OT - Supreme Court Ruling - Do you Have Guns?

[Broadus]

The conversation has certainly ventured off from the OP, and I applaud the restraint shown.

 

From my perspective, our problems ultimately cannot be blamed on that ole demon "Big Business" or the present administration or the educational system or the bigger demon "Big Oil." The blame is upon us, the American citizenry who wants government to take care of us from cradle to grave and keep us from all ill and responsibility for our actions.

 

For instance, I agree that our educational system is the pits, but where does the blame lie? How about parents who rise up in arms (figuratively speaking, of course ), when li'l Susie or Bobby doesn't get above average grades. After all, all our children are above average, right? So now we have mediocre requirements, at best, where most of the children "flourish." Parents are satisfied with Susie and Bobby's grades and teachers can't wait for retirement.

 

Crime out of control? How about all the showing of manhood by getting young women pregnant and skipping out when reality sets in? Now you have women trying to support children with opportunities only for menial income and, too often, the kids learn to fend for themselves while Mom's at work. Can we not expect negative results?

 

Our problem, IMO, is that we want what we want when we want it and it is deemed unjust when we don't get it now. Housing crisis? How about lenders and borrowers involved in loans that were too large for the borrowers to handle? When my wife and I were looking to buy a house five years ago, the lender was all set for us to borrow the money for house we really wanted but, in a time of temporary sanity, decided it would be too much strain on our finances for years to come. Instead, we bought smaller than we really wanted and have the freedom to make additional payments to the principal, ultimately reducing the term of the loan in half. Borrowers applying for and lenders offering 100% loans is somewhat less than brilliant, and now we want "Big Government" to bail us out.

 

Point the finger everywhere else you want to. It's easy to rant against the president, Congress, business, or whatever. IMO, we've simply become a country of cry-babies who keep pouring out their milk and upset the cup is empty.

 

Now that's a rant!

 

Bill

[fmw]

 

Do you know why they don't put tariffs on our "trade partners"? Because our trade partners are mostly from here. US companies are outsourcing production and shipping the finished product back here. Get it? Our government is ran by big business.

 

 

If government were run by big business, there would never be a Democrat in office. Companies don't need to outsource. They do so because competition drives them to do it. If the rules change then the companies will adapt and change with them. Tariffs could actually replace income taxes very easily. Then a person could pay the taxes (tariffs) or not simply choosing what to buy. If you think reducing imports wouldn't help American business and Americans then you need a little grounding in basic economics. Actually most economists could use a little grounding in common sense. Globalization has been our downfall.

[dwrecker]

On the other hand.. everybody has a cell phone. I see people going thru the lines using them while spending their gvt checks. We got cheap electronics.. flat screens.. ipods.. "inexpensive" chinese guitars. Whats not to like? Wouldnt have all that if we didnt go overseas for cheap labor.

[FlyingPancreas]

 

If you think reducing imports wouldn't help American business and Americans then you need a little grounding in basic economics.

 

 

wtf is it with you angry guitar people that if there is a disagreement on something you immediately become snide and insulting and if you disagree with that observation then your school must have been really bad and your teachers were greasy ice cream is actually good for you lactose intolerants can suck it anyways i don't think hudman was saying one way or the other that reducing imports wouldn't help american business even if that is what he thinks i don't know because that's not what he said anyhoo i think his point was just that a bigass hunk of the imports are ours to begin with the company i work for does all of its manufacturing in china because we are greedy and enjoy stratospheric margins and if we were forced to bring all that manufacturing back to the usa our margins would be right in the toilet and my poor ceo would maybe have to drive a mercedes instead of a bentley or maybe not he would just give me a {censored} bonus instead and fire some of my friends and i would ride a squeaky bicycle instead of a vw actually i don't have a vw anymore i take the train although one way or another it is only a matter of time because the cost of labor in asia is escalating at an insane pace and very soon they will have us by the gonads yesterday i had pizza so now it is your turn to insult me but my guitar is shiny as {censored} so whatever you say will be reflected off my guitar and will stick to you because you are glue although i am not rubber i just have a shiny guitar

 

teh pancreas has spoken.

[Minitruth]

I prefer air rifles and air-pistols (spring-air types). They're relatively quiet and adequate for keeping my marksmanship skills up. I do know how to use firearms but don't have any need for them. I don't own any air-rifles right now. I used to have five European-made ones. I got into target archery. I'm not into firearms for sport-hunting. Personally, I just don't see the sport in it and it seems to be too much money and time spent for too little eats . If I did get into hunting, I'd prefer to use an all-wood recurve longbow. Bowfishing is fine by me.

 

I was shooting 3-d archery untill my wrist injury. The US constitution

gaurantees you the right to keep arms. To my mind, the ruling was too

damn close. Next time, we may not be so lucky.

[Minitruth]

 

wtf is it with you angry guitar people that if there is a disagreement on something you immediately become snide and insulting and if you disagree with that observation then your school must have been really bad and your teachers were greasy ice cream is actually good for you lactose intolerants can suck it anyways i don't think hudman was saying one way or the other that reducing imports wouldn't help american business even if that is what he thinks i don't know because that's not what he said anyhoo i think his point was just that a bigass hunk of the imports are ours to begin with the company i work for does all of its manufacturing in china because we are greedy and enjoy stratospheric margins and if we were forced to bring all that manufacturing back to the usa our margins would be right in the toilet and my poor ceo would maybe have to drive a mercedes instead of a bentley or maybe not he would just give me a {censored} bonus instead and fire some of my friends and i would ride a squeaky bicycle instead of a vw actually i don't have a vw anymore i take the train although one way or another it is only a matter of time because the cost of labor in asia is escalating at an insane pace and very soon they will have us by the gonads yesterday i had pizza so now it is your turn to insult me but my guitar is shiny as {censored} so whatever you say will be reflected off my guitar and will stick to you because you are glue although i am not rubber i just have a shiny guitar teh pancreas has spoken.

 

 

Your punctuation leaves much to be desired. Just sayin' that's the

longest run-on sentence I've ever seen.

[FlyingPancreas]

I was shooting 3-d archery untill my wrist injury. The US constitution gaurantees you the right to keep arms. To my mind, the ruling was too damn close. Next time, we may not be so lucky.

 

US Constitution is a proper noun and should be capitalized if you are going to attempt to play "i am better than you" with the english language you should be very careful to ensure that you haven't jacked up some english rules yourself within or very near the scene of your sanctimony or you might end up looking a bit stupid that rule doesn't apply to me of course because hint hint hello this is a persona i am secretly familiar with the rules of the language and most people get this some sadly do not shiny guitars are teh {censored}.

[Kat73]

Damn, I can't read those run-on sentences above without my ADD kicking in...

 

That said, the US Constitution doesn't guarantee YOU the right to keep arms, it guarantees the right to bear arms for the maintenance of a well regulated militia. Two very different meanings. The current SC decision goes against over 70 years of legal precedent. It's a very bizarre decision and case. The case was brought by a wealthy liberterian lawyer who interviewed over 100 potential plaintiffs before choosing the six that he included in this case. That to me seems like a manipulation of the U.S. judicial system.

 

I'm not against guns, but I am against the Court setting social policy by using a contrived court case, ignoring legal precedent on the matter at hand, and ignoring large parts of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (those little words on the importance of a well regulated militia preceding any verbage on the right to bear arms). You can't disassociate the two, but that's what the Court has done here.

[panhandler]

Having had a second look... I'm certain those are pork chops! Yummmmmm...

[Minitruth]

US Constitution is a proper noun and should be capitalized if you are going to attempt to play "i am better than you" with the english language you should be very careful to ensure that you haven't jacked up some english rules yourself within or very near the scene of your sanctimony or you might end up looking a bit stupid that rule doesn't apply to me of course because hint hint hello this is a persona i am secretly familiar with the rules of the language and most people get this some sadly do not shiny guitars are teh {censored}.

 

Walls of text= "Persona"? You seem to be on the fail train there.

[rjoxyz]

The conversation has certainly ventured off from the OP, and I applaud the restraint shown. From my perspective, our problems ultimately cannot be blamed on that ole demon "Big Business" or the present administration or the educational system or the bigger demon "Big Oil." The blame is upon us, the American citizenry who wants government to take care of us from cradle to grave and keep us from all ill and responsibility for our actions. For instance, I agree that our educational system is the pits, but where does the blame lie? How about parents who rise up in arms (figuratively speaking, of course ), when li'l Susie or Bobby doesn't get above average grades. After all, all our children are above average, right? So now we have mediocre requirements, at best, where most of the children "flourish." Parents are satisfied with Susie and Bobby's grades and teachers can't wait for retirement. Crime out of control? How about all the showing of manhood by getting young women pregnant and skipping out when reality sets in? Now you have women trying to support children with opportunities only for menial income and, too often, the kids learn to fend for themselves while Mom's at work. Can we not expect negative results? Our problem, IMO, is that we want what we want when we want it and it is deemed unjust when we don't get it now. Housing crisis? How about lenders and borrowers involved in loans that were too large for the borrowers to handle? When my wife and I were looking to buy a house five years ago, the lender was all set for us to borrow the money for house we really wanted but, in a time of temporary sanity, decided it would be too much strain on our finances for years to come. Instead, we bought smaller than we really wanted and have the freedom to make additional payments to the principal, ultimately reducing the term of the loan in half. Borrowers applying for and lenders offering 100% loans is somewhat less than brilliant, and now we want "Big Government" to bail us out. Point the finger everywhere else you want to. It's easy to rant against the president, Congress, business, or whatever. IMO, we've simply become a country of cry-babies who keep pouring out their milk and upset the cup is empty. Now that's a rant! Bill

 

 

Bill--All valid points. Wouldn't disagree with you about any of them. That does not mean the points made by the rest of us are any less valid. Our decline as a nation/society is caused by a multitude of problems. It is not as simple as I described, nor as simple as you have. Some problems are societal/family oriented, some are government oriented and some are the result of a shortsighted corporate mentality.

 

Criticizing the current administration, etc. for its policies and poor decision-making does not mean we are looking for government handouts. Criticizing most federal level politicians for insincere pandering and wasteful pork spending does not mean we are looking for government to solve our problems.

 

When was the last time you saw a presidential candidate you could call a "statesman"? I actually saw John McCain as such until he shifted his position back in the direction of conservatives in hopes of gaining some party support. It's all superficial marketing now. Might as well be Pepsi v. Coke for President.

 

I don't want my government to be any bigger than necessary to discharge it's core functions...and maybe deal with some of the issues that so many claim will be handled by the private sector...until they are asked to put their charity where their mouth is.

 

Now, where did I put those asbestos shorts?

[mister natural]

FWIW - I'm totally opposed to HAND guns. Any argument that they are designed for "sport" is facetious. Hand guns are primarily designed to shoot humans and the statistics are staggering. Something like a magnitude (lemmee Google this) of 3 times more likely a family member being shot in your own house if there's a hand gun inside. Among all handgun homicides in 1997, only 2.3% could be classified as justifyable homicides (self-defense).

 

Children are disporportionately(sp) affected by easy handgun access. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America.

 

I'm all about sportsman use & access to rifles. Way too many bad-guy white tail deers around here. They gotta go.

 

Can we put the genie back in the box when there are between 65 and 100 million handguys in the country ? Prolly not. But it seems to me there are really two arguments involved here. NRA hides behind the "sportman" use of rifles to protect their senseless protection of handguns.

[daklander]

 

That said, the US Constitution doesn't guarantee YOU the right to keep arms, it guarantees the right to bear arms for the maintenance of a well regulated militia.

 

 

I read it as the populace having the right to bear arms to ensure regulation (control) of the militia.

 

If one uses the synonym controlled in lieu of regulated it may make a bit more sense.

[FlyingPancreas]

Walls of text= "Persona"? You seem to be on the fail train there.

 

fetch me a muffin.

[masterbuilt]

 

I've spent a lot of time in pawn shops looking at what pawn shops routinely have an abundance of--you guessed it--guitars and guns. I used to hunt quite a bit and I enjoyed it, but I finally realized that I really don't like to eat wild game. I figured if I'm not going to eat it, I have no business shooting it. I hunt with a camera now. Guns are still the best protection from the two-legged varmints.

 

 

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

 

I, too, do not hunt game as the need to eat is sufficiently quenched by organically raised stock and store-bought poultry. I do own one hand-gun, given to me by a very close friend that I have known for forty years. I have owned black powder rifles and pistols, I used to build them and shoot in competition. I do own an air rifle (RWS for those interested) and shoot a group the size of a dime with it.

 

My real interest is in edged weapons. I taught kenjutsu and tanto-jutsu for years and I am also into European swordsmanship. I own three 1760s issue cutlass and one katana. I have several Ka-Bar (Marine Corps fighting knife), and a classic Buck with a seven inch blade.

 

If someone broke into my home, I'd most likely grab one of the swords first, because you don't read in the news about someone getting accidently killed by a stray sword.

 

Like Strang, I do my hunting with a camera, and very long lenses.

[Broadus]

Bill--All valid points. Wouldn't disagree with you about any of them. That does not mean the points made by the rest of us are any less valid. Our decline as a nation/society is caused by a multitude of problems. It is not as simple as I described, nor as simple as you have. Some problems are societal/family oriented, some are government oriented and some are the result of a shortsighted corporate mentality. Criticizing the current administration, etc. for its policies and poor decision-making does not mean we are looking for government handouts. Criticizing most federal level politicians for insincere pandering and wasteful pork spending does not mean we are looking for government to solve our problems. When was the last time you saw a presidential candidate you could call a "statesman"? I actually saw John McCain as such until he shifted his position back in the direction of conservatives in hopes of gaining some party support. It's all superficial marketing now. Might as well be Pepsi v. Coke for President. I don't want my government to be any bigger than necessary to discharge it's core functions...and maybe deal with some of the issues that so many claim will be handled by the private sector...until they are asked to put their charity where their mouth is. Now, where did I put those asbestos shorts?

 

You are right that there is no simple solution. I'm also sure that you and I would take differing positions on the current administration, though I have criticized it and the Republicans when they were in the majority for spending too freely. And don't get me started on Reid and Pelosi. After all, we have our acoustic relationship to keep in tact and don't need to divide over partisan politics.

 

I do agree about the lack of statesmen. Then again, would our population elect a real statesman? Most folks' investigation of the candidates is little more than following snippets and sound bites. Candidates in both major parties play to that.

 

Having said that, I come down on the need for personal responsibility. So many of our individual problems are self-inflicted. Regardless of who wins the forthcoming presidential election (and yes, I'm a conservative and may very well be disappointed with both the presidential and congressional elections), we will all be better off if we will love and provide for our children by providing a nurturing home life, if we will cease plunging deeper into consumer debt because of the "need" to satisfy instant gratification, and if we'll learn to sacrifice for the sake of others.

 

Best,

Bill

[rjoxyz]

You are right that there is no simple solution. I'm also sure that you and I would take differing positions on the current administration, though I have criticized it and the Republicans when they were in the majority for spending too freely. And don't get me started on Reid and Pelosi. After all, we have our acoustic relationship to keep in tact and don't need to divide over partisan politics. I do agree about the lack of statesmen. Then again, would our population elect a real statesman? Most folks' investigation of the candidates is little more than following snippets and sound bites. Candidates in both major parties play to that. Having said that, I come down on the need for personal responsibility. So many of our individual problems are self-inflicted. Regardless of who wins the forthcoming presidential election (and yes, I'm a conservative and may very well be disappointed with both the presidential and congressional elections), we will all be better off if we will love and provide for our children by providing a nurturing home life, if we will cease plunging deeper into consumer debt because of the "need" to satisfy instant gratification, and if we'll learn to sacrifice for the sake of others. Best, Bill

 

Once again, I agree with you. Well stated conclusion. I am not entirely consistent in my political leanings. I see too much complication out there to live on just one side of the fence. At the same time, I do not find the the term "liberal" to be repugnant, nor to automatically imply a tightly pigeonholed and oversimplified connotation. I would say the same as to "conservative" for the most part.

 

I have learned from my brother-in-law and a couple of people I work with, that some debates are undoubtedly, best avoided. Passionate dedication to certain political/social ideologies is rarely persuaded (on either side of an issue). Much more harm can be done to a friendship than any "enlightenment" can heal.

 

I now apologize for the piracy I have committed against the original poster.

[ermghoti II]

 

Children are disporportionately(sp) affected by easy handgun access. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America.

 

 

For the purposes of this statistic, "children" means "anyone aged 0-19." This is the way all statistics are kept in the US, the next lower cut-off age is 14. Something like 1/3 of those are suicides, and suicide rates are nearly unaffected by gun ownership (about 1% difference, in a correctly controlled study). Almost all of the rest are murders, and more than half of the murders are gang and/or drug related. This has nothing to do with a gun in the nightstand killing toddlers, as in a typical year, more 0-4's drown in buckets than die in handgun accidents.

 

They banned, confiscated and destroyed every legally owned handgun in Great Britain in about '96. Not one crime statistic was affected for the better, including overall gun crime. Disarming law-abiding citizens is a useless anti-crime or safety provision, in addition to being unconstitutional.

[Broadus]

Once again, I agree with you. Well stated conclusion. I am not entirely consistent in my political leanings. I see too much complication out there to live on just one side of the fence. At the same time, I do not find the the term "liberal" to be repugnant, nor to automatically imply a tightly pigeonholed and oversimplified connotation. I would say the same as to "conservative" for the most part. I have learned from my brother-in-law and a couple of people I work with, that some debates are undoubtedly, best avoided. Passionate dedication to certain political/social ideologies is rarely persuaded (on either side of an issue). Much more harm can be done to a friendship than any "enlightenment" can heal. I now apologize for the piracy I have committed against the original poster.

 

Well, my friend, the discussion is good. I suspect you and I may be closer than political categories might indicate. I think I am fairly consistent with my principles, but I disdain partisanship which wants to win because of party affiliation regardless of the principles of the candidate.

 

Also, I don't think we're too far afield of the OP. Gun ownership for many of us is about personal responsibility---the responsibility of treating guns with respect and the responsibility of defending oneself and not expecting the government to be our baby-sitter. Again, we're speaking in generalities and there are many "but what about?" questions which can be put forth. People have to flesh these things out for themselves.

 

Bill

[Ohioarrow]

 

Smooth bore? That's gotta be a flint lock, no? If so, with a smooth bore, it is probably a 69 caliber and I'd love to have that baby, if nothing else, to have as a wall hanger. If it actually has rifling it could be a 54 caliber rifle which I'd love to have as well.

 

 

Flint-lock - foot-lock? who knows. It doesn't have strings, there's no place to plug in a keyboard, and I see no way to attach it to one of my motorcycles. So it's out of my field of understanding.

 

It has a hammer like object on the side similar to what you pictured, but there is a little plate there at the base of it, I am guessing you put black powder on it which apparently ignites the charge through a small hole bored in the base of the barrel.

 

There is no opening on the stock end at all to look through, but I looked down the barrel years ago with a flashlight and saw no evidence of rifling, it looked smooth as a baby's buttock like you'd expect to see in a shotgun. I honestly don't know what the caliber is, I assumed .50 but .54? .69? I suppose it could be, it's a pretty big hole, no label on it anywhere to define that save for the forge date of 1803.

 

Hmm.. did some playing on the Internet there, that may not be a date - see this page http://www.mormonbattalion.com/history/halford/3-muskets.htm apparently there is a model 1803 and from the period you mention. but this thing is longer than the 47" they describe there. As I mentioned it comes to my chin - I stand 6'-4" so we're talking in the 5 foot or so range.

 

I think it more closes resembles the description of the one above that. Model 1816 - but that claims they weren't made until 1816 - if that's so, then what's the 1803 stamped in the barrel mean? This does have the mount under it for a bayonet. The words near the strike plate could say Hapers Ferry, but again, I can't make them out.

[masterbuilt]

 

Smooth bore? That's gotta be a flint lock, no? If so, with a smooth bore, it is probably a 69 caliber and I'd love to have that baby, if nothing else, to have as a wall hanger. If it actually has rifling it could be a 54 caliber rifle which I'd love to have as well. Think Lewis and Clark Expedition.

 

 

There were 69 caliber smooth-bores used in the Plains States after the Civil War, and they were percussion locks.

 

I, personally, have never been wild about smooth-bore pieces. I prefer 38 and 45 calibers as well. My last purchase was matching 50 calibers for my son and me to shoot in the black powder club.

[Makarovii]

[petejt]

I've never owned a gun in my life, and I don't really care that don't have one either.

 

My father grew up on a farm, and one of his hobbies was going shooting up in the mountains with his cousin. Usually they'd shoot pigeons and bring them home to cook up and eat.

 

He hasn't gone hunting for many years now, I don't really know why. He has though renewed his shooter's licence so he can keep his guns, a .22 rifle and a single-barrel shotgun.

 

My mother's father hunted to feed his family for almost all his life. Later on when he was older he hunted for recreation.

 

One of my past occupations was working & camping out in the bush (heck I'm always out in remote areas!), in complete isolation apart from my bosses (husband & wife) and fellow workmates. My bosses had a passion for hunting as well as guns. So we hunted to eat as well as shot tins for the hell of it. It was great- fried rabbit, pigeon, fish from the billabong, the station owner also let us have two of his sheep.

 

 

So you can see that guns have always been around me in a positive way. I think it's fine to own and use guns for hunting, especially to get food to live.

 

I don't think it's really necessary to have a gun for self-defence. There are a lot more ways to kill a person than shoot them.

Maybe a gun is fair to use when the perpetrator is also armed, but that's a difficult situation to evaluate as there are lots of unknown variables.

 

 

 

Australia is pretty strict on gun ownership, due to a severe massacre about a decade ago. I don't really mind the current laws we have about it.

[OldGuitarPlayer]

[YOUTUBE]-OFnOaPDerw[/YOUTUBE]

[valentsgrif]

 

FWIW - I'm totally opposed to HAND guns. Any argument that they are designed for "sport" is facetious. Hand guns are primarily designed to shoot humans and the statistics are staggering. Something like a magnitude (lemmee Google this) of 3 times more likely a family member being shot in your own house if there's a hand gun inside. Among all handgun homicides in 1997, only 2.3% could be classified as justifyable homicides (self-defense). Children are disporportionately(sp) affected by easy handgun access. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. Can we put the genie back in the box when there are between 65 and 100 million handguys in the country ? Prolly not. But it seems to me there are really two arguments involved here. NRA hides behind the "sportman" use of rifles to protect their senseless protection of handguns.

 

 

None of your phony stats have any bearing on what the constituition protects or means. If 99% of all gunowners shoot blue eyed babies in their sleep, it has no bearing on a constitutional right.

 

Do you know how many bad things result as a consequence of the Fifth ammendment? How many crooks get let go because of improper Miranda warnings or bad police work? "Bad" outcomes have no determining value as to interpreting a right.

 

If you don't like what the right covers, here the inalienable right to self defense with a gun, then AMEND the constitution.

But please, no more dorm room statistics- it's too calculated in order to cultivate fear and maybe get the citizenry to allow the leadership to encroach on some fundamental liberty (hmmm, where did I hear that accusation before?)