Could someone please tell me.....

Miss D,

Welcome to TFL. I (like others) think Rosie is un-informed about guns and bases her opinions on fear not knowledge. I have heard that she has recently hired a full staff of bodyguards to protect her and her children from threats she has received from "gun owners". She has beefed up security on the set and every where around her. I doubt (but I am not positive) that her guards are armed for protection. Why does she deserve more protection then me?

I live near Washington, DC and hear about killings and shootings all the time. DC is suppose to be a "gun free" area. Guns are illegal with a minimum jail sentence of at least one (maybe five) for carrying a gun into DC. DC politicians blame Virginia and Maryland for their gun problem. If the guns weren't available, then people wouldn't bring them in. If criminals followed the law then they wouldn't be criminals, would they?


------------------
"Time changes everything"
 
Welcome to the forumn Miss D. Actually I am from IL. Southern IL and there are those that would like to say the state ends South of I80. Sometimes those of us down here think it all exists North of I80 :)

I think you'll find that everyone here is polite. If you look at the profiles you'll probably find that we are just normal Americans. The kind of people who go to work everyday and make the nation work. We definately don't fit the stereotype that the anti's like to hang on us. Although if you look at another thread going on now about "what we drive" there are a lot of 4x4s so maybe some of that is true :)

Jeff
 
The devil is in the details. Proposed legislation that on the surface sounds 'reasonable' can be very 'unreasonable' upon translation. Let me give you some examples:

Licenses: "We license cars, dogs, etc...why not guns?" Sounds not very threatening on the surface right? Now picture law enforcement agencies refusing to complete the paperwork out of either anti-gun sentiment or fear of liability. The end result: no license = no gun. This already happens in certain states (California for one) with their CCW permits. This was also a fear with initial wordings of the Brady Bill. Agencies would have been able to tie up background checks, or either issue blanket rejections out of hand.

Mandatory training: "We have mandatory Driver's Ed in most states; why not firearms?" On the other hand, imagine a driving test that only Jeff Gordon or Al Unser could pass. The same method could be used against gunowners. Or the cost of the course could be made so prohibitive, that most could not afford it.

'Cop-killer' bullets: "Nobody needs ammunition that can pierce a police officer's body armor." Unfortunately, the ability of body armor to stop bullets depends on the specific material used and the number of layers of the material. In order for these vests to be comfortable and concealable, they cannot possibly use enough material to stop every type of projectile. First, some of the older vests would only stop the puniest and weakest handgun cartridges available, ironicly those associated with the so-called 'Saturday Night Specials'. Thus, if an agency wished to ban nearly every cartridge, they could base their standards on weak and/or obsolete body armor types. Second, the vast majority of hunting rifles will easily defeat nearly all of the body armor typically worn by police officers, including some of the speciality vests worn by SWAT team members and such. So when you try to ban cartridges that could pierce a common 'bullet-proof' vest, you could easily end up banning every hunting rifle cartridge available.
 
Miss D'. Along with my earlier offer to try and explain terms and words that you don't know or can not figure out, let me "warn" you that somebody will ask where you went to if you don't post very often. Is that not right Gunz 'n' Rosie?

Most likely it will be me. :D

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
 
Miss Demeanors:

As to where "Rosie" gets her information, a couple of likely locations. Handgun Control Inc, and or The Violence Policy Center, for openers. As for the rest of it, perhaps from the "funny cigaretts" she might be smoking.

As to "compromise", as with "compromise with the anti-gunners", given that their stated goal is "the total proscription of firearms ownership, use and possession" at least for the law abiding, and you were not feeling especially suicidal at the moment, how would YOU "compromise" with such peopole.

For myself, given that I'm not inclined to suicide, I do not see, either anything to "compromise", meaning anything to give them, for nothing other than total surrender would be good enough, likely not that either, and besides, people who try to substitute lies for truth, emotion for logic really annoy me.

Any more questions, feel free.

Alan
 
One of the arguments for eliminating guns has always fascinated me. It’s
something to the effect:

Guns are bad because they make small people powerful.

They are talking about small people who hurt and rob other people.

They totally ignore small people defending themselves and their families against
big, bad guys or more than ONE bad guy.

If a mother is home with her child when one or more bad guys break into her
home, what can help her defend herself and her child better than a gun? Most bad
guys are cowards. Most will flee if the homeowner brandishes a gun (without even
firing it).

Some bad guys are BAD. They may have a gun themselves. But bad guys usually
learn about guns the same place they get their guns - on the street.

Law-abiding people with good sense not only obtain their gun legally, they get
trained! This gives Mom the advantage against low life buggers who would hurt
or rob a family. And, in my opinion, single mothers and the elderly would be
prime targets for the scumbag bad guys.

And even the government has proclaimed that the police have no obligation to
protect you. Even if they did, they can’t protect everyone at the same time. We
(all of us) must determine what risks we are NOT willing to take with our lives -
and the lives of our families.

So let the “small” people get the power they need to protect themselves and their
loved ones. Let them have guns. Let them get trained. Let them survive.
 
Miss Demeanors: Welcome aboard! Welcome to this forum. I have been involved with shooting since 1940, and I am pleased to say that I have learned quite a bit here.

"All walks of life" includes law enforcement officers--referred to here as "LEO"s--as well as all other sorts of folks.

"Facts": Go to the webside of the Center for Disease Control, and check their numbers on mortality rates. You might be surprised to learn that the anti-gun or gun-control people include deliberate shootings in the "accidental" deaths of "children" up to (in some cases) 24 years of age. Also, when the number of "violent deaths" is given, to create a state of alarm, the number includes suicides along with homicides.

Believe it or not, in 1996 there was a total of 14,000 firearm homicides--which includes self-defense and police shootings. The Atlanta Constitution has reported such numbers as "45,000" violent deaths--which includes the aforementioned suicides. Inflated problem, perhaps?

So, this is just part of why we are against compromise. We've been there, and done that, and that total-disarmament camel's nose just keeps on coming further into the tent.

If Mr. Visa can check out the validity of my credit card in a matter of seconds, why does the FBI need three days to check out my character? I noticed today at the tax office of my benighted west Texas county that the clerk could type in just part of a unique name: The entire name popped up, with a description of the property, and whether or not the taxes had been paid. Some five seconds. We believe the government has a duty to us not to inhibit a lawful transaction.

Some 20 years gone, a cop told me, "It's better to be judged by 12 (jurors) than carried by 6 (pallbearers)." Any questions?

The late Texas Ranger "Lone Wolf" Gonzaullas had engraved on his pistols "God created all men equal. Sam Colt made them all the same size." Wonen, also, sez I.

My apologies for the length, but I try not to think in cliches. I'll close with some comments on the Second Amendment. I took my first Civics course in 1947. We were taught that the first Ten Amendments were called "The Bill of Rights" because they were a package of defenses against abuse of power on the part of the federal government. We were also told that Thomas Jefferson, with some, but not much, help, wrote this Bill of Rights.

With that in mind, I ask, how can part of the Bill of Rights be for the citizen, but not all? That is, how can a government somehow need protection, suddenly, by means of the Second Amendment, against an abuse of power by its citizens? How can "the people" be singular in the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, but, suddenly, collective in the Second? How could the same man have put different meanings in the same words--and with no explanation in any of his voluminous other writings? And so we believe that the Second Amendment has nothing to with police, hunting, repelling Indian raids, or even self-defense in street crimes. All these matters have been incidental, practical aspects of our--no, YOUR--fundamental protection against tyranny.

Best regards, Art
 
Welome Mrs. Demeanors,
I sincerly hope you stick around and ask all the questions you want.....
there is a saying that ''freedom isnt free'', and were you now find yourself is were you start to pay the price for that freedom--the cost is research, debating the points, inquiring as to the intent of the laws, and the intent of the most important law of our land--the Constitution of These United States.
Ultimately the argument isnt over firearms, its over freedom and liberty, the gun is not only a symbol of that freedom and liberty it is ultimately and perhaps of necessity the means of freedom,just as it was for those radical's who founded this nation.
once again...welcome....fubsy.
 
Actually I will direct you to the Legal and Political forum. There you will find a post titled, This is going around the web via email http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=23321

This man, Darrell Scott, lost his child in a murder at Littleton. He paid the ultimate price for compromise. Guns are not, have not and never will be the problem. If all guns disappeared tomorrow, the problems would continue. Poison or fire would replace guns as the means, just as poison and fire replaced guns in England and Japan. More regulation of guns isn't the answer. Guns are the most regulated consumer good in the country, even more so than cars or prescription drugs. I think everyone here, as well as on the Rosie board all want the same thing, the insanity to end, and ourselves and family to be safe. To point the finger at guns, is to look the other way at the real problems.

------------------
(!)
 
Welcome Miss D.,

It has been stated in other discussions that our battle is one of common sense over emotion. The restriction of our 2nd amendment rights is just a part of a much broader attack against all peoples liberty.

You seem to have a good head on your shoulders. In the current wave of gun control I've been able to convince a number of people, including finally my wife, that they really are out to take away our rights. If the opposition were to suggest the same sort of restrictions on speech, would they seem as reasonable.

In the long run, free speech is much more dangerous to the government than the right to bear arms, because free speech allows us to educate the public. So when will we see waiting periods, instant checks, and locks on all writting devices.



------------------
Peace...
Keith

If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest.
"the right to keep and bear arms."
 
Miss: Welcome , I agree with Jeff Smith, downstate SI is a lot friendlier and prettier. I'ts like comparing LA to Yosemite.
 
Miss D,

We need a good sense of humor; sometimes you gotta laugh, or scream in frustration.

As far as your question, "Since the laws aren't enforced anyway, what's the problem?"... We try to follow the laws. So do the folks who sell us our guns, ammo, reloading gear, etc. Yeah, I *could* get a gun from an, er, extralegal source, but I'd rather get my stuff from someone I can trust.

------------------
"We are going to fight. We are going to be hurt.
But in the end, we will stand."
--Roland Deschain
 
Everything that everyone has said so far all seems good to me. So MR. Jim V confuse away, here is my first question..what the heck is Ne Conjuge Nobiscum ? Got me on that one. As for some of the terms ya all use I can kinda piece them together. I also have a friend who knows about these things so Ive been asking him. (Dont want to look that stupid) But honestly I really dont know anything much about guns and their terms. I have learned some from my other boards but when I read alot of this it does look kind of foreign to me (sorry) As far as your rights go, that I understand. I am not for taking away rights by no means. The only thoughts I have now are that I like the idea of gun safes, the locks I am not sure if thats good or bad, I see it both ways, one as being good to keep it from firing around a kid and bad because if you need to use it that minute I can understand it will take some extra time. Like I said before, I like the Eagle Eddie program, I see nothing wrong with that at all, if I had it I wouldnt hesitate to show my daughter and niece. I'll bet that if that exact same program was written but with Barney as the character you wouldnt hear any objections from the anti-gunners. I dont care that the NRA started it, to me that shows responsibility. So ok Jim lets see how more confused you guys can get me. :)

[This message has been edited by Miss Demeanors (edited June 24, 1999).]
 
Miss D,

"Ne Conjuge Nobiscum" obviously means
"Don't Conjugate Graham Crackers" (?Nabisco?). :D
Even more "obviously", I haven't got a clue!!!
-------
Personally, I don't like trigger locks.
- They don't protect against theft.
- Some are poorly designed and may not secure the trigger.
- Some good ones only fit certain guns properly.
- If improperly installed, they may move (front and back) enough to permit the trigger to be moved.
- Some of them can not be taken off quickly, in the dark, under stress.

To protect against theft, big, solid, hidden safes probably are best. But they're expensive and NOT for a weapon you need to defend yourself (or your family) immediately.

There are small gun safes that use the depressed imprint of a hand on top of the safe. At the tip of each (depressed) finger, is a button. The buttons can be programmed with YOUR combination so you can open the safe quickly, in the dark, understress. It is called "GunVault" (apparently treated as one word), and there are two sizes.

GunVault MiniVault (tm) 12"Long, 8"Wide, 5" high (in front; tapering to 3.4" high in back). This will hold one gun and costs $160.

Gun/Vault MultiVault (tm) 14:Long, 10.3"Wide, 8.2" high (in front; tapering to 6.3" high in back). This apparently would hold two guns, or one gun and a flashlight, etc. It costs $190.

* Add shipping costs for both.
There are more details if you're interested in this product.

You can order these from:

Dillon Precision Products, Inc.
8009 E. Dillon's Way
Scottsdale, AZ 85260-9865

Dillon has three phone numbers:
1-800-762-3844 for Catalog Requests
1-800-762-3845 for Ordering items.
1-800-223-4570 for Orders/Expert Assistance

I never have heard anything bad about Dillon. I'm putting this info here so others may comment.
-------
You may find similar (or identical) items at nearby gun shops, but be careful they don't sell you something that is difficult for you to use. On the "up" side, buying locally should give you access to professional advice and help programming your GunVault if you decide to get one.

There are other devices to secure your gun, but:
1) NEVER try to hide your gun ANYWHERE to keep it from children. They can find the gun - almost always.
2) Don't buy something to secure the gun that you can not use in the dark, when you are scared out of your wits. Keep it simple!
3) If you want to see a Dillon catalog, e-mail me and I'll mail you one of mine. (It's mostly gun stuff, but there are pictures of a couple kinds of little safes if you want to look at them.)
4) The BEST part about the GunVault, or similar products, is you can keep a loaded gun secured from unauthorized use, yet you can get your gun in a second or two.

Feel free to e-mail me for more info.

Oh! By the way, I am not associated in any way with either company. No commission or anything, OK? :)
--------

TFLers! Is there anything better than this? Can you help the lady with a better idea?

Let's hear it!

Dennis (aka Grump)


[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited June 24, 1999).]
 
:) Sorry to make you go through all that, but I do not own a gun. I was just expressing my thoughts about them. Sorry! I dont plan on buying one just learning about them for now, I had a bad experience with one years ago, its written on G&R's thread, thats why I will not own one as of this time, its not out of the question but not now. Thank you for all the information, at least I will know where to go when and if I decide to get one! ;)
 
NE CONJUGE NOBISCUM is a "bastardized" Latin term meaning DON'T F*** WITH US. I was told that there was a rather gung ho military unit in Viet Nam that used that motto as they went into the night looking for NVA and Viet Cong.

I adopted the motto when I realized that those that wish to oppress freedoms in the US, and not just the gun grabbers, do not understand the deep feelings of those that honor and respect all our freedoms. I could see that they had to be somehow warned that at some point WE WILL push back but I did not want to just say "Keep it up idiots and there will be jehad."

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum




[This message has been edited by Jim V (edited June 24, 1999).]
 
Miss D., let me apologize in advance here, if you've read any of the other threads you already know that I am probably the most long-winded of our participants, although I recognize that MANY of them know more than I do on the subject of firearms of any kind. Be that as it may, I have strongly held positions and I believe I have reasons to back them up, which I have to do regularly given my strongly anti-gun family (of the non-immediate persuasion).

Gun safes; Come on now, Dennis. A gun in a safe at 3:00 AM when I need it might as well be in China. Let's see, two cups of coffee, four cigarettes, now I'm ready to retrieve my weapon, supposedly kept for self-defense. The answer to safety vis-a-vis children is to assure that everyone in the house knows where the loaded guns are, as opposed to the current "expertise" saying that with kids within 5 miles we should have them all hidden away or in safes. When I was a kid (10-12), mine was in my room, ammo included, never had a problem. If you have kids, you know that hiding something just produces a challenge to them. If you have a valuable collection, that is what safes were meant to hold, as a protection against theft, not every firearm in the house. And if there is ONE loaded gun around, what's the diff, safety wise, if there are 300? Safes are to prevent financial loss and lower insurance payments, have nada to do with safety. 25 years ago I began installing in every house I've lived in (about 5 since then) a system which places one button right beside my bed that turns on lights all over the house, inside and outside, so that I can respond to a potential problem without fumbling in the dark, all targets really clear, no mistakes. I'll be darned if I will respond to the demands of gun-grabbers to make the firearm I would respond WITH unavailable unless I can get to the safe and open it while under fire. My gun is so close I plan to have it in my hand before I kick on the lights.

Son the Younger got the biggest kick out of firing my AR when he was about 14, he could regularly make the big metal target (elk-sized) go "bong" at 400 yards. He also learned that the shorty AR was not as puny as it first appears. The .357 he learned a great deal of respect for in a very short time. His hand hurt, but he respected it, along with big brother's .308 (but they weren't as much fun!). Kids and guns make a fine mix, always have, as long as the kids are TAUGHT how to use and respect a gun. Hiding the guns away or locking them up is a very recent invention and IMHO has no basis without first raising your kids by the mushroom theory, ie, feed them, uh, "fertilizer", and keep them in the dark. You know your kids, I know mine. I would trust mine with my life, a safe is unnecessary and counterproductive, and I WILL NOT own one regardless of requirements from uncle slimeball.

If my next firearm comes with a trigger lock, that will make it more expensive. I can afford that and fortunately I live on the lake so I can pitch it right in there as soon as I get home. Total BS. If the government commands me to install it, it still goes in the lake.

Miss D., let's discuss for a moment "compromise", if we can. As near as can be determined right now, we here in central Texas have had a serial killer running loose for several years now, he just got added to the FBI's "10 most wanted". His felony record goes back for decades. He beats people to death with whatever is handy when he gets off a train he's hopped in order to steal their car. That includes, recently, a preacher and his wife beaten to death with a sledge hammer. I haven't talked to him, but I don't think "compromise" is in his vocabulary. We live in a very safe area, I suspect there might have been a crime here in the 5 years we've been here, but I haven't heard about one. Yet my wife crosses railroad tracks on her way to and from work every day, several times. Should he attack her, would I want her gun to be in a safe at home? Would that be a good "compromise"? We have not yet gotten around to obtaining CCW permits, and if she's attacked we may regret that fact. But he would be in for a surprise. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Still true after all these years.

If you ever get to central Texas, look me up and I'll SHOW you, up close and personal, why an AR-15 (omigod an ASSAULT rifle!) is an awful lot of fun for a careful, law-abiding citizen, and give you a quick (inexpert compared to what is available here) intro into a variety of handguns, all at a controlled range where you will figure out like real quick that there is nothing to fear from inanimate objects, as long as you are the one holding them.

Keep on thinking, you're doing good.

Larry P.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top