BANG !

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.
Frank Strickler

Re: BANG !

Postby Frank Strickler » 2008 May 10 14:40

Me too beckonwood, I have loved this country all of my nearly 72 years, and I'm very glad there are people in Rockbridge County who feel the same way. I've never been there but I'm going there later this month. Among other things I want to see the cannons at VMI. They are the very guns that the 1st Rockbridge Artillery first used. My Great Grandfather and his brothers were in the 1st Rockbridge from it's formation until Appomattox. I was the third generation cannoneer. Great Grandad in the Rockbridge Artillery, Dad in WWII, And then me. I missed Korea, but was part of the occupation of Germany. I served first in the 97th Field Artillery Bn. and then in the 3rd Armoured Field ArtillerBn.

Frank Strickler

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: BANG !

Postby Wise One » 2008 Jun 26 11:23

As expected, the Bush cabal on the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NRA nut jobs.

So there you have it.

The American obsession with blasting away at whoever irks you will continue, resulting mainly in death by gunshot among family, friends and lovers.

:hammer:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

Pro Bono

Re: BANG !

Postby Pro Bono » 2008 Jun 26 12:52

God Bless the Supremes and the 2nd. People such as myself, guns are my hobby,I'm a target shooter and avid collecter of older weapons. Some are pieces of art work with gold and silver inlay.I only see one major flaw with gun purchases All ! first time owners should have at least 10 hours of safty courses and a psch exam. Not just be handed a gun and bullits across the counter top. I'm 57 y/o and have been shooting since age 9.It's my hobby and sport. I don't hunt ( maybe Qauil) as it too dangerous out there with good old boys drinking beer and showing off for their buds.I don't own any assault weapons no need too. America hasn't been invaded since 911.But I know many of you will diagree with me. But let golf gulbs,bowling be controlled.I have left target ranges before as the good old boys were drinking beer and I kept seeing muzzles flashing my way.I now belong to a private range @ $300 per year with a membership of 300. If you are found to have a beer in your car you are out, same for mishandling your weapon at the range. Please keep in mind that there are people ( men,women and younger ones with parental supervision) that are safe shooters,and thet know a gun is always loaded even if you just unloaded the gun. We respect others property and dont shoot trees tin can,glass bottles on the range or private land.Wise one thanks for bringing up a volitale subject matter. Hey ,I'm going to be in Lexington in a few weeks would you like to go to a range and do some sport/target shooting ? Too all you gun owners out there teach your chidren and wives how to handle the guns in your home safe handling and shooting courtesys and rules.And lock your guns if you have young ones or a angry wife/husband,Gun locks are about $10-$20. Regards, Pro

10thFO

Re: BANG !

Postby 10thFO » 2008 Jun 26 19:04

I was very happy with this decision. Not because I believe in any idiot should be able to get a gun, but that's not what the decision said. Anyone who reads it closely will see that it was well thought out and researched. The close vote was probably more political but even if it wasn't the majority of Americans, even if that is a 5-4 ratio, still believes that gun ownership is a right.

We will rue the day as a country that we allow the gov't to take away our weapons. What will you do if they take them away, and tax you and yours out of house or home. Strike up a vehement chord with your neighbors. Somehow it won't matter. The Amendment was also put into place for the states and citiizens to stop and overzealous gov't from trying to overtake and rule all our lives.

I don't care what side of the fence you are on, that should be something that we all recognize. Anything less would be turning a blind eye to the intentions of our gov't, and ALL politicians.

User avatar
Juggler
Posts: 710
Joined: 2007 Jun 11 03:51

Re: BANG !

Postby Juggler » 2008 Jun 27 01:00

10thFO wrote:... we allow the gov't to take away our weapons. What will you do if they take them away, and tax you and yours out of house or home...for the states and citiizens to stop and overzealous gov't from trying to overtake and rule all our lives.

How quaint. We quiver with uncertainty over what the outcome will be when you pick up your handguns to hold off George W. Bush's FBI swat teams, national guard, and armed forces -- when he has completed his crusade to shred the last remnants of law in the United States.

On second thought, I'd like to place my bet on which side will be squashed like a bug.

10thFO

Re: BANG !

Postby 10thFO » 2008 Jun 27 09:30

Quaint? I like my chances better than yours without a gun.

It is a right like it or not. I will be keeping my pistol. Just don't come intruding on my home, and you should have no worries :wink:

Last I checked it was a Democratic Congress who was folding like a wet rag during election year.

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: BANG !

Postby Wise One » 2008 Jun 27 11:56

This is perhaps the best argument I've seen in favor of your position and Nino's.

And here's a humorous visual argument against it:
Image
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

Truckie

Re: BANG !

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 28 13:34

Thank God, yes "GOD," that SCOTUS issued its politically corrupt and agenda driven opinion on the Second Amendment. The RIGHTS of THE PEOPLE have been duly affirmed. I only wish that the ruling had encompassed and affirmed the broader and true RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE under the Second... but, I feel and hope that the remaining issues will be settled soon.

I'm sorry to be chiming in so late, as the Constitution, and specifically the Second Amendment, is vitally important to me.

First let's make a correction to a common misconception concerning the shootings at New Life Church in Colorado Springs. The hero "security guard,"Jeanne Assam, at the church was not a hired gun nor part of a militia as Wise One and the liberal, leftist media mistakenly/intentionally mistakenly claims her to be.

Jeanne Assam is simply a member of the New Life congregation. Assam is indeed acclimated to law enforcement, working in the past for the Minneapolis police department. That fact may have provided her with the skills and wherewithal necessary to confront and overwhelm a sicko... a whack job with a firearm... and NOT a sicko firearm plying its ills in the hands of a whack job!

However, at the time Assam intervened upon this crazed gunman, she was a private citizen. A private citizen licensed to carry a concealed handgun and unafraid to take responsibility for her safety and the safety of her friends... just like many of us. Yes, the church authority granted permission for several congregation members to arm and provide protection to the campus of New Life; this decision was post the gunman's rampage hours prior. But, NOT does that make a "security guard," and not does that make a private citizen part of any "militia." What this does make is for individuals exercising their RIGHTS to arm and protect self and others.

Assam was not paid for her "security" services... and guess what? Individual responsibility and the actions of individuals exercising THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS prevailed on this day against a crazed assailant. Without this RIGHT and the actions of honest people, the gunman would have been the ONLY person at New Life with a firearm. Without the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR, the lawful and good citizens would have been helpless against his rampage. Also study the actions of the other persons in attendance that day. The lawful and responsible private citizens acted to stop a killing spree... while the others, the unarmed, the ones dependant upon others for their protection... ran and hid in panic.

Gun ownership is a RIGHT. The government is not allowed to control "Rights," although it thinks that so. The government thinks that so because leftists want the government to tell them what's best and to control their lives.

The Lefties drive and form their opinions based upon emotions and irrational thought processes. The Righties form opinions based upon the Constitution and the principals this country was founded upon, and rational thought is used to reach proper conclusions.

By studying the era, usage of words and their intended meanings, history and the persons shaping it and compared to the entire wording and intention of The Bill of Rights, one can only conclude that the BofR was penned for the protection of the INDIVIDUAL against awry government and outlaw acts. Please study what the authors, the Founding Fathers, had to say about the Constitution. Please study their thought processes and their documentation supporting their thoughts. You cannot reach the conclusion that the Second was penned with government intent and collective issues in mind and heart.

Society is going to the dogs. Children are not being properly reared. The Leftists want, and allow, government into every aspect of our lives. There are your scourges of society, not guns. Guns are merely a tool used in this plague by the evildoers, and an easy target for Antis to blame.

Rear your children right, spank them, allow others to help correct their bad behaviors when you're not around... teach your children to be responsible and productive citizens. Stop giving them blue ribbons and trophies when they lose soccer all season. Teach them that losing motivates and that it is critical to be a good loser and a gracious winner. This move of society to blame everyone else for our individual sins and problems is ruining our well being and our country. When you're wrong, say you're wrong and take the consequences... teach our children PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and watch as society turns around over a few decades.

Just as Wise One refuses to comprehend that "We the People" cannot see the Second as a collective Right, penned for the states and not for the individual. Just as Wise One refuses to comprehend that the BofR was penned for the individual "people," and to the stern protests and warnings of James Madison because he felt that the Constitution was a government constraining document, not an empowering one... I cannot comprehend how Wise One et al can interpret the Second in any other fashion than to see that it acknowledges and secures the "individual Right." What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is open to misinterpretation and misrepresentation? Please don't give me that comma usage and other BS. "The People" in the Constitution's BofR speaks specifically of the "individual," not to the government.

Get off of guns and blaming an inanimate tool for your ills. Leave our RIGHTS intact to do as they were intended... protect us against oppression. Tell you what, I'll trade you the Second Amendment for the First and the Fourth. The Second guarantees all of the rest that you hold so dear.

Truckie

Re: BANG !

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 28 18:28

Wise One wrote:As expected, the Bush cabal on the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NRA nut jobs.

Nice Wise One.
Plying the liberal / leftist tactics of tantrum foot stomping and degrading name calling when others disagree with you. I thought you bigger than that...?

Wise One wrote:The American obsession with blasting away at whoever irks you will continue, resulting mainly in death by gunshot among family, friends and lovers.

Yeah, and you're 100 times more likely to be involved in a car crash within 20 miles of your home. HoHum, whatever.

Wise One, I've always read your posts with intensity and interest. You're obviously an educated and thoughtful person... how about trying that approach concerning this issue? You seem to have lost your faculties.
Last edited by Truckie on 2008 Jun 28 18:51, edited 1 time in total.

Truckie

Re: BANG !

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 28 18:36

Juggler wrote:How quaint. We quiver with uncertainty over what the outcome will be when you pick up your handguns to hold off George W. Bush's FBI swat teams, national guard, and armed forces -- when he has completed his crusade to shred the last remnants of law in the United States.

I concur with your take on the Patriot Act.

Juggler wrote:On second thought, I'd like to place my bet on which side will be squashed like a bug.

Exactly what the "All Powerful" thought in wars throughout the ages. Nearest to mind come our Civil War, World Wars I and II, Korea, Viet Nam and now Iraq. Staying power and conviction has been the decision maker over military might... for both sides of this fence.

Also, there's something to be said for the conviction of "rebels" applying guerilla tactics.

Pro Bono

Re: BANG !

Postby Pro Bono » 2008 Jun 28 21:09

Truckie Thanks for your input ! Well put and stated. Pro Bono

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: BANG !

Postby Wise One » 2008 Jun 29 07:13

Wise One wrote:The American obsession with blasting away at whoever irks you will continue, resulting mainly in death by gunshot among family, friends and lovers.
Truckee wrote:Yeah, and you're 100 times more likely to be involved in a car crash within 20 miles of your home.

Not according to available statistics. US Gun deaths run about 35,000 per year while auto deaths are about 40,000, throwing your "100 times" factor into the realm of fiction.

In focusing exclusively on the constitutional issue (I still think Scalia is wrong, but he got 3 other votes so that's the law) we miss what I believe to be the crucially important public health concern.

:wink: Driving a car and keeping a gun in the house are both suicidal. Which delivers more compensating utility? :wink:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

Truckie

Re: BANG !

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 29 09:31

Wise One wrote:
Wise One wrote:The American obsession with blasting away at whoever irks you will continue, resulting mainly in death by gunshot among family, friends and lovers.
Truckie wrote:Yeah, and you're 100 times more likely to be involved in a car crash within 20 miles of your home.

Not according to available statistics. US Gun deaths run about 35,000 per year while auto deaths are about 40,000, throwing your "100 times" factor into the realm of fiction.

In focusing exclusively on the constitutional issue (I still think Scalia is wrong, but he got 3 other votes so that's the law) we miss what I believe to be the crucially important public health concern.

:wink: Driving a car and keeping a gun in the house are both suicidal. Which action delivers more utility? :wink:


I am sort of thankful that you responded in this manner as YOU make my point in tri-fold.
Wise One wrote:US Gun deaths run about x 35,000 per year while auto deaths are about 40,000, throwing your "100 times" factor into the realm of fiction.

1) Leftists think with their emotions, read and interpret the facts as they wish and skew the truth of the matter to suit their argument. I never said that you're 100 times more likely to "die" 20 miles from your home. I said that you're 100 times more likely to be involved in a car crash... no one mentioned that crash resulting in a death -- except you. You took what I said and skewed it to fit your agenda, a typical leftist tactic. Who threw my statement into the realm of fiction Wise One? Certainly I didn't do it.

2) My 100 times and 20 miles was an off-hand comment. I admit that I don't know those numbers to be actual, but it is close. I said, "HoHum" after that comment because statistics are generally futile and can be tailored to the user's requirements (another huge tool of leftists).

Of course one is more likely to be involved in a vehicle crash within 20 miles of their home -- within 20 miles is where most folks do 90% of their driving! A statistical given. One cannot put much value on statistics until the entire methods of compiling them is studied, or sometimes, "revealed."

I will cede that a firearm in the hands of feuding family, friends and/or lovers MAY result in someone being shot. Again, a statistical given. You don't spend much time with strangers, and you're MUCH LESS likely to be involved in a highly emotional confrontation with a stranger. Emotions run very high in close relationships, and a firearm can facilitate one's hostile and violent intent. However, if I'm determined to do my friend, brother or lover serious harm, a kitchen knife or a nice rock will suffice. This is "intent" we're taking about Wise, not guns. Hold the intended accountable, not the gun, or the rock, or the knife.

3) You cite U.S. gun deaths at 35,000 (I couldn't get the link to work). But here again, a leftist tactic to skew and muddy the facts. That is an ALL ENCOMPASSED gun death statistic. That statistic omits the facts of the issue. How many were police shootings? How many were self-defense shootings? How many were suicides? How many were accidental? The circumstances around a statistic are more important than the actual data collected.

Also wrapped in that statistic is the fact that many shooting deaths in this country are thug on thug occurrences. This is sad to be sure. But, thugs have been killing one another since the Garden of Eden. Find a way to stop thugs and gangs, let the current thugs exterminate each other and murder rates will plummet. The more thugs that annihilate one another, the less good folks like you and I will have the need to protect ourselves with a firearm. This paragraph is harsh, yes I know, but it represents the reality of this issue.

The Washington Post is a leftist-liberal media. Please, no one should read anything from that rag as correctly representing the facts. Surely don't cite anything to me that is found on the WP's pages. The times that I've read that paper, I don't even believe the weather report.

{eta}
Wise,
I don't wish to debate you. I generally find your posts insightful and fun. I don't wish to create some sort of cyber strife between you and me. We're miles apart on this issue though, so it seems, and that is okay. I've found that one cannot talk reason to a devout, emotional driven, leftist.

But, you seem a man of reason and intellect. I don't say this as a dig or any form of attack, but maybe you should stop reading the Brady Bunch propaganda website and educate yourself to their contrary.

If we could achieve Utopia, I would be the first one to turn away from firearms. However, we as a society/world have not gotten anywhere near Utopia. Because humans are imperfect, greedy, evil etc., firearms will have to be in the hands of lawful persons to counterbalance the evil intent of others. Lawful persons are THE ONLY folks effected by any gun control legislation, the criminals will remain criminals without consideration of what you think or what laws are broken.

I use firearms as a tool of my profession, I use them for fun, I use them for relaxation, I use them to protect my family and for the protection of others yet unknown. I don't use them to kill at random, or to shoot friends, family and/or lovers. I use firearms as intended and designed, as a tool. And I fully and humbly comprehend the seriousness of carrying a firearm. In general, gun owners, and especially concealed carry/open carry gun users are, as a whole, the most lawful and polite folks walking our planet.

Wise One wrote:Driving a car and keeping a gun in the house are both suicidal. Which action delivers more utility?

A gun in the house is nothing more than a paper weight... UNTIL, someone with evil intent removes it from that job.
My service pistol has never jumped up from the safe and shot anyone nor has it forced anyone in my household to commit suicide by whispering in his/her ear in the middle of the night. Again and as always, HOLD THE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS/HER ACTIONS... a novel concept in today's society, huh?

Faced with the situation such as Mrs. Assam and thousands like her have faced, you tell me which holds more "utility" Wise. A defensive firearm on your hip or your car parked outside in the lot. Choose the car, you and those you love are not going to make it out to the lot.

Also, Justice Scalia got 4 others to vote with him, not 3-- THANKFULLY!
(check my tag line below)

Truckie

Re: BANG !

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 29 10:46

Wise One wrote:we miss what I believe to be the crucially important public health concern.

Again, leftist propaganda.

Under the Clinton administration, the CDC was charged with studying the effects of firearms on society and health. Even with the leftist agenda clearly stated, the CDC could not connect firearms with any significant negative impact upon the public health. As a matter of interest to me and disdain to the lefties, the CDC actually found firearms beneficial in several instances.
Last edited by Truckie on 2008 Jun 29 11:07, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: BANG !

Postby Wise One » 2008 Jun 29 11:01

Bullshit. I honestly used available statistics to support a quest for truth. This is not an example of "Leftists think with their emotions, read and interpret the facts as they wish and skew the truth of the matter to suit their argument" and it is insulting to so characterize it.

I will resist casting aspersions on your motives if you will do me the same honor. Let's look at objective truth where we find it, let the chips fall where they may, and avoid running off to a la-la land of ideological ranting.

To say there is nothing in the Washington Post "correctly representing the facts" is plainly wrong, as would be saying that everything on Fox TV is a lie. Both organs have editorial slants that are open to debate, but both contain thousands of facts that can be verified objectively.

Look closely at your statement, and my response. If you really meant to compare the number of minor car crashes to the number of gun deaths, then you meant to make a meaningless comparison. It makes no sense, so why would you seek to do so? I have no problem with comparing gun deaths with car deaths, or gun injuries with car injuries, but I have a major problem with comparing gun deaths with minor car injuries. It is a meaningless apples-to-oranges comparison that can only support ideological objectives even as it fails to demonstrate objectivity.

Statistics can be misused by dishonest people, but used honestly and objectively they provide a much better basis for conclusions than ideologues who "make up" their facts, a trend that appears to be accelerating when so many of our citizens have failed to develop and exercise their critical faculties. It is neither "leftist" nor "rightist" to base ones arguments on objective, verifiable facts including solid statistics -- and it beats the hell out of arguing ideology to the exclusion of any factual basis.

Finally, I note the added slur "Again, leftist propaganda." Name calling is not a substitute for reasoned argument, and your allegation that "CDC could not connect firearms with any significant negative impact upon the public health" is mere propaganda unless and until you can provide a reference. I doubt you can substantiate that claim.

PS. You're right on my numerical error! (it was 5/4)

:book1: We're entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. :book1:
Last edited by Wise One on 2008 Jun 29 11:45, edited 1 time in total.
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: BANG !

Postby fangz1956 » 2008 Jun 29 11:35

I don't hold much with what the CDC has to say on anything. After all, they are just another government mouthpiece.....my professional opinion speaking here. Hmmm...but perhaps that won't float with Wise One as that opinion is a fact based on personal experience. And, if I am reading correctly, that makes my opinion idealology. Sad really that one must be expected to discard personal experience as a basis for opinion and instead favor the statistics of somebody's propaganda machine.

Nevertheless, I found this article to be interesting and it appears to shoot holes in the public health theory (pun intended and yes I said THEORY).

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib ... eeler.html


:violent1:

"People shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." V
Last edited by fangz1956 on 2008 Jun 29 11:42, edited 1 time in total.
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

Truckie

Re: BANG !

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 29 11:38

Wise One wrote:Bullshit. I honestly used available statistics to support a quest for truth. This is not an example of "Leftists think with their emotions, read and interpret the facts as they wish and skew the truth of the matter to suit their argument" and it is insulting to so characterize it.

I will resist casting aspersions on your motives if you will do me the same honor. Let's look at objective truth where we find it, let the chips fall where they may, and avoid running off to a la-la land of ideological ranting.

To say there is nothing in the Washington Post "correctly representing the facts" is plainly wrong, as would be saying that everything on Fox TV is a lie. Both organs have editorial slants that are open to debate, but both contain thousands of facts that can be verified objectively.

Look closely at your statement, and my response. If you really meant to compare the number of minor car crashes to the number of gun deaths, then you meant to make a meaningless comparison. It makes no sense, so why would you seek to do so? I have no problem with comparing gun deaths with car deaths, or gun injuries with car injuries, but I have a major problem with comparing gun deaths with minor car injuries. It is a meaningless apples-to-oranges comparison that can only support ideological objectives even as it fails to demonstrate objectivity.

Statistics can be misused by dishonest people, but used honestly and objectively they provide a much better basis for conclusions than ideologues who "make up" their facts, a trend that appears to be accelerating when so many of our citizens have failed to develop and exercise their critical faculties. It is neither "leftist" nor "rightist" to base ones arguments on objective, verifiable facts including solid statistics -- and it beats the hell out of arguing ideology to the exclusion of any factual basis.

Finally, I note the added slur "Again, leftist propaganda." Name calling is not a substitute for reasoned argument, and your allegation that "CDC could not connect firearms with any significant negative impact upon the public health" is mere propaganda unless and until you can provide a reference. I doubt you can substantiate that claim.

:book1: We're entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. :book1:

I wasn't specifically name calling you Wise. I said nothing equitable to, "NRA nut jobs," and I am careful to not call you names. What has occurred here is that you assumed that tag from my typings. I did, and do, however hold those opinions of the entire leftist position. I promise that I wasn't name calling you, not my style... but, you are the one whom tried on those shoes.

I was in NO WAY equating a fender bender with gun deaths. What I did was to point out that statistics are imperfect and many times skewed. If you opined that I was making some parallel between the data of each, you've missed my point.

And again, you've taken me to the literal for my comments about the Post. Of course I know that facts and factual items appear inside that rag. But, I also thought you'd give me leeway on my opinions and would "know," that I "knew," that real stories are printed in that paper.

Fox certainly leans Right. However, unlike the Post, Fox will offer the opposing point of view when dealing with controversial issues. The Post conveniently omits any opposing points, and actually purposely misrepresents the opposition at times to forward its agenda.

The CDC report was suppressed by the Clinton administration, but it is available. However, I will not be the one to go research; I've not the time or motivation. I do challenge you, Wise One, to go in quest of this information. I also ask that you not provide Left opinions to support your positions on the matter, but to educate yourself by seeking the actual facts. Also and as fangz points out, one striking aspect of the CDC report is this... the CDC is an arm and mouth piece of the government. Even with its governmental roots, clearly stated Clinton liberal, anti-gun agenda AND FUNDING, the CDC could not substanciate their claim that firearms are a pestilence of our society or even articulate guns to be a public heath menace.

As said, I don't wish to debate you. I've witnessed the passion that you throw into your debates and I don't have that kind of drive over the internet.

I do invite you to take a concealed carry/handgun class or other firearm education. I even offer to pay your tuition. Then, you have an open invitation to accompany me to the firing range for some fun education. Or how about a morning or afternoon of skeet or sporting clay shooting? I promise that the shotgun will not jump up and kill either one of us... less we do something stupid and irresponsible.

What ya think?
Last edited by Truckie on 2008 Jun 29 18:50, edited 3 times in total.

Truckie

Re: BANG !

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 29 12:33

Aside, allow me to confront another issue made early in this thread. This is the issue of firearms education within the schools... and "why" isn't it?

When I attended high school, gun education was an elective of the PE program. One could sign up for several electives such as knitting, basket weaving etc. or the "NRA Hunter Education" curriculum, taught by the Virginia Game Commission, aka The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Yep, a Game Warden came into our classroom and taught firearm safety. That was a wonderful time and class.

I went to school, taking my shotgun or rifle in the car so as to enjoy a little afternoon shooting fun or hunt. No one got shot, no one called in a SWAT Team and those times were civil. And oh NO! Many of us also carried knives in our pockets and wore Smith & Wesson t-shirts. The most I ever got from an assistant principal was, "I have a revolver just like the one on your shirt, that's cool."

And guess what? I could also take "Bible Class." Yet, even in the 70's, we had to cross a busy roadway to go sit in a trailer, which was set-up off of school property.

What happened to these programs? The Left liberals demanded that they be removed from the outlines. Now, if you desire to take Hunter Education, this must be done through other venues, like the Boy Scouts, 4-H or other clubs such as Moose etc., which sponsor these classes. An armed Game Warden no longer teaches this curriculum either... another politically correct move forced by Leftists, and attributed to the lack of time on the part of our Wardens.

And the Bible classes??? Go ask the ACLU what happened to them. Funny, the ACLU touts and prides itself for the protection of American life. Yet, the ACLU has never taken a liberties issue concerning a firearm case. The ACLU has done very little good for our country, but many bads can be laid at its door.

User avatar
Concerned_Citizen
Posts: 49
Joined: 2008 May 30 14:57

Re: BANG !

Postby Concerned_Citizen » 2008 Jun 29 12:39

Wow a little touchy in here!! I feel this is a debate that will not be resolved in a single thread. Both have strong opinions to their cause, but you cannot deny that a tool, whether a pistol or a hunting rifle, is not the cause or personal harm. The individual at the trigger is the reason for personal harm. Many people civilians and LEO is that tool for personal safety, and that was the reason it was passed as bill originally. It is a shame that everyday on the news in DC, and well now here, we see someone getting murdered with a firearm. But having lived in another country where firearms were illeagal, that did not stop the murder and suicide rate. They just find another method to commit their crime.

If you couldn't tell I am an adovcate of 2A. I feel that it is a right that is under utilized in our society. I don't carry to scare people, to feel important, or to compensate for something. I have seen way too many people victimized by their situation, and I refuse to put myself in that situation. For those that want to promote gun control, it will never stop the bad guys from shooting you, but it will stop you, the law abiding citizen, from defending yourself in such a situation. I cannot see why any husband or father would want to give up a right that could save their family.

As far as the Heller ruling, I think it's a start. I feel that there were some aspects that were not discussed that should have been. But it is a process, and a beginning. I will take anything that will promote our rights as individuals. And any opportunity I get I will write to my congressmen and tell them to support specific bills.

Wise One, you clearly have your opinions, and that's on you. There are those in Lexington and Rockbridge that feel, "that will never happen to me" or, "this is a small town, we don't have those things happen to us" well not so far away those things are happening, and it's a matter of time for it to get to us. I choose to proactive and not reactive. Wise One, if you choose to be the latter, that's up to you. I choose to defend myself, and those around me. I'm not a hero, but I refuse to be a victim.
Μολὼν λαβέ

Truckie

Re: BANG !

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jun 29 12:57

Well Wise One, I went and did it anyhow. Actually, a simple Google revealed the sources of my "idealology."

Look at the study dates. Don't hold me to this one, but I think that this study was either a continuation of the original CDC study or the attempt to over turn the CDC's initial findings (non-findings as better stated). Either way, the Clinton administration ordered and funded this research... and Clinton's objectives were clearly stated to the CDC, but the CDC COULD NOT substantiate Clinton's wishes.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Summary

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws.

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.

The Clinton disclaimer portion:
(Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.