Eagle732

"So what's the point of all these comparisons to other countries anyway? Is it "Don't sweat it because it happens in other countries too" or is it "Let's not bother trying to solve this because other countries can't solve it either" or is it "So what, it happens in other countries too". "

Well I guess since just a few posts ago you were siting Germany then the answer is if the example fits your point of view you use it and if it doesn't you claim it is not a fair comparison.

I don't think anybody said don't solve the problem but I believe we can look at history for examples for what might work and what won't. History is full of tyrannical governments, that once were benevolent, that have murdered millions of its citizens. Again I'll say that you're worried about 30 round magazines and scary black semi-automatic rifles when you should be keeping a watchful eye on your government. The founding fathers knew this. History always repeats itself and the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Of course some here would rather try to discredit the opposing view as "daft" or try to take the argument to an absurd level by throwing in " mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and light antitank weapons and the like" or "dynamite". Of course that's how a good lawyer wins in court, by confusing the facts and discrediting his opponent. However statements like that won't earn you much respect.

"We should be able to be honest about these things."

Well Beaver how are my facts and opinions not being honest? Are you insinuating that I'm a lier?

Hmm, and all that violence while being under strict communist rule where there are no civil rights and no due process.

Yea I like China. Since 1949 they've killed tens of millions of their citizens. Mao tried to reform land use (read kick the peasant farmers off the land and killing at least a million). Of course that worked out so well it led to a great famine after the government took over the entire food supply leaving another 5 million to die. Not to mention millions who were killed for even thinking about speaking against the regime.

Too bad all the guns were confiscated right after WW2 and the people couldn't defend themselves.

History is full of tyrannical government that are willing to kill millions of its citizens to maintain control. Of course our government would never do anything like China did, or Russia, or Cambodia, or Germany. I could go on but you get the idea (at least some of you do).

And you're worried about 30 round clips and scary black rifles?(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

Beaver, I expected no less from you. Distort what I quoted (dynamite?) and disparage anyone who does not agree with you (duped).

When you have to stoop to that level you've obviously lost the argument.(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

"It is popular for certain politicians and others of dubious qualification to ask "Why does anyone need an assault rifle?" In response, let's first get down to fundamentals.

The USA prides itself on being a "free" country. And individual liberty IS our heritage and is the dominant theme in the writings of the Founders and in the founding documents. It is clear that our ancestors had in mind that Americans would enjoy the freedom that has been so often denied to the people of Europe and elsewhere. Indeed, for most of the Founders, protecting individual freedom was the primary purpose of government. Freedom is our political heritage and our cultural identity. As an American, it is not necessary to justify freedom. Freedom is a laudable end in itself. Freedom is its own justification.

It is those who would curtail freedom that must justify their actions. "Why do you need your freedom?" should be an absurd question to any American, to any human being that hasn't had their spirit crushed by oppression. And so the question "why do you need an assault rifle?" is never an appropriate threshold question for this discussion. Although the cause of liberty has suffered much since the US Constitution was ratified, we have not reached the point where the default position for policy discussions is denial of freedom with the enjoyment of freedom to be "granted" by the government only on an "as needed" basis.

So, indeed, "why do you need an assault rifle?" is an absurd and subtly tyrannical question. The proper threshold question goes the other way, from the free man to his government: "what is your compelling reason for denying my freedom?" So let's start by addressing the PROPER question. Since we presumably want to address the question rationally, let's skip over the emotional rhetoric and hysterical pronouncements of the mass media and politicians and go right to the actual facts.

According to FBI statistics, violent crime, including murder, has been FALLING. In fact, it has been falling steadily for over twenty years. It has fallen by more than fifty percent since it peaked in the early 90s. That is an astonishing reduction. Hmmmmm . . . not really a compelling case for infringing on the freedom of innocent people, is it?

But certainly these evil-looking weapons of war are a menace? Well, no. In 2010, for example, there were 12,996 murders in the USA (again citing FBI stats). Of those murders, firearms were used in 8,775. Of those, a whopping 358 of those murders were committed with rifles. And only some unknown fraction of those rifles were of the "evil" military style. And even a smaller fraction of those were aided by large capacity magazines. The plain fact is that military style rifles with high capacity magazines make a negligible contribution to violent crime even though literally millions are in the hands of American civilians. The ONLY reason such rifles are singled out for abuse is because they look menacing and people keep asserting that we must prove why we need one. Clearly, if you want to be rational about it, you need to look elsewhere to place blame for violent crime.

So, having utterly failed to provide a compelling reason to deny people their freedom in this way, the argument should be over. However, since the average media dupe is going to insist that "something must be done" even if it is irrational, let's inquire further.

The Sandy Hook shooter murdered his mother, stole her lawfully owned gun, and killed a bunch of children with it. Exactly what kind of gun law would have prevented this tragedy? Since he didn't purchase the gun, but stole it, no controls on purchasing, no licensing requirement, no background check, would have stopped him. Even a complete ban on future sales of such weapons would not have stopped the killing since he stole an existing weapon rather than buying a new one. So EVERY law being proposed in the wake of the shooting would have failed to prevent the shooting. This is typical for legislation based entirely on emotion.

But suppose you eliminated ALL civilian ownership of such weapons through confiscation? You still would have the possibility of acquisition by theft and diversion from approved holders (such as the police) and, more importantly, through the black market and smuggling. Mexico and other similar countries are awash with firearms in spite of a near total ban on civilian ownership. In the US, a total gun ban can reasonably be anticipated to be no more successful than has been the ban on marijuana, which manages to slip through by the bale on a daily basis in spite of the fact that it can be detected by trained dogs (guns cannot). Additionally, a bale of marijuana goes up in smoke in a matter of weeks and must be replaced. A gun, once smuggled into the country, lasts essentially forever. While it might be theoretically possible to convince the law-abiding to disarm themselves, only a fool thinks criminals will comply.

But suppose (against all the evidence) you COULD keep guns entirely out of civilian hands. What would stop your homicidal/suicidal maniac from killing people with explosives like the Bath Michigan school bombing that killed 38 children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster), or with gasoline like the Happy Land arson fire that killed 87 people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire) or with a knife like the recent attack on children in China (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...media-coverage) (or Timothy McVeigh who killed 168 and injured over 800 with his home made truck bomb). Unarmed human beings are relatively fragile and it is not a difficult task to find ways to harm them, especially if you intend to die yourself in the process. It is simply folly to think you can make the world safe from homicidal maniacs by passing a law.

Indeed, no gun control law has ever been demonstrated to reduce violent crime. In fact, in the USA, the stricter the gun control, the greater the levels of violent crime. It is virtually a perfect correlation. As rational observers, we cannot assume that correlation equals causation and so we must admit the possibility that those jurisdictions have the most gun control BECAUSE they have the most violent crime and not the other way around. But we CAN conclude that gun control has not been effective at curtailing violent crime where it has been enacted. Not in the USA and not in the much vaunted UK, where gun control has not been followed by a reduction in violent crime, but rather by an increase. Australia and New Zealand have had the same result.

Gun control as a tool of crime control does not meet rational scrutiny and has a dismal track record. But since we have come this far, let's go all the way. Why not go ahead with a futile program? It certainly would not be the first. Indeed, government in the USA consists almost entirely of futile, expensive programs that curtail freedom. So why not another one? Why so much adamant resistance?

The Founders of this country knew their history. They knew tyranny. They knew that ANY government could become tyrannical. And they desperately wanted the government they were creating to NOT become tyrannical. The Constitution goes to great lengths to try and erect barriers to tyranny by limiting the government to enumerated powers, by spreading its powers around among the people, the states, and various branches of the government, all with powers to check the others. And then on top of that they applied a list of restrictions, in the form of the Bill of Rights, that were based on their experience with the typical operations of tyrants. The Founders knew that government was the ultimate enemy of liberty, that it was, as Washington said, "Like fire, [] a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

And so, when we get right down to the nitty gritty, the somewhat embarrassing answer to the question "why do you need an assault rifle?" is: "we don't trust our government not to try and enslave us." And we have plenty of history to back up the fear.

In the last century, governments around the world have slaughtered at least 100 million of their own people. This has happened under the auspices of many cultures, many races, many forms of government. Anyone who responds to this with the idea that we are somehow immune to murderous tyranny should now be hearing the scoffing laughter of Santayana in their ears. You ignore history at your peril. Gun owners are not going to ignore history. "Oh, but we have democracy!" Yes, and Hitler was elected. Stalin and Mao probably would have been if they had bothered with elections, but they didn't have to because they had all the guns.

The more sophisticated advocate of gun control will not make the foolish assertion that "it can't happen here" but will instead assert that there is nothing the people can do against the might of government anyway should it decide to enslave them. I'm always a little at a loss at this argument since the implication seems to be that since we are no match for the military, we should FURTHER disarm ourselves and not even try to defend freedom should it come under attack. I wish such people happiness in their chains.

Aside from being pathetic and cowardly in their willingness to abandon freedom without even raising a fist, they are also wrong on the facts. The Soviet Union, at the height of its powers, was unable to dislodge the Mujahadeen from Afghanistan. Nor could the might of the US army dislodge the Viet Cong. And we calmed the insurgency in Irag only through bribery (and only temporarily in my opinion). The historical fact is that a determined indigenous resistance, especially if well-armed, is ALWAYS a force to be reckoned with. And that is exactly why the Founders specifically denied the Federal government the power to disarm the people - because an armed population is a bulwark against tyranny. And that, sir, is why I need a rifle suitable for combat.

The gun control advocates may reject the idea that an armed population acts as a defense against tyranny or scoff that such is needed. That's fine. In a sense it doesn't matter whether they believe it or not. What matters, and it is critical that they understand this, is that millions of gun owners DO believe it. So when government aspires to take their guns, they see it as a direct attack on the most important of all restraints on tyranny. They see it as a direct attack on the most fundamental of ALL freedoms, the freedom that PROTECTS all the rest. To the advocate, gun control seems to merely be restricting a silly hobby. But to millions of gun owners, the very future of freedom, the future of their children, depends on them NOT allowing themselves to be disarmed. They see every attempt at licensing, registration, magazine bans, etc. as government eating away at the keystone of liberty. That civilian disarmament is the act of a tyrant has been demonstrated time and time again with catastrophic results. Whether Mr. Gun Control Advocate believes it or not does not matter in the end because gun owners do and they will not be convinced otherwise.

Most scholars agree that one of the reasons the American Civil War happened was because both sides underestimated the will of the other side to fight and die for the cause. Advocates of gun control think that passing a law banning guns will be a victory. They are wrong. It will, instead, be the beginning of a war in which people will fight and die. The gun control advocate's refusal to understand that only makes the tragic outcome more likely. Let's not go there." by Blake Ashley

I posted in a thread a few weeks ago that we are too willing to give up our rights. If you've been reading the comments here over the last few weeks you can see how true this is. This is my last comment on the subject.(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

"Rotten parents, rotten teachers, storm troopers", yea I can't even argue with logic like that. I said MIGHT BE. Maybe some kids look at the SRO as a role model and decide to become a cop when they get older.

And Basement I'm disappointed in your "400 pound" comment.

And please explain the "phsyc exam" comment.(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

The kids in my son's school really look up to DT (Deputy Tom), he might just be the only positive adult male role model some of the kids have (unless their in Scouts).

The NRA is a non-profit, just like BSA.

Who provides certification to BSA range officers?

Yea, I can site studies showing the opposite.

"This is the first study to examine how felonious police deaths are affected by changes in waiting periods and laws that allow law-abiding citizens the right to carry concealed weapons for self-defense. Although some people oppose shall-issue laws because they believe the laws endanger the officers lives, there is no evidence for that belief. After controlling for an array of factors, including trends before and after the law went into effect, I show that states that enact concealed carry laws are less likely to have a felonious police death and more likely to have lower rates of felonious police deaths after the law is passed. This result is statistically significant in seven of the nine specifications, and the difference between the before and after trends is significant in over half the specifications. Although point estimates show that the same qualitative results are true for felonious police deaths due to hand- guns, the results are statistically significant in only about one-quarter of the specifications. Also, the before and after trends in the shall-issue variable are statistically different in about half of the specifications. Furthermore, those who believe allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons will endanger the lives of law enforcement officials do not even have anecdotal evidence to support their position. To date, we have no examples of law- abiding citizens with concealed weapons permits assaulting police officers. In contrast, there is at least one example of such a citizen coming to the aid of an officer."

http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/police.pdf

"Would boys select knot tying, cooking, hiking, identifying wildlife, etc. for requirements in their troop or patrol? What if they chose to replace them with beating a given number of computer games, memorizing episodes of sponge bob, and eating 12 big macs at a single sitting at McDonalds (or any other requirement that the boys want)?"

This is where the SM steps in and does his job, which is to administer the BSA program. There's "Boy run" and then there's "Boy run into the ground". I'm thinking most parents wouldn't be bringing their sons meetings if the only thing that was going on was watching Sponge Bob and playing video games. Heck they get enough of that at home! Of course if things are going well for the troop the boys know that this is where they get the opportunity to do things like climbing, building campfires, using an axe etc. Things they don't get to do elsewhere.

4. We use to have to sign for ammo. Buy a box of .22s, show your license and sign the book. That was years ago, I don't know why they stopped, probably because signing a book really didn't do anything. It's tough to trace ammo.

5. If you want to talk about securing your guns in a reasonable manor then yea, I'm all for that but define reasonable. If someone breaks into my house are my guns secured if I had my doors locked? How about if they're locked with the trigger lock that's by law included with every gun sold? Or what if I'm away on vacation and someone brings a cutting torch into my house and burns a hole in the side of my safe were my guns secure enough? I have a buddy who had a safe the size of a refrigerator wheel out of his house in broad daylight, is he responsible? According to you yes. Basically that's a de facto gun ban since no one would accept the liability. I don't think that's gonna fly. Locking them up from kids under 16 is already the law in this state.

As far as mental illness is concerned if someone has been diagnosed with mental illness then they currently are prohibited. How about the guy who suffered from depression 10 years ago because but has no problems today, do we deny him? Heck we let criminal get their records expunged and buy guns today. Certainly none of us (even the NRA) wants an unstable person having access to firearms but you also have to deal with medical privacy issues. The NRA endorses a national registry of people who would be denied due to mental illness but the devil is in the details. How do you register people and protect their rights. I don't think any of us believe that you should loose all your rights just because you're sick.

Maybe we could look at enforcing current laws, seems like the 5 year mandatory gun crime is the first thing to get tossed during a prosecution.

And as far as the NRA not caring about criminals getting guns they have a long history of working with lawmakers for laws as long as they don't restrict the rights of Americans to own firearms. The NRA supported instant background checks as an example. Also it wasn't the NRA that sent thousands of guns to Mexico while telling Americans that we were the ones fueling Mexico's drug wars was it?. "If there's one gun that's going from the U.S. to Mexico, we're against it and they should prosecute it," Mr. LaPierre said. "They have plenty of laws to do that."

The last thing I want is for someone to be hurt of killed by a gun. I know first hand what it's like to loose an immediate family member to gun violence. But I'm not willing to give up my right to defend my family.

The gun club I belong to has case full of M1 Garrands, wonder if they be interested in doing a program for the boys?

Oh the though of teenagers shooting military assault weapons! PING!(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

How do you know he's not just BS'n you?

Ven,

Do you have an example of a vision statement that would make this point that you could share?

moose, do you have any facts or source to support this statement or is it just your emotions talking again?

"Eagle thinks they will offer the service to everyone who wants it for free.. I say "NOT".. They are just saying they are willing to make a profit off this tragedy with a new service idea.. How benevolent of them."

I offered facts and sources for my facts, you could do the same if you had any.

On second thought just go with whatever makes you feel good.

"Well, I'd call Monday or Tuesday but the ACLU is closed on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day..."

I thought they were against Christmas, they should be working!

All our high schools and most middle schools have "School Resource Officers" which are all part of the regular police force. They do more than just walk around the school with a gun, they are positive roll models and work with troubled youth. From our Sheriff Departments's website:

The County Sheriffs Office has School Resource Officers that are assigned to the County secondary schools

and they handle those matters originating on the assigned school campus. Along with their daily duties

and responsibilities the School Resource Officers perform the following:

Drug and Alcohol Education (middle & high schools)

Date Rape Education

Bullying and Cyber bullying Presentations

Monitor the after school programs and events at the assigned campus throughout the school year. (Dances, athletics, and other misc. programs)

Yea I can see why that would be bad.

Headline Day 4: "Senators Question if BSA's Discriminatory Policies Led to the Death of Gay Students"

Yea, we have a problem.

Sounds to me like the NRA is going to develop the program and pay for training.

Hutchinson will lead this effort as National Director of the National School Shield Program, with a BUDGET PROVIDED BY THE NRA of whatever scope the task requires, LaPierre said. His experience as a U.S. Attorney, director of the Drug Enforcement Agency and Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security will give him the knowledge and expertise to HIRE the most knowledgeable and credentialed experts available anywhere, to get this program up and running from the first day forward.

I don't think the NRA is going to force anyone to take part in their program. Unlike Sen. Diane Feinstein who wants to confiscate firearms currently legally owned.

I thought we were suppose to consider all ideas in solving this problem. Here's a group putting their money where their mouth is and your complaining.

(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

We have the "Highway Patrol" . They don't have patches yet, maybe they're undercover!

Well yes, I know many who have CCWs. Your point?

Since there are about 8 million CCW holders I'll bet you know a few too.(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

Headline Day 3: "Senator Diane Feinstein Calls for Banning All BSA Shooting Programs"

I guess none of you remember Clinton's 2000 "Cops in Schools" program. How crazy was that? Providing funding to local school districts so they can put cops in schools. That's just stupid!

Yes and no. There is no legal way for a private party to legally make a rifle into a full auto since 1986 with the Firearm Owners Protection Act which Reagan signed into law. I don't own AKs or SKSs but I do know about the AR-15.

There are Drop In Auto Sears (DIAS ) which are considered an independently registered Machine Gun and are their OWN registered part. You can legally use one of these registered parts in an AR-15 to make it shoot full auto. The AR-15 stays an AR-15 and the registered part (the DIAS or sear) stays the registered part. Last time I looked they ran about $10,000 if you can find one. In addition you need the $200 Federal tax stamp for each full auto or full auto sear you own, Fed. form 4 and background check. Also some states require registration for each full auto (MA is $100). The problem with all of this (besides the expense) is that your AR-15 is only full auto with the DAIS installed or semi-auto without it where as a M-16 (military counterpart to the AR-15) is select fire meaning that the M-16 has a lever on the side which allows you to change from semi to full.

But to go to a gun show and buy a part here and a part there and then go home and put together a full auto firearm, without machine work, I would say is impossible. And if you had the capabilities to do this it would be highly illegal. Not only would I recommend not doing it, I would recommend not even associating with anyone who would even consider doing this outside of the law. Of course criminals don't pay any mind to the law. Case in point is the North Hollywood shootout referenced to earlier. These guys converted weapons to full auto and I doubt they had the proper permits. Also just trying to make and sell them will get you tossed in the slammer for a long time. See this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/26/AR2009062604108.html

The guy who said he did this, is he the same guy who told you he bought 100 round magazines?

And by the way, I don't advocate carrying on scout trips. I have a PD detective who is an ASM and he doesn't even carry on our trips but that's his choice. Come to think of it since our meeting hall is in PA and half our families are from PA and PA residents have the right to carry (unlike MD where I live) I wouldn't be surprised if some parent has carried concealed during a meeting. I wouldn't know since CCW is by definition concealed. I never thought of it.

I've noticed an increase in this with my last group of new scouts. Parents with the entitlement attitude, treating me and my ASMs as if we're employees instead of volunteers. At times it borderlines on bullying.

Example: Scout comes to me a few weeks ago and says he's been trying to get in touch with a MBC but can't get through, he's left messages but no response. I advise him to try again, maybe she's on vacation or out of town for business. A few weeks later I get an email from dad saying the same but adding how he thinks in inappropriate and unfair to his son that he has to wait when son is done the MB. I ask what number he's using and a week later no response. So I call the number we have in our MBC list which is available online to all members and the MBC picks up on the first ring. She tells me she would be happy to work with the boys just give her a call!