Guns, guns, and more guns.

[qoSagh]

Well it is a good thing we discussed riot control rounds then, isn't it?

[AlecWest]

Or you could just get a TRUNK MONKEY, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee3L9BQQ4Gs

Hehehe.  Well, a chimp sitting in the driver's seat would be a deterrent.  But, you'd have all the animal rights people up in arms - and rightly so.  The temperature in vehicles can go up quite a bit during a shopping trip - even a short one.  I can only imagine what temps in an auto's trunk might be.  But the idea of a chimp is somewhat logical because a chimp could be taught to exit the vehicle and head for a grassy area to heed the "call of nature."

Alec, if anybody but you would have started this thread that person would have been spanked for trying to incite a riot.

I've been spanked before (grin) - but for making certain religious comments (I'm a secular Deist).  But if this thread has proven anything, it's proven that a divisive topic can be discussed without rancor or mean-spiritedness.  I think everyone has been logical and fair in their exchanges.  And I think mutual-respect has prevailed - as it should.

The "trunk monkey" comment has brought up an interesting alternative to guns for protection against home invasions - namely, the use of guard animals.  I "might" not have gotten a gun if I lived in a warmer climate - preferring instead to get guard animals (Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, Doberman Pincers, German Shepherds, etc.).  Even then, though, I "might" still have gotten a gun.  With a guard animal, you must give it access to the outdoors for "nature call" purposes.  And then you'd have to scoop up your yard occasionally.  Sometimes, guard animals can "turn" on their masters.  And most of us have read horror stories about stupid kids who got into a fenced yard and get mauled by a guard animal ... while omitting the "Mean Johnny" factor (throwing rocks at the animal, poking the animal with a stick through gaps in the fence, etc.).  In situations like that, "Mean Johnny" is always elevated to "precious little angel" status - a poor innocent child who could not possibly have done anything wrong - with the animal(s) being destroyed and the owners held liable.

However, there is one uncommon guard animal that peaks my interest - the Savannah Cat.  This cat is a cross between an African serval and a domestic cat.  They're known to be intensely loyal to their masters and there's never been any recorded incident involving the cat turning on its master.  And like all other cats, they can be litterbox trained.  But that's where the similarity ends.  These cats can be 2 to 3 times larger than a common house cat with paws larger than a human hand.  They have sharp claws, big sharp teeth, and have been clocked running at cheetah-speed.  Also, like African servals, their digestive system allows them to consume bone and teeth material.  So, not only would the cat catch and kill an intruder, they'd "eat" the intruder - leaving no pesky evidence behind that couldn't be cleaned up.  And "Mean Johnny" would not be a victim of a mauling, he'd be a "missing person."

All in all, though, I think private gun ownership is best.  But that's just me.  I'll end this post with one of my favorite guard-animal jokes (grin).

A professional burglar is sitting in his parked car, taking notes on the comings and goings of residents in an affluent neighborhood he'd like to "hit."  And he notices one pattern.  At one house, shortly after dark on Friday nights, a homeowner takes the entire family out somewhere and doesn't come home until shortly after 11pm.  The pattern repeats itself over the course of 3 weeks.  So, he decides to hit the house.

The next Friday, like clockwork, the homeowner and family leave after dark.  And with no one else on the street (and under the cover of darkness), he pulls his car up to the curb in front of the house.  After a close inspection of the exterior, he notices no apparent burglar alarm system.  So, with a couple of crowbar pops, he pushes open the front door - entering the house and closing the door behind him.

Inside, the house is pitch dark.  So, with the help of a small flashlight, he inches his way inward.  But suddenly, he freezes, and hears a voice say:

Jesus is watching you!

After a few seconds, he inches his way inward a little further - but freezes when he hears the voice again:

Jesus is watching you!

He shines his flashlight around the living room until he notices movement in one corner.  He walks slowly toward the corner until his flashlight focuses on a bird cage.  And inside the cage is a parrot.

"Was it you who said, 'Jesus is watching you'?" the burglar asks.

"Yes, it was," replies the parrot.

"Hmmm ... what's your name?" the burglar asks.

"Clarence," replied the parrot.

The burglar belly-laughs and asks, "What kind of idiot would name a parrot 'Clarence'?"

The parrot replies, "The same kind of idiot who named the Pit Bull 'Jesus'."

Regards,
J. Alec West

[GSchnitzer]

Alec, if anybody but you would have started this thread that person would have been spanked for trying to incite a riot.
Do not take this comment to mean that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you... I've just been spanked enough in the past to know what it takes.   



P.S. Yeah, I'm still around. lol
I still check in regularly, I just haven't made a post in a while.

,

In the event Alec's "Guns, Guns, and More Guns" topic on this  Star Trek forum should, for some unfathomable reason, incite a riot, we are perfectly capable in shutting it down.  For now it seems innocuous enough.

[crashpilot]

In the event Alec's "Guns, Guns, and More Guns" topic on this  Star Trek forum should, for some unfathomable reason, incite a riot, we are perfectly capable in shutting it down.  For now it seems innocuous enough.

I was just trying to give Alec a good natured poke in the ribs, my post was simply an attempt at levity using self deprecating humor.
Many humble apologies if I wasn't successful at conveying my intent.

[trekcon]

Well my conclusion out of all this is that living in the USA is inherently dangerous with the chances of being shot or robbed significantly higher than it is in Europe.

People in cities like New York live in fear of being shot simply by being an innocent bystander whereas professional advisors like psychiatrists or solicitors (sorry, the American term is lawyers) live in fear of being shot by their clients, etc.

From what I have learned over the years, Americans are constantly being made to be fearful as this is a way of politically influencing the people. I suggest watching the excellent BBC documentary, "The Power of Nightmares" which can be seen here. There is constant lip-service to the USA being a country of freedom, yet they are constantly giving up those freedoms to organizations like the TSA who can perform naked body scans and strip search granny's, etc. at airports, etc.

There is this massive gun-culture where people are told that they need guns to protect themselves and the more guns that are sold, the more likely it is that people are shot.

One piece of news that was not discussed here is how the American DHS has been buying enough ammo to wage a 7 year war against the American people buying 450 million rounds of hollow points to be used against the American people.
Meanwhile the government also wants to be able to use drones to kill Americans in the USA.

My conclusion is that the safest place to be is to live in Europe where guns are strictly regulated and gun-crime is virtually unknown. We may have a couple of bank crisis over here in Cyprus, but I would prefer to lose some money than lose my life. As the banks in Germany are strong, I feel quite relaxed on that score, too.

Sorry that I cannot agree that owning guns are a good thing, but I personally feel much safer living in a virtually gun-free society than having the ability to buy guns, yet then having to live in constant fear someone else may use theirs against me.

Just my opinion.

Peter

[Lost Shuttle 2]

I will say first I may not be in the majority of the people in the US. but I do not worry about being shot where ever I am, maybe because I grew up knowing a bee can kill me in 20 minutes or less as I am allergic, so flying, being shot, a car accident were just another way of going.My father would say If you knew where you were going to die, you'd kill yourself to stay away from there. he also would say when your number is up that's it.

If as you say so many of us are afraid of going any where why do we have so many. who fly all over the US or drive. I do not think it has anything to do with a way of * politically influencing * when a shooting happens it is on the news or as with Sandy Brook takes over a show there is no one in the Government  telling the stations to take over normal viewing.and yes for  a while there is a big  thing about it but then after awhile things simmer down and life goes on. which I figure will happen here even after Sandy Brook or  the next thing that happens.

Most the people I know who go anywhere are now more afraid of another 9 11 happening then being shot, and yes many may complain about the hassle at the airport,but down deep know why it is going on.lets not forget three years ago a train station in Spain was blown up by terrorist, the next year a cafe in another country.It was not so long ago  these kind of acts were being done in the UK by the Irish. A long standing disagreement there. and the most I hear about the checking at the airport are from people who are not happy with not being able to have the BIGGER bottle of shampoo or mouth wash, yes now and then some of what you say is reported but by far I would say its not being able to have larger carry one. if your going to stay with someone, ship them your big bottle of  shampoo and such maybe even your clothes it may cost less to ship and not have to go through the hassle at the airport and then take a small over night bag. If we were a country that could profile we may not need the TSA but since we are not, then we will have something not everyone is happy with.

So  yes we as a country may sound like we are out of control, BUT we are by your counties years still a young nation you have gone through your periods of out of control violence and I bet it was just as bad as we are having now, just because the people here and now are the same age as you dose not make our history the same age. in many ways we may still have some growing up to do, but in all honestly we will never be as old as you are. our history will without doubt be falling behind in some things. somethings we may be a little ahead as someone may have read the history of the world and found what worked and what did not.

Many years ago I was in Washington D.C. and to be honest I was more afraid the heat was going to do me in then a person shooting me. I may run more of a risk of some stupid hunter shooting me through carelessness then a person breaking and entering, or being in a big city.

You say we are giving up freedoms to live without the fear of being shot but what did you or those before you give up to live as you say  *where guns are strictly regulated and gun-crime is virtually unknown* that did not happen over night I bet.

The drones as I understand are being used to help stop the drugs/human smuggling that is going on, as I live near a spot where many times smugglers have been stopped and if these help to keep drugs out of my area then I guess I can live with it, as for killing Americans where did this come from? as for the smugglers would it be any worse for a drone to shoot at a smuggler to stop them then a policeman who is chasing them through a town or back road and putting people at risk from a stray shot or car going out of control and hitting them.
 
A drone can fly high enough to see what is going on ahead of the smuggler, to tell is there someone crossing who may be hit, are there kids playing along the road if so,a shot to a tire may put them in danger.is there a side road they may take where a policeman may not see them take.

We may not be everyone's cup of tea,but on the whole I think we are as safe as most places in the world, warts and all.

[AlecWest]

We may not be everyone's cup of tea,but on the whole I think we are as safe as most places in the world, warts and all.

That's pretty much the way I feel, too.  I think the reason why other countries don't understand us is because, for over 200 years, our 2nd Amendment has given us the freedom to own and use guns.  Other countries may not have as much violence as we do ... but neither do they have our "history" of being a gun-owning culture.  We once tried to make drinking alcohol illegal.  It not only didn't work but helped to create an atmosphere friendly to organized crime.  Put simply, the lesson "prohibition" taught us is that genies like that can't be stuffed back into their bottles.  If the public wants something, and has a "history" of having that something, it can't be legislated away (without a fight).  I'd be willing to bet that organized crime would "love" anti-gun laws if they're ever passed on a Federal level.  We know they already love Federal marijuana laws (grin).

Brief aside on Federal marijuana laws.  Click HERE to read a brief synopsis of House Resolution 1523, introduced just 5 days ago.  It doesn't do away with the Controlled Substances Act.  It merely prevents the Federal government from enforcing the act in states where marijuana is deemed legal (for either medical or recreational reasons).  HR 1523 is a bipartisan attempt at compromise between outright Federal power and outright Federal legalization.  In my opinion, this is about the wisest compromise bill I've seen on the issue.  It simply says that the Feds retain power to enforce Federal anti-marijuana laws in states where state law says it's illegal ... but are told to back off in states where state law has granted limited (medical) or full legal status.

Back to guns.  Today was a monumental day in the debate.  The US Senate voted down the "universal background check" bill with a 6-vote margin.  And afterward, President Obama took to the TV news in an attempt to "shame" the Senate (directly) and gun-rights supporters (indirectly).  Vice President Biden was standing next to him giving his official "scowl" of agreement.  And though the President said things like, "It's not over yet," and "this is just round one," beltway insiders say that gun-control legislation is "dead" for at least this year.  But personally, I didn't see any shame in the Senate vote.  I think most Senators realized two things:

1)  The only way a person can fail a background check is if they "lie" on the form.  And, a lie (or lies) on that form is a Federal crime.  Now (ahem), guess how many people have been prosecuted for lying on that form.  And when you figure out the number, what would make you believe that a far-wider scheme of background checks would result in violators being prosecuted?  In short, the proposed law is "feel-good" legislation that would never be enforced.

2)  That gun-control legislation is merely a smokescreen to cover up the fact that Federal and state governments have dropped the ball on ensuring that persons with violent psychiatric issues are kept off the street.  We need more mental health resources in this country - and a "sure and swift" inpatient commitment of people who are deemed a danger to themselves or others.  The current touchy-feely trend to "medicate" these people on an outpatient basis just isn't cutting the mustard.  Adam Lanza (Newtown) is the posterboy for this.

Oh, well ... the vote is over and done with.  And sadly, the "real" issue has not been dealt with (nor does it appear as though it will be dealt with anytime soon).  To me, THAT is the real shame.

Regards,
J. Alec West

[qoSagh]

I live in a state where we already have background checks for most guns (well really for all guns now but that is another story) , yet many of the same legislators who championed our new draconian gun control laws spoke out against a bill last year to criminalize failure to take psychiatric medicine. Now I am not sure about making that a criminal offense and it does give the government more power than I am comfortable with, but it would have made control of dangerous patients enforceable. Of course it was important to be against that before our high profile event just as it was important to appear to be doing something afterwards.

One thing we need to remember about the second amendment is why it was written in the first place. This is something I disagree with the NRA on, as they focus too much on hunting. It was written in direct and indirect response to tyranny, as was much of our founding body of law. A good example was when Paul McCartney was made a knight in Liverpool (prior to being made a knight in all of the Empire) he read the proclamation and remarked that now he could carry a sword in public. Because under our old colonial rule there was a class system and the right to bear arms was only allowed to certain classes. Remember that the 2nd Amendment says Arms, not just Firearms. It is what keeps us from having a nobility in this country, no matter how hard Hollywood tries. The next thing to remember is that during our revolution the British seized gun powder and weapons to try and stop what they saw as a rebellion. The famous battle at Lexington & Concord was in response to troops coming to seize private guns. So when it was time to write the constitution these abuses were fresh in peoples memories.

Oddly enough because we had not yet figured out that it was a cash cow, distilling and brewing were not really worried about, I head one historian talking say that in my state every household was generally producing in excess of 10 barrels of hard cider. Like Alec pointed out, this tradition goes back to our earliest days and once you have a right, it is a very difficult thing to take away from people. It is only relatively recently (after the repeal of prohibition) that we have had the complicated system of taxing and selling liquor.

One interesting point about the failed Senate bill that I heard was that even some of those who supported it were not in favor of the logical result of it. Right now gun laws are mostly state laws and subject to different community standards. If you had a single federal standard for permits and possession, then there is no logical reason to restrict permits to a single state as anyone with a gun has already met the standard in all 50 states. The anti-gun lobby did not like the sound of that, that law abiding citizens might actually be able to bring their guns and their rights with them when they cross state lines.  Ask for a strong federal government and remember that you might just get what you wished for.

[barbreader]

Wow, I am so glad I dropped out of this thread.  The legislation that was defeated actually DID contain a provision allowing anyone with a hidden carry permit to carry their gun into any other state.  Beyond that, I will make no other comment at this time. 

[AlecWest]

The famous battle at Lexington & Concord was in response to troops coming to seize private guns. So when it was time to write the constitution these abuses were fresh in peoples memories.

One of my favorite quotes from the film, "The Patriot," is when Mel Gibson's character says, "Why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away?"  It was his way of addressing the reality that tyranny can take root in our own back yards if we let it.  The 2nd Amendment was an extension of two old adages - "A stitch in time sames nine," and "Nip it in the bud."  And along those lines, there's another good quote from the film, "Air Force One," where Harrison Ford's character says, "If you give a mouse a cookie, he's gonna want a glass of milk."  To make universal background checks (cookie) meaningful, universal gun registration (milk) would have to follow.  And some gun owners worry, "If you give a mouse a glass of milk, will it then want a dish of caviar?"  Senator Diane Feinstein voiced her approval of universal gun "confiscation" in the future ... something that universal gun registration would make easy (in a logistical sense, anyway).  Of course, in a real sense, if the Federal government tried to confiscate privately owned guns, we'd have a constitutional crisis on our hands - not to mention a lot of dead confiscators or, at the very least, confiscators who would end up needing years of dental restoration work (grin).

Ask for a strong federal government and remember that you might just get what you wished for.

One thing leads to another.

The legislation that was defeated actually DID contain a provision allowing anyone with a hidden carry permit to carry their gun into any other state.

Of course, the big question there is where in the Constitution is the Federal government given the power to "allow" or "disallow" private gun ownership (or even make rules on how individual states must "allow" or "disallow" permits from other states or limit magazine sizes, etc.)?  Laws not covered in the Constitution are left up to individual states to deal with - as long as those individual laws don't restrict or eliminate rights guaranteed on a U.S. Constitutional level.

Regards,
J. Alec West

[AlecWest]

Just a P.S. to all this (in Devil's Advocate mode).

Government (Federal, state, local) will always get in trouble if they try to restrict a long-established right.  But, government does have one power granted in the U.S. Constitution and in state constitutions - the right to raise revenue.  Now (evil grin), I'm certainly not in favor of this personally.  But neither am I giving away an anti-gun secret that hasn't been thought of.  If governments really want to restrict rights to gun ownership, they do have the power to "tax" the practice.  For example, how about a "buck-a-bullet" sales tax, a 100% sales tax on firearms (turning a $400 gun into an $800 gun), or a tax on the purchase of all magazines above a 10-round capacity?  Proponents could earmark such revenue toward hiring more judges to help clear the backlog of firearm violation cases. 

Point is, the tool (raising taxes) to address the problem in a Constitutional manner is available at all levels of government.  By making gun ownership a "pricey" prospect, you'd have less guns and ammo on the streets.  So, why bother attacking a "citizen" right when you can exercise a "government" right that'll do the same job?

[/exit Devil's Advocate mode]

Now, if any of these taxes show up in your area, don't blame me (grin).  They've already been thought of.  Just ask any cigarette smoker (grin).  But with guns, increasing taxes has the virtue of never having been tried ... yet.

P.S.  When I used the phrase "address the problem," I was doing so in Devil's Advocate mode (wearing an anti-gun hat).  I think most gun control proponents consider gun ownership as a "problem" that needs to be solved.  Personally, I think gun ownership is only a problem if guns end up in the possession of criminals or people with potentially violent mental-health issues.  A good example of that is the death of Chris Kyle, former Navy Seal and author of "American Sniper."  He was killed at a gun range, "training" a "buddy" who was mentally ill (delayed stress syndrome).  Kyle may have been a great sniper.  But what the heck was he thinking when he decided to "train" a nut job?

FWIW, actor Bradley Cooper snapped up "movie rights" to "American Sniper" in a phone call he made to Kyle just before his untimely death.  I just hope that Cooper emphasizes the mental health of Kyle's killer and that Kyle's choice to train him was a universally stupid decision.

Regards,
J. Alec West

[eagle219406]

I'm okay with people owning a gun, as long as they know how to use it.  What bugs me is people's complaints.  I'm all about how banning guns could increase crime.  But there is also the complaint about how you need a license to own one.
 
A long time ago, I saw the movie, "Sea-biscuit."  There was a scene in the beginning where Jeff Bridges' character was teaching his son, who was less than 10 years of age, to drive.  Later the kid was doing it himself and died.  The fact that he even was teaching him at that age and driving at that age confused me, until my dad told me that in those days, licenses weren't required to drive a car.  Anybody was allowed to do it, no matter how young they were.  It wasn't until too many young people died in accidents and too many adults were being wreckless that they invented the driver's license and made it so you had to be at least 16 to have one.  You also had to go through training and be tested on it.  It's a law that to this day, nobody has ever complained about.  And believe it or not, car accidents are still the number one cause of teenage deaths. 

But when somebody makes a law that you need to have a license to own a gun, which is also very dangerous if misused, the people go off the deep end.    I personally don't own a gun.  But if I were to get one, I would have no problem submitting to a background check.  I've got nothing to hide.