The Stupids Want To Move To Daveland

[marmad]

Inspired  by this thread I woke up this morning. Loaded my XD40 with the hottest jacketed hollow points I had, slid it under my belt then drove  to the mall and went shopping. While there I swung by the food court and grabbed a ketchup packet even though I didn't buy any fries. Afterwards as I drove home I stopped filled up my car on cheap gas.  Then I opened up Google music on my phone and streamed GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Now go back to the mall - locate a police officer - pull a (completely clean) marijuana pipe from your pocket while standing in his visible line of sight (heavens forbid, I don't mean smoke marijuana! I just mean hold a pipe in your hands) - then use your freedom of speech to call him a fascist when he starts to arrest you (or better yet, pull your XD40). Give us a full report later when you're out of prison in a year

[perfect_disturbance]

Inspired  by this thread I woke up this morning. Loaded my XD40 with the hottest jacketed hollow points I had, slid it under my belt then drove  to the mall and went shopping. While there I swung by the food court and grabbed a ketchup packet even though I didn't buy any fries. Afterwards as I drove home I stopped filled up my car on cheap gas.  Then I opened up Google music on my phone and streamed GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Now go back to the mall - locate a police officer - pull a (completely clean) marijuana pipe from your pocket while standing in his visible line of sight (heavens forbid, I don't mean smoke marijuana! I just mean hold a pipe in your hands) - then use your freedom of speech to call him a fascist when he starts to arrest you (or better yet, pull your XD40). Give us a full report later when you're out of prison in a year

Give me a couple hours I'll drive to grand junction and let you know how it goes.

[marmad]

Give me a couple hours I'll drive to grand junction and let you know how it goes.

No need to go that far - it's more of a 'freedom' test in Idaho.

[SeanB]

Here I am in South Africa, pretty far up the list on Wiki. Legal gun ownership is hard ( 2 year wait so far if you want to buy a gun, and it gets longer every month, as there is 1 person in the whole country who does the permit inspections, and he is on stress related leave for the last year) with a very hard license and regulation.

Does this stop illegal gun use? Not a bit, there are still hundreds of thousands of either stolen ( from the police or the military) or ex soviet ere guns around ( thanks Joe for that) that are freely available. There was a big program of blowing up gun caches, though there are still some around known of by certain ex MK members who are a little paranoid. Has done little to stop gun use in crime. Been there, got 2 T shirts.

[perfect_disturbance]

Inspired  by this thread I woke up this morning. Loaded my XD40 with the hottest jacketed hollow points I had, slid it under my belt then drove  to the mall and went shopping. While there I swung by the food court and grabbed a ketchup packet even though I didn't buy any fries. Afterwards as I drove home I stopped filled up my car on cheap gas.  Then I opened up Google music on my phone and streamed GOD BLESS AMERICA!

For the official record I didn't really do this. It's totally not my style....

I much prefer fry sauce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fry_sauce try it, it's really good) and Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A." or Niel Diamond "America" not sure.

[Monkeh]

As for home storage and non-range use (hunting, vermin control, shooting on own property, etc), those are things which should be decided on a case-by-case basis, imo. By the police, and involing a psychological evaluation. Access to significantly powerful firearms outside of a controlled setting (or at the very least their ammunition, although I would strongly oppose handguns stored at home even without ammunition) needs to be carefully controlled.

I agree, and I don't think our laws go far enough. You should not be allowed to own and keep a firearm of any sort at home unless you have a legitimate need, like a farmer for example.
If you want to play with guns, go to a secure gun club/shooting range and have a ball. Any gun laws should not affect these places.

Dave.

And of course, legitimate need is not a fixed term. Say you live 80 miles away from your range, you're an active competition shooter, and you need to practice. You have written permission from a nearby land owner who has a sufficiently large and sheltered area you can safely shoot in. That, in my books, is justification for storing your firearm on your property.

You can use them for target practice, but for what, so you can get a better shot when you're hunting something, to kill it? Even if you have no intention of doing such a thing, there's no other reason to have the skills in the real world

It's called sport. I'm going to assume you entirely disown the hard earned gold medal of Peter Wilson this year, then?

[poptones]

The problems in the US mentioned by some regarding our prison population is a misnomer, because our prison population is mostly non violent offenders. Our prison population has to do with insane drg and three strike laws which are rooted in racism and social-economic discrimination. For a while the punishment for having crack cocaine was a hundred times that for having the same amount of white powder cocaine. A few years ago Congress finally officially recognized this unjust disparity and lowered the punishment for crack - to "only" ten times that for the white powder.

One by one states are saying enough. California has legalized medical pot for years and usually refuses to police marijuana use. Arizona, where I live, has medicial marijuana and two states, Colorado and Washington I believe, just two days ago voted to legalize pot completely. Prohibition doesn't work in this country, has never worked in this country, but no politican dares to be seen as "soft on crime" so they continue to posture and pretend the problem isn't the prohibition laws but that we're "not tough enough."

Crime, in all, has been on a downward trend SINCE THE SEVENTIES. Gun violence, in some very narrow cases, has increased statistically but this is at the same time overall crime has gone down. And I don't need to quote wikipedia for all this, the FBI does a fine job. Gun control laws are notoriously unpopular and yet the number (not just the percentage) of crimes, and gun related crimes overall, remain on a downward trend in spite of the population of this country growing by nearly a third since the first published reports of this nature by the FBI.

If it is to gain freedom, there are other ways to acquire your freedom from dictators/invaders

Yes, seems to have worked wonders for the people of Tibet, as well as China with its short list of jailed dissidents. And don't forget that the present government of China, as well as that of the Soviet Union and even the U S itself, are rooted in revolution by the people. France, the US, China - not one, but FIVE revolutions for China in the last two centuries in spite of having no guns. And look how well revolution has worked out for the people in the places where there were few guns and other implements of destruction.

One thing is sure with an armed militia it it sure possible to gain freedom. for example Afghanistan and the soviet troops, hell that gave the soviet Union the death stroke. More recent look at Libya where the rebells could get rid of their dictator.

Exactly my point. IT wasn't standing armies  that won these battles, it was militia. Armed citizens.  Because tanks and bombs from the air and shells from the navy are all weapons of mas destruction and terror, but they are notoriously ineffective at getting the guys you want. How many bombs did we drop on Iraq before we got Hussein? We pulverized Germany and still didn't manage to get Hitler. All this is still being amply demonstrated in the mideast where we continue to kill civilians who "get in the way" of our "surgical" drone strikes. Dropping bombs on an armed populace doesn't make them succumb, it pisses them off and strengthens their resolve.

BUT there are quite good examples of other ways to get rid of other invaders/ dictators

LOL

India was a territory of the British Empire and they could gain their sovereign through violence free demonstrations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army

There was the fall of the  the iron curtain ("Berliner Mauer")the violence free demonstrations of the east germans led to the union of east and west germany.

UH huh. And what was it that started the fall of that empire?



more recent the events in Tunisia which weren't all violence free but the demonstrants didn't need to rely on an arsenal of guns to gain their goal (get rid of their president)

Yes, I'm sure the Trillions of dollars we've spent destabilizing the entire mideast had nothing to do with these recent uprisings.

Of course I did simplify the events...

Indeed....

[ftransform]

[WorldPowerLabs]

Well as old fashioned and humorous as it may seem I do believe the constitution was inspired

Please explain why it had to be amended no less than 27 times 

Dave.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone -- we come from different cultures and have different experiences.  However, let me point out that the Constitution and Bill of Rights *DO NOT* grant rights.  Rights, our founders believed, ALREADY EXIST as inherent and inalienable rights of Man.  The enumeration of rights in the Constitution is intended to especially protect specific rights, but it does not grant them.  Any rights NOT specifically recognized by the Constitution are reserved to the states and to the people.

Having said that, I do believe in the right to keep and bear arms.  We live in a dangerous society.  Not because of weapons, but because of MANY factors:  the decaying family structure, loss of jobs and a poor economy, attitudes of entitlement, etc.  Individuals absolutely have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves and their families from the threat of deadly violence, especially when inside their own homes.

In the USA, firearms are used defensively about 2.4 million times per year -- usually with no shots fired (John Lott, senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, has written much on this).  Without firearms, there would be millions of additional crime victims.

If you live in a safe society and don't want guns, fine -- but I don't want someone else telling me what tools I can use to protect my own life.  I'd rather live in a FREE society than a "safe" one, but perhaps that's what makes Americans unique!

[ivan747]

Know why we're the most powerful nation on earth? Because no one will fuck with us. Because they know if they try to invade, screw the army and the air force and the marines, we have enough guns to arm every man, woman and child in the nation and enough ammo to kill every other motherfucker on the face of the earth. So leave us alone.

'merica!

Who the fuck would want to military invade any developed nation these days?

[poptones]

I dunno. WTF did we invade Iraq? You think Iraq wasn't "developed" before we bombed the shit out of it?

You think China would not invade Japan today if they thought they could get away with it? It's not the unarmed citizens of Japan the Chinese fear... wanna guess?

Everyone hates violence and guns until there's a guy holding a gun to their head and they're powerless to fight back. Something about atheists and foxholes comes to mind.

[marmad]

The problems in the US mentioned by some regarding our prison population is a misnomer, because our prison population is mostly non violent offenders. Our prison population has to do with insane drg and three strike laws which are rooted in racism and social-economic discrimination. For a while the punishment for having crack cocaine was a hundred times that for having the same amount of white powder cocaine. A few years ago Congress finally officially recognized this unjust disparity and lowered the punishment for crack - to "only" ten times that for thw white powder.

You're mixing apples and oranges - drug laws are not the same as three-strike laws - which are applied to, in general, persons previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies. In any case, it's all part of the same madness there - which includes drug laws, over-sentencing in general, gun availability, concealed carry laws, stand-your-ground laws, death penalties, etc, etc.

Crime, in all, has been on a downward trend SINCE THE SEVENTIES. Gun violence, in some very narrow cases, has increased statistically but this is at the same time overall crime has gone down. And I don't need to quote wikipedia for all this, the FBI does a fine job. Gun control laws are notoriously unpopular and yet the number (not just the percentage) of crimes, and gun related crimes overall, remain on a downward trend in spite of the population of this country growing by nearly a third since the first published reports of this nature by the FBI.

Hmm... I wonder if that downward trend is in any way related to enactment of the few federal gun regulations that exist? It's appears they started trying to regulate guns RIGHT BEFORE THE SEVENTIES.

Yes, seems to have worked wonders for the people of Tibet, as well as China with its short list of jailed dissidents[/url

Well, if you want to compare the freedom and quality of life in your nation to third world places, fine. I prefer to compare it (as I did in a previous post) to other EME countries - in which it lags sadly behind in both areas.

[marmad]

One by one states are saying enough. California has legalized medical pot for years and usually refuses to police marijuana use. Arizona, where I live, has medicial marijuana and two states, Colorado and Washington I believe, just two days ago voted to legalize pot completely.

LOL... for every state like Colorado or Washington, there is a state like Idaho:

Being in a place where people smoke marijuana = 3 months in jail.
If you are found to be stoned in public = 6 months in jail.
Being caught with a marijuana pipe (with no marijuana) = 1 year in prison.
If you also have some marijuana with the pipe = +1 year in prison.
If you do any of this around a child = felony 5 years in prison.
Selling pipes, bongs, grinders, and kief boxes = felony 9 years in prison and a $30,000 fine.

But no problem to score some guns there. Ahhh... the land of the free 

[poptones]

You're mixing apples and oranges - drug laws are not the same as three-strike laws - which are applied to, in general, persons previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies.

No, you're mixing apples and oranges and calling them pears. Felonies encompass a great more crimes than simply "stick'em up." Felonies include possession of more than an ounce of pot, pulling a jack on someone in a fight, attacking a cop, breaking into a computer, passing a hold up note to a teller in a bank, insider trading...

It is often felony drug arrests that lead to people being imprisoned. And much of that voiolence in our cosiety - just like in the "roaring twenties" - is due to prohibition itself. Blaming guns on the problem is like blaming bulldozers for killing wild animals.

Being in a place where people smoke marijuana = 3 months in jail.
If you are found to be stoned in public = 6 months in jail.
Being caught with a marijuana pipe (with no marijuana) = 1 year in prison.
If you also have some marijuana with the pipe = +1 year in prison.
If you do any of this around a child = felony 5 years in prison.
Selling pipes, bongs, grinders, and kief boxes = felony 9 years in prison and a $30,000 fine.

Thanks for making my point again. And yet "most three strike offenses" apply to violent criminals?

Not according to the FBI... nor even according to you.

[ivan747]

At the end of the day it is not the guns but the mentality of the people owning them. In some parts of the world just about every house in the country has at least one fully automatic rifle in it, country's such as Switzerland. But they have a very low gun crime rate they also have a very low general crime rate so this has to say something about the people and society.

This tells us that to reduce deaths caused by guns more effectively, we should focus on reducing all crime in the first place. And why most of the crime happens? It is related to a bunch of conditions, some of them seem to have no relation at all. Let me tell you about a good book that covers this subject, Freakonomics, chapter 4. Here's a good summary on it:
http://tomablakejie.blogspot.com/2009/04/summary-of-chapter-4.html

This is why we have to look at things on a bigger scale whenever possible.

[perfect_disturbance]

One by one states are saying enough. California has legalized medical pot for years and usually refuses to police marijuana use. Arizona, where I live, has medicial marijuana and two states, Colorado and Washington I believe, just two days ago voted to legalize pot completely.

LOL... for every state like Colorado or Washington, there is a state like Idaho:

Being in a place where people smoke marijuana = 3 months in jail.
If you are found to be stoned in public = 6 months in jail.
Being caught with a marijuana pipe (with no marijuana) = 1 year in prison.
If you also have some marijuana with the pipe = +1 year in prison.
If you do any of this around a child = felony 5 years in prison.
Selling pipes, bongs, grinders, and kief boxes = felony 9 years in prison and a $30,000 fine.

But no problem to score some guns there. Ahhh... the land of the free 

So to be clear marmad believes some of the US is OK just not Idaho. But what he has forgotten is what we lack in easy access to pot we make up for in free fry sauce something you won't find as readily in Colorado and Washington. 

Seriously I just got back from Carl's Jr for lunch and you have to try fry sauce with Idaho potatoes and you'll swear off pot forever. FREAKING AMAZING!!

[marmad]

Not according to the FBI... nor even according to you.

Would you like to post that link to the FBI site which states that most three-strike convictions do NOT involve violent offenses? Because I can't find it. Oh never mind...

If you live in a safe society and don't want guns, fine -- but I don't want someone else telling me what tools I can use to protect my own life.  I'd rather live in a FREE society than a "safe" one, but perhaps that's what makes Americans unique!

No, what apparently makes Americans unique is their inability at critical analysis of the things that were spoon-fed to them when they were young. "FREEDOM" is an abstract concept - it means DIFFERENT things to DIFFERENT people, ok? Some people might think that being "safe" makes them feel more free then owning a gun. Just because Madison wrote this down to placate some anti-Federalists doesn't make it a truth about humanity - it just makes it a law in one specific country (which didn't even apply to many of it's inhabitants for a LONG time).

Geez, do you guys also believe all the stuff about savage redskins, Manifest Destiny, most free country on the planet, and the rest of the crap? Gosh, I bet we could just have oodles of fun conversation about the glorious Founding Fathers and the wonderful history of these United Snakes.

Anyway, this is pointless... as I pointed out in several previous posts, I gave up my 'freedom' to own a gun (plus the condiments, cheap gas and Chinese crap) - and got a whole lot of better 'freedoms' in return. But trying to explain this to 'true blooded' Americans is an exercise in futility.

[poptones]

"Safe" is also an abstract, and an illusion. If you don't own a gun, and your oppressor does, from whom are you "safe?" Your neighbor, who has the same gun pointed to his head?

[perfect_disturbance]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Not that everyone here would put much stake in the words of Benjamin Franklin.

But he apparently thought there was a difference between liberty and safety.

If liberty and safety were the same thing why would anyone ever put themselves in harms way to defend their Liberty?

[WorldPowerLabs]

Not according to the FBI... nor even according to you.

Would you like to post that link to the FBI site which states that most three-strike convictions do NOT involve violent offenses? Because I can't find it. Oh never mind... this is tedious.

If you live in a safe society and don't want guns, fine -- but I don't want someone else telling me what tools I can use to protect my own life.  I'd rather live in a FREE society than a "safe" one, but perhaps that's what makes Americans unique!

No, what apparently makes Americans unique is their inability at critical analysis of the things that were spoon-fed to them when they were young. "FREEDOM" is an abstract concept - it means DIFFERENT things to DIFFERENT people, ok? Some people might think that being "safe" makes them feel more free then owning a gun. Just because Madison wrote this down to placate some anti-Federalists doesn't make it a truth about humanity - it just makes it a law in one specific country (which didn't even apply to many of it's inhabitants for a LONG time).

Geez, do you guys also believe all the stuff about savage redskins, Manifest Destiny, most free country on the planet, and the rest of the crap? Gosh, I bet we could just have oodles of fun conversation about the glorious Founding Fathers and the wonderful history of these United Snakes.

Anyway, this is pointless... as I pointed out in several previous posts, I gave up my 'freedom' to own a gun (plus the condiments, cheap gas and Chinese crap) - and got a whole lot of better 'freedoms' in return. But trying to explain this to 'true blooded' Americans is an exercise in futility.

Let me give you an example of the absurdity of some gun "control" laws:  I am a licensed amateur "Ham" radio operator.  I use antennas for my hobby.  I like to support my antennas using trees, since they are readily available and are cheaper than steel towers.  Probably more "green," as well.  Many hams raise antennas into trees by attaching a small weight to fishing line and shooting that over a choice branch by means of a slingshot.  They then attach the loose end of the fishing line to support ropes, etc., and hoist the antenna.

Unfortunately, I cannot purchase or own a slingshot, because my state has decided that slingshots are "firearms" and they've outlawed them.  So, I had to tie a rock to a rope and toss that.  Obviously, not as effective as the slingshot method.  Plus, a rock attached to a rope is probably considered a weapon some places...

[marmad]

So to be clear marmad believes some of the US is OK just not Idaho. But what he has forgotten is what we lack in easy access to pot we make up for in free fry sauce something you won't find as readily in Colorado and Washington. 

Seriously I just got back from Carl's Jr for lunch and you have to try fry sauce with Idaho potatoes and you'll swear off pot forever. FREAKING AMAZING!!

I actually have no problem whatsoever with Idaho - it's a beautiful place - and one of my brothers lives close by. In fact, if I lived in Idaho, I'd likely own a gun. The problem with guns in the US is not primarily those that are owned by the 20% of the populace who live in rural areas - it's the ones owned and used by the 80% who live in urban areas.

But, anyway, I'll try the fry sauce next chance I get 

[EEVblog]

At least one thing is certain. When you get pulled over by a cop in Australia and you innocently reach for the glove box when he asks for your licence, at least the cop won't drag you out the car by your hair and force you to kiss the asphalt. Neither will he tear your car apart to search for weapons and contraband materials. The inherent threat of someone randomly wielding a gun is practically non-existent here. Personally, I feel safe even in rough neighbourhoods at night. I'd rather have that than "freedom" to carry firearms wherever I go.

Yes indeed, and that's the point the gun people don't understand. Forget the stats etc, the general lack of guns and gun culture in society ultimately leads to a better, safer, and generally less violet and need for a defensive society. So reducing them in the hands of people on the street is a good idea. And doing so takes nothing away from those who want to play with them.

Dave.

[Monkeh]

At least one thing is certain. When you get pulled over by a cop in Australia and you innocently reach for the glove box when he asks for your licence, at least the cop won't drag you out the car by your hair and force you to kiss the asphalt. Neither will he tear your car apart to search for weapons and contraband materials. The inherent threat of someone randomly wielding a gun is practically non-existent here. Personally, I feel safe even in rough neighbourhoods at night. I'd rather have that than "freedom" to carry firearms wherever I go.

Yes indeed, and that's the point the gun people don't understand. Forget the stats etc, the general lack of guns and gun culture in society ultimately leads to a better, safer, and generally less violet and need for a defensive society. So reducing them in the hands of people on the street is a good idea. And doing so takes nothing away from those who want to play with them.

Dave.

There's a difference between owning firearms and carrying them around with you. A point a lot of non-gun people don't understand.

[8086]

At least one thing is certain. When you get pulled over by a cop in Australia and you innocently reach for the glove box when he asks for your licence, at least the cop won't drag you out the car by your hair and force you to kiss the asphalt. Neither will he tear your car apart to search for weapons and contraband materials. The inherent threat of someone randomly wielding a gun is practically non-existent here. Personally, I feel safe even in rough neighbourhoods at night. I'd rather have that than "freedom" to carry firearms wherever I go.

Yes indeed, and that's the point the gun people don't understand. Forget the stats etc, the general lack of guns and gun culture in society ultimately leads to a better, safer, and generally less violet and need for a defensive society. So reducing them in the hands of people on the street is a good idea. And doing so takes nothing away from those who want to play with them.

Dave.

There's a difference between owning firearms and carrying them around with you. A point a lot of non-gun people don't understand.

There's actually little difference, if there's a gun, there's a gun. No gun = no risk. A point a lot of gun people don't understand.

[G7PSK]

I think that this says enough about gun controls or the lack of them.


http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20121108loughner-sentencing-giffords-shooting.html?source=nletter-breakingnews