6 months? wow, that's even worse than here in NY which takes about 4 months.
At one time around 15 years ago, I actually owned around 50 pistols. Sold off most of them since then, but at that time I went a little crazy buying them because a good friend of mine was a gun dealer, and I was able to get the pistols a little over cost, so I began collecting.
So one day as I was applying for another supplement for another pistol, it was taking forever. I went to the sheriff's office and they informed me that they are doing an investigation on me, they want to examine whether I have been selling these guns illegally. So I was asked to appear in court, and went into a room with the assistant D.A., Judge, sheriff, court stenographer, law enforcement ready to take me away, the whole shebang. Questions were asked about why I was buying all these guns and I said they were for collecting. To make a long story short, they wanted me to give an account for every pistol I owned, they wanted to see them all. They wanted to come into my home, examine my safe, make sure every gun was there. Otherwise, I was in deep doo doo.
Everything checked out, but from then on, I haven't purchased another pistol.
Go Ted. And right on Rascal. And all of the rest of you who agree with Ted. I am at work and don't have time to comment more. I did just post one on gun control over at Politics and Tacks. An article about a guy who protected himself at the restaurant he owns. A young "rapper" came in, stuck a nine mm in his face, and the owner pulled his own pistol and shot him. Now the restaurant owner is under legal fire. But anyway. I really liked Ted's hard hitting "from the hip" opinion. But what else can we expect from the "Motor City Madman"?
We simply need to wake up as a Nation and put a stop the the hand wringing do gooders by voting in those who think logically like we do. Up here in Alaska, we need no conceal and carry permit. Although, when it was required, it never stopped me. I'd rather be tried by twelve, than carried by six....
Wow that stinks oldies. I am suprised that they were allowed to hassel you like that. Did you have an attorney?
I only need one, but I fail to see why you should be penalised if you enjoy collecting them. Geemany...
The deputy sheriff that I talked to while getting my finger prints, told me that it was a damned good idea and that he wished more responsible people would do it as well.
Didn't have an attorney with me, which was ok because I wasn't fighting them on anything. But if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't have allowed them to come into my home.
Johnnie.... when I moved to Tenn years ago, they had just changed all of their criteria for getting a permit. I asked the sherriffs dept how to full fill the requirements...you had to have a state aproved course (there weren`t any yet) and at the time some type of insurance....anyway it was all so new that the law enforcement didn`t even know how to fullfill the requirements.
Finally the deputy just told me....*Ma`am, if I were you.....I`d rather take the chance of getting caught with a gun, then to get caught without it and need it*
I guess the penalties I would pay would be worth the risk.
Although, by this logic of everyone packing = everyone being safer, you all would have to agree that no one having a gun would also = everyone being safer, if not more so.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. As soon as all guns are destroyed, and I mean all of them, this will make sense.
As long as guns DO exist, however, this doesn't make sense to me.
I`d rather take the chance of getting caught with a gun, then to get caught without it and need it*
Wow Rascal,that's an awesome thing for the deputy to say, and how true! And ya know, that's how I have operated. And, because I am very responsible and downright religious about safety and concealment, no one even knows that I carry it from time to time. I don't usually carry it around here in Juneau except when in the woods and the bears are out, or when I walk my dog in an area where our local wolf has now eaten three domestic dogs. He only eats little dogs. The last one was a Pomeranian. But when I have worked up north in the Bush and lived in "Man Camps", I carried it afetr work all of the time. Too wild and wooly in those situations where there is lots of after work drinkin' goin' on. And at home while I am away, my wife keeps the house protected with her 12 gage pump shotgun with the pistol grip. He nick name is "Shotgun Shannon" by the way...
And we always pray that we never ever need to use a firearm in defense of life and property against a human. We have used them to scare off bears numerous times though, and man were we thankful to be armed.
I dunno, I am not opposed to you having a gun, I have two small arms weapons, (one was purchased just to get it away from someone who felt he should not have one anymore) but the statistics I have read do not indicate that makes us safer. I don't understand the way americans are enamored with guns.
~HAP
Hap -- I agree. But I also agree with Rascal.
With me -- it's not the *necessity* of owning and carrying a gun,
so much as it is being able to protect yourself (if and when), necessary.
Maybe this is a lame comparison ---- but ---
suppose knives were outlawed.
Suppose anything with a sharp blade became illegal.
Suppose (here in Minney-soda), I drove off the road,
and into one of our lakes up here,
while strapped in (seat-belt and all), as required by law up here.
While my car is sinking into the lake,
I have no way to QUICKLY extricate myself
from the *confines* of the seat-belt.
It's the same feeling of helplessness.
In other words -- one doesn't have the TOOLS AT HAND,
to deal with the situation.
I have to agree with Ex-70's that not all should carry guns.
But I still believe that those who are RESPONSIBLE,
shouldn't be prevented from carrying wherever they might go.
Well, as I said, I'm not a gun nut and I'm NOT an ANTI-GUN nut. But since I think I have been pegged as the illogical liberal anti-gun freak, I'll play the part for a while since the arguement is pretty much one sided at this point.
First off Rhino and the constitutional right to have a rocket launcher POV:
It all comes down to one comma. We tend to skip over this part of the second ammendment but there it is at the beginning...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
or as seen in other copies
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You see it? Right there after Militia. From Wikipedia:
There is some question as to whether the Second Amendment contains a comma after the word "militia". In the twentieth century, it became unusual to separate a subject and verb or verb and object with a comma. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, commas were used to indicate rhetorical pauses; in the twentieth century, commas were generally used to differentiate between restrictive and nonrestrictive modifiers. This practice continues in the early twenty-first century.
The later version without the comma is the version approved by the Senate and House and was ratified by the states. Of course, there are huge arguements about this and it all comes down to your POV vs. some peacenic hippie. But without that comma the second amendment is talking about a well regulated malitia, and well regulated does not mean your buddies nominated you General of zipcode 84243, it is talking about the state and local government. If you look at the early renditions of the amendment you see more language refering to military service.
There is much more to the analysis of this amendment and it is all very interesting, but in short it comes down to what the Supreme Court says. They have not ruled gun regulation as infringements on your God given right to own a gun, but have allowed states to allow you to own a gun as a citizen. You may not agree with it but that is the beauty of this country.
I would like to know how many of you have been in a situation where you needed to use your gun against an aggressor. Do you all also always wear your seatbelts? I hope so. You're much more likely to get in a car accident.
As to the "criminals will always be able to get guns" crowd...really? All criminals will be able to? How many do you think will be able to? How do you think that would impact the number of people killed by guns? How many accidental shootings would occur? Do you think that criminals rob people and their homes and stores just assuming that no one has a gun?
Mo had a good point that didn't seem too important to her. Guns make it easier to kill lots of people quickly. As someone pointed out this wasn't the case in the early days of our country when our rights were being defined. The Tim McVay arguement doesn't really hold water. How many incidents like that have happened in our history and how did gun ownership help in those cases? Someone could still just as easily make bombs if they wanted to right now just by looking on the internet and buying materials that don't have any restrictions on them whatsoever.
The other arguement that says "guns don't kill people, people do" again is missing what it is saying. If guns don't kill people then you won't miss them and not having guns really wouldn't kill people.
and another thing. If we didn't have guns but some criminals did, and the former gun owners spent as much time and money on safety and self defence by other means you wouldn't be any less safe. The only thing that garantees that you will shoot an intruder intending to kill you is that you notice them first and you shoot first and you hit them in the right spot first. The same is true with your bare hands if you know how to use them. Ever heard one of those stories of an old man or woman beating an armed robber off with their cane or hand bag?
First off Rhino and the constitutional right to have a rocket launcher POV:
I would like to know how many of you have been in a situation where you needed to use your gun against an aggressor. Do you all also always wear your seatbelts? I hope so. You're much more likely to get in a car accident.
The other arguement that says "guns don't kill people, people do" again is missing what it is saying. If guns don't kill people then you won't miss them and not having guns really wouldn't kill people.
I think that was DMiller on the rocket launcher question ...
There are a lot of jumps in your logic ... (I know I left out some lines) but by your logic, cars don't kill people so you won't miss them, then with no cars there will be no auto accidents.
Other means of defense would be less effective as a deterrent, overwhelming force is the way to go ... as Clint said ... "I don't want to kill you ... and you don't want to be dead." Clint drawing his Taser just doesn't have the same sudden impact.
Lindy, I have seen several situation where a gun would have been needed.
My husband was in a situation once when returning from a business trip where a gang of people in multiple cars kept trying to run him off the road...threatening him with a gun....
My friend just last year was driving on a road here locally when a car slowed down in front of her...when she blew her horn...the passenger came up out of his window...laid himself along the top of the car and pointed a gun at her....
I was once in a situation where my husband to be and his buddy were brutally beaten to bloody pulps by a gang of hoodlums.
It was a terrible thing to see and a terrible feeling to know exactly how helpless I was. If somebody hadn`t come along when they did...I don`t know when it would have stopped or if they would have hurt me too....I wish that I HAD had a gun then. If they did this to us...no doubt they would do it to others.
I have studied martial arts for over 5 years, as do my children. That along with carrying a fire arm are nothing more than tools in our chest to protect ourselves.
MOST responsible gun owners, are like us....responsible law abiding people who hope that they will NEVER have to draw and fire, but are prepared to defend themselves if they need to.
I say law abiding because we have to pass a criminal back ground check.....
I say responsible because.......
MOST gun owners are aware that if they draw and fire their weapon WITHOUT being in eminent danger of death....they will be prosecuted?
IF you draw your weapon when in danger of eminent harm or death and you miss ...striking a bystander...you will be prosecuted....
IF you draw your weapon when in eminent danger of harm and you inadvertantly cause property damage, you will be liable for damages?
and finally....
IF you draw your weapon and fire when in eminent danger of harm...you will STILL incur up to 100,000 dollars in legal and defense fees????
Moral issues aside....most people who have gone through the arduous process required to aquire a gun and carry permit ...knows that to fire it, under ANY circumstances is going to cost them dearly.
I know that there are nut jobs out there who will aquire weapons one way or another, and some people that have no business having guns....but to penalize the responsible law abiding citizens is not right.
I don't really think its a bad thing to be motivated by fear.
... especially the politicians who want to capitalize on that fear for their own purposes or the purposes of the propaganda machine that they signed on with.
Recommended Posts
oldiesman
6 months? wow, that's even worse than here in NY which takes about 4 months.
At one time around 15 years ago, I actually owned around 50 pistols. Sold off most of them since then, but at that time I went a little crazy buying them because a good friend of mine was a gun dealer, and I was able to get the pistols a little over cost, so I began collecting.
So one day as I was applying for another supplement for another pistol, it was taking forever. I went to the sheriff's office and they informed me that they are doing an investigation on me, they want to examine whether I have been selling these guns illegally. So I was asked to appear in court, and went into a room with the assistant D.A., Judge, sheriff, court stenographer, law enforcement ready to take me away, the whole shebang. Questions were asked about why I was buying all these guns and I said they were for collecting. To make a long story short, they wanted me to give an account for every pistol I owned, they wanted to see them all. They wanted to come into my home, examine my safe, make sure every gun was there. Otherwise, I was in deep doo doo.
Everything checked out, but from then on, I haven't purchased another pistol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Go Ted. And right on Rascal. And all of the rest of you who agree with Ted. I am at work and don't have time to comment more. I did just post one on gun control over at Politics and Tacks. An article about a guy who protected himself at the restaurant he owns. A young "rapper" came in, stuck a nine mm in his face, and the owner pulled his own pistol and shot him. Now the restaurant owner is under legal fire. But anyway. I really liked Ted's hard hitting "from the hip" opinion. But what else can we expect from the "Motor City Madman"?
We simply need to wake up as a Nation and put a stop the the hand wringing do gooders by voting in those who think logically like we do. Up here in Alaska, we need no conceal and carry permit. Although, when it was required, it never stopped me. I'd rather be tried by twelve, than carried by six....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Wow that stinks oldies. I am suprised that they were allowed to hassel you like that. Did you have an attorney?
I only need one, but I fail to see why you should be penalised if you enjoy collecting them. Geemany...
The deputy sheriff that I talked to while getting my finger prints, told me that it was a damned good idea and that he wished more responsible people would do it as well.
This guy is law enforcement for goodness sakes.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Didn't have an attorney with me, which was ok because I wasn't fighting them on anything. But if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't have allowed them to come into my home.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Johnnie.... when I moved to Tenn years ago, they had just changed all of their criteria for getting a permit. I asked the sherriffs dept how to full fill the requirements...you had to have a state aproved course (there weren`t any yet) and at the time some type of insurance....anyway it was all so new that the law enforcement didn`t even know how to fullfill the requirements.
Finally the deputy just told me....*Ma`am, if I were you.....I`d rather take the chance of getting caught with a gun, then to get caught without it and need it*
I guess the penalties I would pay would be worth the risk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I agree with this wholeheartedly. As soon as all guns are destroyed, and I mean all of them, this will make sense.
As long as guns DO exist, however, this doesn't make sense to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
ahh... there's the rub... ALL GUNS will never be destroyed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Wow Rascal,that's an awesome thing for the deputy to say, and how true! And ya know, that's how I have operated. And, because I am very responsible and downright religious about safety and concealment, no one even knows that I carry it from time to time. I don't usually carry it around here in Juneau except when in the woods and the bears are out, or when I walk my dog in an area where our local wolf has now eaten three domestic dogs. He only eats little dogs. The last one was a Pomeranian. But when I have worked up north in the Bush and lived in "Man Camps", I carried it afetr work all of the time. Too wild and wooly in those situations where there is lots of after work drinkin' goin' on. And at home while I am away, my wife keeps the house protected with her 12 gage pump shotgun with the pistol grip. He nick name is "Shotgun Shannon" by the way...
And we always pray that we never ever need to use a firearm in defense of life and property against a human. We have used them to scare off bears numerous times though, and man were we thankful to be armed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hap -- I agree. But I also agree with Rascal.
With me -- it's not the *necessity* of owning and carrying a gun,
so much as it is being able to protect yourself (if and when), necessary.
Maybe this is a lame comparison ---- but ---
suppose knives were outlawed.
Suppose anything with a sharp blade became illegal.
Suppose (here in Minney-soda), I drove off the road,
and into one of our lakes up here,
while strapped in (seat-belt and all), as required by law up here.
While my car is sinking into the lake,
I have no way to QUICKLY extricate myself
from the *confines* of the seat-belt.
It's the same feeling of helplessness.
In other words -- one doesn't have the TOOLS AT HAND,
to deal with the situation.
I have to agree with Ex-70's that not all should carry guns.
But I still believe that those who are RESPONSIBLE,
shouldn't be prevented from carrying wherever they might go.
That's all I was trying to convey.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Well, as I said, I'm not a gun nut and I'm NOT an ANTI-GUN nut. But since I think I have been pegged as the illogical liberal anti-gun freak, I'll play the part for a while since the arguement is pretty much one sided at this point.
First off Rhino and the constitutional right to have a rocket launcher POV:
It all comes down to one comma. We tend to skip over this part of the second ammendment but there it is at the beginning...
or as seen in other copiesYou see it? Right there after Militia. From Wikipedia:
The later version without the comma is the version approved by the Senate and House and was ratified by the states. Of course, there are huge arguements about this and it all comes down to your POV vs. some peacenic hippie. But without that comma the second amendment is talking about a well regulated malitia, and well regulated does not mean your buddies nominated you General of zipcode 84243, it is talking about the state and local government. If you look at the early renditions of the amendment you see more language refering to military service.
There is much more to the analysis of this amendment and it is all very interesting, but in short it comes down to what the Supreme Court says. They have not ruled gun regulation as infringements on your God given right to own a gun, but have allowed states to allow you to own a gun as a citizen. You may not agree with it but that is the beauty of this country.
I would like to know how many of you have been in a situation where you needed to use your gun against an aggressor. Do you all also always wear your seatbelts? I hope so. You're much more likely to get in a car accident.
As to the "criminals will always be able to get guns" crowd...really? All criminals will be able to? How many do you think will be able to? How do you think that would impact the number of people killed by guns? How many accidental shootings would occur? Do you think that criminals rob people and their homes and stores just assuming that no one has a gun?
Mo had a good point that didn't seem too important to her. Guns make it easier to kill lots of people quickly. As someone pointed out this wasn't the case in the early days of our country when our rights were being defined. The Tim McVay arguement doesn't really hold water. How many incidents like that have happened in our history and how did gun ownership help in those cases? Someone could still just as easily make bombs if they wanted to right now just by looking on the internet and buying materials that don't have any restrictions on them whatsoever.
The other arguement that says "guns don't kill people, people do" again is missing what it is saying. If guns don't kill people then you won't miss them and not having guns really wouldn't kill people.
and another thing. If we didn't have guns but some criminals did, and the former gun owners spent as much time and money on safety and self defence by other means you wouldn't be any less safe. The only thing that garantees that you will shoot an intruder intending to kill you is that you notice them first and you shoot first and you hit them in the right spot first. The same is true with your bare hands if you know how to use them. Ever heard one of those stories of an old man or woman beating an armed robber off with their cane or hand bag?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I think that was DMiller on the rocket launcher question ...
There are a lot of jumps in your logic ... (I know I left out some lines) but by your logic, cars don't kill people so you won't miss them, then with no cars there will be no auto accidents.
Other means of defense would be less effective as a deterrent, overwhelming force is the way to go ... as Clint said ... "I don't want to kill you ... and you don't want to be dead." Clint drawing his Taser just doesn't have the same sudden impact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Lindy, I have seen several situation where a gun would have been needed.
My husband was in a situation once when returning from a business trip where a gang of people in multiple cars kept trying to run him off the road...threatening him with a gun....
My friend just last year was driving on a road here locally when a car slowed down in front of her...when she blew her horn...the passenger came up out of his window...laid himself along the top of the car and pointed a gun at her....
I was once in a situation where my husband to be and his buddy were brutally beaten to bloody pulps by a gang of hoodlums.
It was a terrible thing to see and a terrible feeling to know exactly how helpless I was. If somebody hadn`t come along when they did...I don`t know when it would have stopped or if they would have hurt me too....I wish that I HAD had a gun then. If they did this to us...no doubt they would do it to others.
I have studied martial arts for over 5 years, as do my children. That along with carrying a fire arm are nothing more than tools in our chest to protect ourselves.
MOST responsible gun owners, are like us....responsible law abiding people who hope that they will NEVER have to draw and fire, but are prepared to defend themselves if they need to.
I say law abiding because we have to pass a criminal back ground check.....
I say responsible because.......
MOST gun owners are aware that if they draw and fire their weapon WITHOUT being in eminent danger of death....they will be prosecuted?
IF you draw your weapon when in danger of eminent harm or death and you miss ...striking a bystander...you will be prosecuted....
IF you draw your weapon when in eminent danger of harm and you inadvertantly cause property damage, you will be liable for damages?
and finally....
IF you draw your weapon and fire when in eminent danger of harm...you will STILL incur up to 100,000 dollars in legal and defense fees????
Moral issues aside....most people who have gone through the arduous process required to aquire a gun and carry permit ...knows that to fire it, under ANY circumstances is going to cost them dearly.
I know that there are nut jobs out there who will aquire weapons one way or another, and some people that have no business having guns....but to penalize the responsible law abiding citizens is not right.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
interesting thing i just noticed...
Both sides of this argument seem to be motivated by fear.
ANIT_GUN_PPL: "IF people HAVE guns"
1. afraid of careless folks having a gun,
2. afraid that accidental gunfire will kill/injure ppl etc.
3. afraid crimials will have advantage over them.
PRO-GUN-ppL: "If People dont have guns"
1. afraid that criminals WILL have and advantage over them,
2. Afraid the governemnt will turn against them,
3. afraid of invasion from another country
I don't really think its a bad thing to be motivated by fear.
Edited by nandonLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... especially the politicians who want to capitalize on that fear for their own purposes or the purposes of the propaganda machine that they signed on with.
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
No, I'm not motivated by fear.
It's kinda like Norm said on CHEERS --------->>>>
"It's a dog-eat-dog world out there,
and I'm wearing milk-bone undershorts".
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
No fear hear either. Just preparation as best I can to handle any situation that comes my way. A gun isn`t my first line of defense even.
Far from being afraid of us....it`s the folks that know how to take care of themselves that you want standing by your side in an emergency...lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.