SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 512345>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Guns, emotions, and reality, vs the Boston Bomber< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7217
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 12:21 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

There was LOTS of imagery recently on the pursuit of the Boston Bomber in Watetown, Mass.  The images were in stark contrast to the claims made and rhetoric expressed by our president and his anti-gun supporters.

According to the president and the anti-gun crowd, AR-15s and other semi auto rifles have no place as civilian self- defense weapons.  Supposedly they are strictly offensive miltary "assault weapons" designed to "mow down" large numbers of people.

Yet the images this past weekend showed literally hundreds of local, state, and federal civilian enforcement personnel armed with AR-15s and other semi-auto "assault weapons".  The purpose and mission of these personnel was NOT to "mow down" large numbers of people, nor even to engage and then kill a force of determined criminals.  Their purpose was to search for a single, wounded, armed individual with the intent of apprehending that individual and taking him into custody.  ALIVE.  In other words, all those supposedly "offensive military assault weapons" that according to our president and others have no use as a defensive arm were carried by those officers for their own SELF DEFENSE.  And this despite the fact that all of them already had handguns.

The imagery clearly and emphatically proved that the presidential, senatorial, and congressional speechifying that AR-15s and other "military style" rifles are not appropriate for self defense were a complete and total lie.

Or do the anti-gun folks on this forum have a spin on the imagery that contradicts the conclusion above?  If so, I'd  dearly love to read it.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
bbobb169 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 884
Joined: May 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 12:31 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Not to even mention the use from cameras from every street corner, stores, cell phone logs, tweeted pics, etc, etc.  In this case it was for a GOOD purpose.

I am sure none of these surveillance forms will ever be used against the general population anytime ......................... :D
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4511
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 12:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

What we saw in this incident was that once again religious fervor led to heinous behavior.  Sound thinking and the scientific method brought the mayhem to an end.

The swiftness in dealing with the ricin letters and the bombing was a nice contrast to to what we observed in the 911 attacks and the anthrax letters that followed.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 12:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 9:21 am)
QUOTE
According to the president and the anti-gun crowd, AR-15s and other semi auto rifles have no place as civilian self- defense weapons.  Supposedly they are strictly offensive miltary "assault weapons" designed to "mow down" large numbers of people.

Yet the images this past weekend showed literally hundreds of local, state, and federal civilian enforcement personnel armed with AR-15s and other semi-auto "assault weapons".  The purpose and mission of these personnel was NOT to "mow down" large numbers of people, nor even to engage and then kill a force of determined criminals.  Their purpose was to search for a single, wounded, armed individual with the intent of apprehending that individual and taking him into custody.  ALIVE.  In other words, all those supposedly "offensive military assault weapons" that according to our president and others have no use as a defensive arm were carried by those officers for their own SELF DEFENSE.  And this despite the fact that all of them already had handguns.

The imagery clearly and emphatically proved that the presidential, senatorial, and congressional speechifying that AR-15s and other "military style" rifles are not appropriate for self defense were a complete and total lie.

Do you genuinely not understand the distinction between law enforcement professionals and the general public, or are you merely pretending not to understand?


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 5
Marmotstew Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9359
Joined: May 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 12:40 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Good point. We should also arm our troops with just BB guns.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
Ron. Search for posts by this member.
don't surround yourself with your self
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 11994
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 12:46 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Apr. 23 2013, 11:36 am)
QUOTE
Do you genuinely not understand the distinction between law enforcement professionals and the general public, or are you merely pretending not to understand?

Of course! Law enforcement officials are more equal than the general public :p

In all seriousness though, the reason we saw so many AR's and M-16's is because they are a very easy platform to learn how to shoot well. Ideal for military, law enforcement and personal defense use.


--------------
And be kind toward one another
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
wwwest Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6726
Joined: Dec. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 12:48 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Good grief!

What a country!!

Yep, swat teams with assault rifles, that certainly proves that every dove hunter should immediatley run out and buy an AR-15.  Get 'em while they are expensive.


--------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7217
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 12:54 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:36 pm)
QUOTE
Do you genuinely not understand the distinction between law enforcement professionals and the general public, or are you merely pretending not to understand?

Do you genuinely not understand the disntinction between  law enforcement professionals and the military, or are you merely pretending not to understand?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Ron. Search for posts by this member.
don't surround yourself with your self
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 11994
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 12:55 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(wwwest @ Apr. 23 2013, 11:48 am)
QUOTE
Good grief!

What a country!!

Yep, swat teams with assault rifles, that certainly proves that every dove hunter should immediatley run out and buy an AR-15.  Get 'em while they are expensive.

Well, contrary to our VP's opinion, an AR-15 is a much easier weapon to handle and shoot accurately than a shotgun for the typical woman or for that matter the typical man. Light, intuitive, low recoil makes it the perfect all around sporter as well as its more serious role.

While I have no problem with the standard capacity 30 round mags, a 10 round magazine makes it even easier to maneuver while carrying the gun.


--------------
And be kind toward one another
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4511
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 12:56 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ron. @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:46 pm)
QUOTE
Of course! Law enforcement officials are more equal than the general public :p

What a dumb comment.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7217
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 1:03 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(wwwest @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:48 pm)
QUOTE
Good grief!

What a country!!

Yep, swat teams with assault rifles, that certainly proves that every dove hunter should immediatley run out and buy an AR-15.  Get 'em while they are expensive.

Good grief!

What a country!!

Yep, AR-15s are about dove hunting and have nothing to do with self defense.

Yep, the 2nd amendment was put in place to protect the right to hunt doves and not to protect the right to self defense.  Let's all buy some shotguns and dove loads!

You claimed to have taken a quiz on the second amendment and got 13 out of 15 right.  Did you not learn ANYthing?


BTW, there were LOTS more cops on the streets of Watertown than there are SWAT members.  In addtion to being a non sequitur, your characterization was false.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7217
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 1:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:56 pm)
QUOTE

(Ron. @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:46 pm)
QUOTE
Of course! Law enforcement officials are more equal than the general public :p

What a dumb comment.

Why is the left often so humorless and incapable of understanding satire?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
george of the j Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 627
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 1:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

You raise a good point, Ken. I agree with you that this incident does demonstrate the value of assault rifles for self defense. A pistol might be best across the average bedroom, but as  distances get longer, you might start to want an assault rifle. And some people may prefer a shotgun for a variety of distances in their home defense.

---George
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43809
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 1:13 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I thought the images showed the efficacy of the Claymore mine.

Oh and that nicotine addiction can serve a community purpose... (since the fugitive was discovered by a nicotine addict seeking a fix).
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
Ron. Search for posts by this member.
don't surround yourself with your self
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 11994
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 1:17 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:06 pm)
QUOTE

(HighGravity @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:56 pm)
QUOTE

(Ron. @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:46 pm)
QUOTE
Of course! Law enforcement officials are more equal than the general public :p

What a dumb comment.

Why is the left often so humorless and incapable of understanding satire?

High Gravity is just stirring the pot, trying to provoke a reaction :D


--------------
And be kind toward one another
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7217
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 1:39 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(george of the j @ Apr. 23 2013, 1:09 pm)
QUOTE
You raise a good point, Ken. I agree with you that this incident does demonstrate the value of assault rifles for self defense. A pistol might be best across the average bedroom, but as  distances get longer, you might start to want an assault rifle. And some people may prefer a shotgun for a variety of distances in their home defense.

---George

While your points are correct, they beg a question.

Does the 2nd amendment protect a right to self defense only against criminal intruders in our home?

I'm quite certain the 2nd amendment is NOT that narrow.

The preamble to the phrase that specifically protects the right to keep and bear arms mentions two purposes of that right:
1) a militia
2) the security of a free State

That is MUCH broader than simply protecting one's self in the home against an intruder.  And AR-15s and like weapons are ideal to accomplish the two purposes specifically enumerated in the 2nd amendment.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
Walkinman Search for posts by this member.
A rainbow
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7524
Joined: Nov. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 1:50 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I remember seeing video of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clearly the general public should, in the name of defense, be allowed to own/use drones, bombs, jet fighters, Tomahawk Missiles, ad infinitum.


Anyone see the footage from WWII? Atomic bombs for all.

KenV - anyone who'd day the purpose of those AR15 was "self" defense is an idiot; and yes, that includes you. The defense of the general public is a very different thing. I suspect you "know" this, but you just won't admit it.

The law enforcement officials were out hunting this guy; and rightly so. Equating that to general public self-defense is, as is your usual style, absurd.


--------------
Guided Alaska backpacking and hiking trips

"What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having?" -- Sting, All This Time.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 18
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7217
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 1:50 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Apr. 23 2013, 1:13 pm)
QUOTE
I thought the images showed the efficacy of the Claymore mine.

Hilarious.

I wonder why a rightwinger like me can recognize and often appreciate humor used by a leftwinger, but so many leftwingers can't even recognize humor used by a rightwinger?  It's puzzling.

QUOTE
Oh and that nicotine addiction can serve a community purpose... (since the fugitive was discovered by a nicotine addict seeking a fix).
Fascinating you brought that up.

When there is a dragnet to search for a lost child, the contents of unused refrigerators and freezers are usually checked as part of the search.  A boat covered with a tarp would seem to be an obvious hiding place that should be checked by personnel involved in the dragnet.  How was that boat overlooked?  Or did the fugitive enter it only after the police had already searched it?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
george of the j Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 627
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 2:02 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 1:39 pm)
QUOTE

(george of the j @ Apr. 23 2013, 1:09 pm)
QUOTE
You raise a good point, Ken. I agree with you that this incident does demonstrate the value of assault rifles for self defense. A pistol might be best across the average bedroom, but as  distances get longer, you might start to want an assault rifle. And some people may prefer a shotgun for a variety of distances in their home defense.

---George

While your points are correct, they beg a question.

Does the 2nd amendment protect a right to self defense only against criminal intruders in our home?

I'm quite certain the 2nd amendment is NOT that narrow.

The preamble to the phrase that specifically protects the right to keep and bear arms mentions two purposes of that right:
1) a militia
2) the security of a free State

That is MUCH broader than simply protecting one's self in the home against an intruder.  And AR-15s and like weapons are ideal to accomplish the two purposes specifically enumerated in the 2nd amendment.

No, the 2nd is not just about defending our homes from criminal intruders.Its original primary purpose was to ensure the people of the U.S. were armed against oppression by the federal government.

But your OP was about the value of assault weapons for self defense, and I think you made a good point there.

---George
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6604
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 2:16 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The phrase "anti-gun folks" is a mischaracterization of the debate to begin with. The vast majority of folks who support more effective gun control laws support the universal background check. To a lesser extent there is support for a ban on assault weapons and clips exceeding 10 rounds. A minority want to abolish private firearm ownership altogether, but that group always seems to be the stand-in for those arguing against any gun control legislation.

In regards to the OP and KV's exchange with TT, the relevant comparison is between military & law enforcement on one side, and the general public on the other. The first two are trained professionals who use these weapons in the course of their employment. It's a huge leap from there to the general public, but KenV tried it anyway (and fell short of a relevant response).

The professionals who shot & apprehended the Boston suspects could most likely have done so with lesser weapons, but that's besides the point. Law enforcement needs to be heavily armed because of the sheer proliferation of weapons in the public domain.

The anti-regulation folks will argue that's why the general public needs to be heavily armed too, but that kind of logic ultimately leads to more proliferation and a much more dangerous society. Arguing that classroom teachers should be packin heat is pure madness.

Banning assault weapons is of dubious practical value, given the disparity between definition & functionality. A universal background check, gun registration, and passing a test to obtain a license along with stepped-up enforcement (including taking away the shackles placed on the ATF) would be much more effective at reducing gun violence in the long term. Attrition would slowly deplete what's already on the streets.

But we also need to change a gun culture that is more about obsession with firepower that mature use of a tool. As a society we need to grow up and out of that juvenile fascination.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7217
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 2:26 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Walkinman @ Apr. 23 2013, 1:50 pm)
QUOTE
I remember seeing video of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clearly the general public should, in the name of defense, be allowed to own/use drones, bombs, jet fighters, Tomahawk Missiles, ad infinitum.


Anyone see the footage from WWII? Atomic bombs for all.

What clueless drivel, loaded with non sequiturs.  Once again a leftist equates offensive military operations on foreign soil with civilian defensive actions on home soil.  How absurd.

The 2nd amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".  It enumerates two purposes for that right:
1) maintaining a militia
2) securing a free State

The Supreme court has ruled that the right is an individual right (as opposed to a state right) and that any weapon in "common useage" is included in that right.  Thus a sawed-off shotgun is NOT included, nor are machine guns, flame throwers, missiles, tanks, nukes, etc, etc NONE of which are in "common useage".   But AR-15s and other semi-auto firearms are most CERTAINLY in "common useage" and thus are covered by the 2nd amendment.

QUOTE
KenV - anyone who'd day the purpose of those AR15 was "self" defense is an idiot; and yes, that includes you. The defense of the general public is a very different thing. I suspect you "know" this, but you just won't admit it.

The law enforcement officials were out hunting this guy; and rightly so. Equating that to general public self-defense is, as is your usual style, absurd.
Yes, the police were "hunting" for an individual.  Many people "hunt" with a camera.  When dangerous game is being hunted, they also carry a rifle, or their guide carries a rifle to DEFEND themselves from the quarry.  The police routinely "hunt" for missing children or lost elderly. They do NOT do so with rifles or drawn handguns.

The individual being hunted was known to be armed and known to be EXTREMELY cold blooded about taking human life.  Those AR-15s were DEFENSIVE weapons carried to protect the hunters from such an extreme individual.  They were NOT carried for the purpose of killing that individual when the hunters tracked down the individual.   Nor were they carried for the "only" purpose declared by our president, namely to "mow down" large numbers of people.  The fact that you are literally incapable of seeing these obvious facts is rightly what you describe as "absurd".

This is not that complicated.  Of course that assumes one takes emotion out of the equation.  That's clearly hard for many leftists to do.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43809
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 2:27 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 10:50 am)
QUOTE
.....
When there is a dragnet to search for a lost child, the contents of unused refrigerators and freezers are usually checked as part of the search.  A boat covered with a tarp would seem to be an obvious hiding place that should be checked by personnel involved in the dragnet.  How was that boat overlooked?  Or did the fugitive enter it only after the police had already searched it?

It wasn't overlooked, the boat was outside the then-current boundaries of the search area, though only by about 2 blocks and the zone was constantly being expanded. Though if he hadn't been discovered there's always the possibility he would have died from his injuries and a lot of unanswered issues would remain. At least with him alive there's some small chance of furthjer information from a live participant.

Though given he went partying after blowing the legs off children I'm not all that ready to take anything he says with any level of trust whatsoever.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
wwwest Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6726
Joined: Dec. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 2:27 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Its original primary purpose was to ensure the people of the U.S. were armed against oppression by the federal government.

No, wrong again.  Its primary purpose was to have a readily available pool of identified, armed citizens ready to defend their new country and its government from foreign invasion and from internal rebellion.

Note the use of members of the well regulated militia in harshly crushing  Shay's Rebellion in 1787, as described here:
While the government forces organized, Shays, Day, and other rebel leaders in the west organized their forces, establishing regional regimental organizations that were run by democratically elected committees. Their first major target was the federal armory in Springfield.[33] General Shepard had however, pursuant to orders from Governor Bowdoin, taken possession of the armory and used its arsenal to arm a force of some 1,200 militia. He had done this despite the fact that the armory was federal, not state, property, and that he did not have permission from Secretary at War Henry Knox to do so.[34][35]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion

Then General Lincoln proceeded to mop the rest of the rebels with a force of 3000 militia.

They were the National Guard of their day, not rebels against the newly formed government who had to be defeated, as armed rebels have always been defeated in the country.

And then there was the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, put down by President Washington using the militia to crush the rebels:

Militia was called up from New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, and eastern Pennsylvania. The federalized militia force of 12,950 men was a large army by American standards of the time: the army that had been with Washington during the Revolutionary War had often been smaller.[85] Because relatively few men volunteered for militia service, a draft was used to fill out the ranks.[86] Draft evasion was widespread, and conscription efforts resulted in protests and riots, even in eastern areas. Three counties in eastern Virginia were the scenes of armed draft resistance.[87] In Maryland, Governor Thomas Sim Lee sent 800 men to quash an antidraft riot in Hagerstown; about 150 people were arrested.[88]





Governor Henry Lee of Virginia commanded the federalized militia army.
Liberty poles were raised in various places as the militia was recruited, worrying federal officials. A liberty pole was raised in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on September 11, 1794.[89] When the federalized militia arrived in that town later that month, suspected pole-raisers were rounded up. Two civilians were killed in these operations. On September 29, an unarmed boy was shot by an officer whose pistol accidentally fired. Two days later, a man was stabbed to death by a soldier while resisting arrest. President Washington ordered the arrest of the two soldiers and had them turned over to civilian authorities. A state judge determined the deaths had been accidental, and the soldiers were released.[90]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

Not exactly what you have in mind, is it??


--------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43809
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 2:32 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(wwwest @ Apr. 23 2013, 11:27 am)
QUOTE
Its original primary purpose was to ensure the people of the U.S. were armed against oppression by the federal government.

No, wrong again.  Its primary purpose was to have a readily available pool of identified, armed citizens ready to defend their new country and its government from foreign invasion and from internal rebellion.
....

That's certainly what I gather from the Federalist Papers' section on militia. The need for experienced people to be called up ready to perform ("well-regulated" in the meaning of "experienced")

Frankly, though it alligns with me instinctive preference, Scalia's personal security slant that he wrote of in Heller seems to have no basis at ll in the wording of the Second Amendment. Surprising for such an "original wording" Associate Justice.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 2:34 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(george of the j @ Apr. 23 2013, 11:02 am)
QUOTE
No, the 2nd is not just about defending our homes from criminal intruders.Its original primary purpose was to ensure the people of the U.S. were armed against oppression by the federal government.

Hahahahahahaha!

Good one, george.

ETA: Oops, missed wwwest's post.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 26
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 2:41 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 9:54 am)
QUOTE

(TehipiteTom @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:36 pm)
QUOTE
Do you genuinely not understand the distinction between law enforcement professionals and the general public, or are you merely pretending not to understand?

Do you genuinely not understand the disntinction between  law enforcement professionals and the military, or are you merely pretending not to understand?

Ah, I see...you're actually doubly confused (or dishonest).  Not only do you ignore the distinction between law enforcement professionals and the general public; you're also deeply confused (or dishonest) about what the President and gun safety advocates have actually said.  (Hint: it isn't what you say they said.)

My apologies for underestimating the breadth and depth of your confusion (or dishonesty).


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 27
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7217
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 2:51 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Drift Woody @ Apr. 23 2013, 2:16 pm)
QUOTE
In regards to the OP and KV's exchange with TT, the relevant comparison is between military & law enforcement on one side, and the general public on the other. The first two are trained professionals who use these weapons in the course of their employment. It's a huge leap from there to the general public, but KenV tried it anyway (and fell short of a relevant response).

Really?!   A "huge leap"?  I see it as a very small leap, more correctly, a small step.  Whether in the hands of the police, or in the hands of a private citizen, the rifle is being used to DEFEND the individual carrying it against a dangerous and preditory aggressor.  Whether in the hands of the police or a law abiding private citizen the weapon is NOT being carried as an offensive weapon remotely similar to the way the military uses such weaponry.

If there is a "huge leap"it is the oft repeated claim that AR-15s and all semi-auto rifles are "military assault weapons" intended only in offensive mlitary operations and have no defensive purposes.  And if anyone has "fallen short of a relevant response" it is the left who continue to ignore the salient point of my OP, namely that our president, many senators, and many congress people LIED when they made the claim that such weapons are only appropriate for the military and have no use as defensive arms "on  our streets".

So let's see if anyone can provide a "relevant response" to the salient point of the OP.

If that claim was not a lie, why not?
If that claim was a lie, why do you support the position of the perpetrator of the lie?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10655
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 3:00 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Kenv says
"According to the president and the anti-gun crowd, AR-15s and other semi auto rifles have
no place as civilian self- defense weapons"

^^ classic Kenv

Kenv makes an assertion and as is typical of Kenv he gives no quotes from anyone showing the
evidence to back up his statement. Just like when Kenv claims some on in this forum have
called for the confiscation of " ALL guns." but of course no evidence was given.

Having said that, Biden did say that a Shotgun was more appropriate for self-defense than
a gun like an AR-15 but that isn't the same thing as saying that AR-15 can't be used as a
defense weapon or something along those lines.  I also thought the more common argument from
what kenv calls the "anti-gun crowd" was that such guns served no purpose other than to kill
people or at least incapacitate them which is NOT necessarily incompatible with using such a
weapon for defensive purposes. Of course such a weapon can be used for both defensive and
offensive purposes like any weapon. Of course what people refer to as "assault weapons"(yes
I know. The gun nuts get their undies in a bunch when the phrase "assault weapons" is used.
Deal with it whiners) have more potential to kill masses of people efficiently than say many
other types of guns correct?

But the obvious point Kenv is missing is what Tom alluded to, is that the job of Law
enforcement is to protect the community(that would be more along the line of using such a
weapon for defensive purposes) and society has given a lot more trust to Law enforcement
officials compared to the general public.  Law enforcement officials go through extensive
background checks that the general public doesn't go through as well as training that the
general public doesn't go through. No "anti-gun" person, as Kenv puts it, that I'm aware of
has said law enforcement shouldn't have had access to such guns at least in the proper
circumstance.  Certainly no "anti-gun",as Kenv puts it, person, that I'm aware of, has said
the military shouldn't have such guns since its the military more than anyone that would be
the most justified in using such weapons.

Sounds like yet another massive strawman for Kevn.

When will kenv stop spewing the strawman?

Does anyone know when kenv will stop doing this?


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10655
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 3:00 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

TehipiteTom said
QUOTE

Do you genuinely not understand the distinction between law enforcement professionals and the
general public, or are you merely pretending not to understand?


These are the types of questions I routinely ask myself when I read Kenv posts.


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10655
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 3:01 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

Kenv said
QUOTE

I wonder why a rightwinger like me can recognize and often appreciate humor used by a leftwinger, but so many leftwingers can't even recognize humor used by a rightwinger?  It's puzzling.


Ya Kenv appreciates humor all right, just like Kenv appreciated that onion piece a while back.

Oh wait.


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
139 replies since Apr. 23 2013, 12:21 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 512345>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Guns, emotions, and reality
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions