurately quoted the BB. What I question is the accuracy of any and all of its propaganda statements.

[Uji]

Thanks for staying engaged, Truckie.

Don't all laws penalize the responsible citizen? Why do I need a stop sign if I'm a responsible driver -- I'll always look both ways. What good is a law against murder when I'm never gonna murder anyone? Laws are always for the unlawful. That's the way the law works, the lawful accept certain responsibilities in order to discourage irresponsible acts by the unlawful. Why? Well, I'm happy to give up the right to murder my neighbor if it makes me more confident that I won't be murdered by him.

Why should firearm regulations be any different?

[Truckie]

Uji,
I wish to address two posts ago but, I'll go with your last one first.

I know what you're trying to say. However, I remain unswayed.

No, laws are for the lawless. Laws are to establish penalty for not obeying them. You being a lawful citizen may not require the stop sign (and I won't delve into the aspect that a sign establishes expected parameters). But anyhow, the next guy will skirt safety and run the corner. A law against murder is not for you as a respectful citizen but, to establish penalty for the guy whom is not you.

Your last point though is likely the best. I too would gladly relinquish any thoughts or means to murder my neighbor. The problem with humans however, is that I cannot be guaranteed that my neighbor will do likewise. Therefore, we both have a need, and thankfully a Constitutional means, to ensure that our neighbors will be forced to seriously consider any untoward thoughts and acts.

Firearm legislation is a different beast. You and I both have a handgun. You are a lawful citizen, thus harbor no ill will or intention to ever use that handgun plying horrible deeds. I, on the other hand, have a handgun and lay in wait to live my life by robbing or murdering yours.

Along comes a sweeping firearm ban. The Liberals opine that such will eradicate them from our hands. You, the lawful, turn yours over, and are now unarmed. To the contrary though, I will not surrender mine... I mean, I intend to come into your house and take your wares. I'm bringing my handgun just in case you get the jump on me... but, now, because you're a law abiding man, I have no fear that you'll meet me with resistance.

What did that legislation accomplish? Such made you an instant criminal if you fail to comply. I'm already a criminal, what do I care? For me, such legislation made you an easy mark. I now can come into your home and do as I please. Bring your bat or kitchen knife on neighbor, because Congress just made your jewelry and anything else you've broken your back to amass, mine. And heck while I'm at it, I may just give your wife or daughter a run... I mean, since I'm already there and all. This is how firearm legislation penalizes the lawful.

Also, and Wise will likely find examples to rebut this, firearms are one of the rare issues that require legislation to protect the lawful. As said, most laws establish penalty for non-compliance. There are many firearm laws written because there are those who discount the Constitution; legislation had to be written to exempt lawful acts concerning arms. This is an exact example of what Mr. Madison cringed and argued over.

I've said before taunting Wise. I was paid to carry a gun, many guns, machine guns... and I was paid by you to do so.

Under the Liberal's doctrine, erase firearms and I will still carry mine, with your blessings none the less. I do not fear guys like you having arms, I welcome such, I encourage it. I fear the evildoers and am none too happy that the liberals expect me to provide for their safety and protection... then will sue me because I wasn't a God and could be there the instant they fell into danger.

[Truckie]

Allow me a few minutes over two posts past.

Google the Virginia Militia. The Va. Militia, and many others like it, is an example of the true "Militia" intent of the Second... the "individual" Right to Keep and Bear Arms. These -individuals- keeping and bearing arms for defense and potential offense are the core militia protecting the nation against enemies foreign and domestic.

The Va. Militia continues to be an active unit, even in this 21st Century; although in the 20th Century, the Militia became a volunteer unit instead of compelling the encompassing of all able-bodies. The Guard does not serve as, nor replace, the armed individual, the militias or in any fashion represent the intention of the Second Amendment.

I understood you not to insinuate that Madison invented the National Guard. Also, the Guard was enacted to be a support to the Federal military. Such certifies that the Guard has no reach or intent of the Second Amendment.

I am in essence saying that arms should not be regulated. A lawful citizen does not require being regulated, you made that point.

As far as one extreme or the other concerning regulation, the problem therein lies. The NRA catches flack for its hard lines. The fact is that the NRA is too moderate for many gun owners. Take a look at the GOA if you want hard line.

Why is there no middle ground? You and I can see a middle Uji. The problem is that there are Left extremists that cannot. I lay this at the feet of the Left because every time the Left has been given an inch, it demands the mile and cries that the Right, by not ceding that mile, is responsible for all ills. How can a negotiation ever ensue with that level of Left extremism?

Another point of yours that I like. You make reference to the $20. That Madison would return today to opine such as no longer applicable. I agree with your opinion. With that, I liken it to the folks whining that flintlocks and black power revolvers were the arms of the Second. Do you think Madison would return to say, "Stick to the flintlocks?" Of course not.

Your neighbor's right to practice with an automatic 9mm does not trump your Right to feel safe. But, as long as he is not firing in your direction, both of your Rights are being upheld. If your neighbor changes his mind and wants your fine burgers, then I suggest you have an M-16 as insurance of his reconsideration.

[Truckie]

I regret that the NRA offended your intelligence. There are times one must support a group, with which one doesn't always agree. The bigger picture holds that key.

The only thing to say concerning your post is this, a simple Google will reveal that the U.N. most assuredly has an agenda concerning small arms and the disarmament of civilians.