Nebraska

[ssc]

I did a long response and it disappeared

Larry--you got me stumped. I wish I knew how to quote, but I will not rewrite everything.

Post 27--you seem to have a problen with stockpiling guns and ammo to protect family, yet above you say you never said not to prepare for a disaster. This is one way I prepare. How many guns and or ammo, if any, should I have in your opinion?

Post 31--you demand that worldwide statistics be used, yet in the above post you say you are only refering to now and your street. So if no riots on your street all is good? I think the study of history and world events is wise. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, is a wise saying.

In regards to the riots, I know what I saw and who I spoke too.

Give proof that "majority of folks unarmed--who survived disasters" I doubt that is the case in Israel or with the swiss or even Katrina.

Study Pearl Harbor and the reasons for no invasion of the west coast. They did invade China previous. Consider Goleta.

You don't think being armed would have helped 9-11. How about air marshalls or armed pilots or even armed passengers.

The germany issue has me stumped. I to lived with the stories and had relatives in Europe. Hence, my reason for the visit to Dachau. And yes I think a few million armed people would have made a difference in germany. I agree with your statements about the cause, but see additional reasons as well. This is where you have me stumped--"sound like a familiar scenario?" As long as that is not tongue in cheek--I agree with you. Hence, it appears your position is inconsistent. With your background you know that bad things are possible, so why not take precautions? I guess I don't understand, but so be it.

All is good I appreciate the debate The one thing I have learned from this thread is that this guy named Dave is a smart guy.

I look forward to seeing everyone next week--be safe,

Regards, Steve

[unwiredadventures]

Post 27--you seem to have a problen with stockpiling guns and ammo to protect family, yet above you say you never said not to prepare for disaster. This is one way I prepare. How many guns and or ammo, if any, should I have in your opinion?

I was talking to a construction contractor about preparedness this week. He mention that he was re-working his investments with his financial adviser. The last time they met he was advised to purchase a firearm and stock up on ammo, food and water by his financial adviser. Needless to say, he was very surprised at this advice.

Study Pearl Harbor and the reasons for no invasion of the west coast.

One of the reasons for not invading the US west coast was the Japanese commanders knew very well that we had armed citizens and there was little chance of any successful offensive on the ground.

[DaveK]

Certainly the majority of folks who have survived disasters around the world were unarmed.

Quick test #1: What do you think happens if you buy this line of thinking? If you apply statist logic, here is the result: Since the majority of folks who have survived disasters around the world were unarmed, then there is no need for the people of the United States to be armed.

Helpful hint: Don't be misled by purported facts that are completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed. We are not concerned with disasters and this is not a discussion of what happens in Indonesia or France. We are discussing crime in the USA and how to be prepared in the event it happens to you.


-

these events are completely unrelated to collecting a personal militia in your home now, or this discussion in general..

Quick test #2: Who do you suppose will determine what constitutes an "arsenal"?

Clue: not gun owners.

[cruiserlarry]

Certainly the majority of folks who have survived disasters around the world were unarmed.

Quick test #1: What do you think happens if you buy this line of thinking? If you apply statist logic, here is the result: Since the majority of folks who have survived disasters around the world were unarmed, then there is no need for the people of the United States to be armed.

Helpful hint: Don't be misled by purported facts that are completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

Are you referring to me or Steve's post that I responded to - let's be fair, now, as I was responding to comments I felt were off-topic....

Speaking of irrelevant, how did statist logic get thrown onto a statement of fact ? Unless you are saying that the majority of disaster survivors (anywhere - which included the US) were armed, I think my statement stands - and without the need to extrapolate the misconceived, "statist" logic you've presented

these events are completely unrelated to collecting a personal militia in your home now, or this discussion in general..

Quick test #2: Who do you suppose will determine what constitutes an "arsenal"?

Clue: not gun owners.

No, not gun owners - a lexicologist. Actually, Webster's has taken the work out of figuring out a word's meaning, and in this case has nothing to do with my militia comment - they are definitively unrelated words .

[DaveK]

Thoughts for the day:

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.

-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them;

--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

Federalist Paper #46, James Madison
Emphasis - DTK

More than 200 years ago, the founders acknowledged the "advantage of being armed" and that we must avoid a government that was afraid to trust its citizens with arms. Such wisdom is timeless. If it teaches us anything, it is to avoid comparing us to any other nation in Europe or the world. It also teaches us to be wary of and resist measures that infringe upon these rights.

Keep this in mind next time you hear these arguments:
1. you don't need that type of gun,
2. you don't need that many guns or
3. that gun is only good for killing people.

[DaveK]

these events are completely unrelated to collecting a personal militia in your home now, or this discussion in general..

Quick test #2: Who do you suppose will determine what constitutes an "arsenal"?

Clue: not gun owners.

No, not gun owners - a lexicologist. Actually, Webster's has taken the work out of figuring out a word's meaning, and in this case has nothing to do with my militia comment - they are definitively unrelated words .

Larry,

I think you missed my point. I did not ask for a definition of an "arsenal". I queried "what constitutes an arsenal. While perhaps missed, I am very concerned that this determination will be in the hands of people who are still trying to figure out ""what the meaning of the word 'is', is." You see, a lexicologist will not be consulted when the statist attempts to define how many guns "constitute an arsenal" and then forces people to give up everything in excess of their artificial limit.

[cruiserlarry]

The quotes are eloquent, but to me, dated. They were burning witches in the 1700s - we know now this is a bad thing to do. The basic premises may be inspiring, but needs change over time, IMO, along with the interpretation of ideas originating in times of different needs. And you can't let go of that "statist" label, regardless of it's lack of relevance here...

I am done with this discussion as it stands, because only 2 views are being endlessly repeated by persons who hold firmly to their beliefs - so you get the last word.

I would like to try to take this discussion in a new direction, however; one that might be of more usefullness, and more relevant, to the immediate OAUSA membership:

Obviously, I'm one of the few non-enthusiasts here. But we've all run into situations out on the trail where some yahoos are kerplunking targets without regard to whether it's a legal area, where their shots are ending up, and whether they need to take any precautions at all.

So, Steve, DaveK, and those more knowledgeable in the sport than I...

How can we constructively inform them of the dangers they might be creating to others nearby, without risking our safety or escalating into a armed confrontation with them ?
We can usually try to contact the local authority, but can anything reasonable be done to eliminate the immediate hazard ?

[BorregoWrangler]

Obviously, I'm one of the few non-enthusiasts here. But we've all run into situations out on the trail where some yahoos are kerplunking targets without regard to whether it's a legal area, where their shots are ending up, and whether they need to take any precautions at all.

So, Steve, DaveK, and those more knowledgeable in the sport than I...

How can we constructively inform them of the dangers they might be creating to others nearby, without risking our safety or escalating into a armed confrontation with them ?
We can usually try to contact the local authority, but can anything reasonable be done to eliminate the immediate hazard ?

That's actually a pretty easy one. At least it has been for me. The vast majority of folks I've come across in the backcountry who were target shooting have always been very conscience of firearm safety. Such as having a backdrop or hillside down range and exercising muzzle control. Its fairly easy to chat with fellow gun owners. Kinda like fellow Jeepers. (Hey, are we gonna just talk about off-roading all day or are we gonna get on the trail?)

The only things that I've ever really dealt with is making sure no rounds were chambered while talking with hunters out along the trail or kids out kerplunking who may not have been very safety minded. I told them what they'd be better off doing in case a ranger came along. I'd say that the chances of having some kind of confrontation with anyone out shooting is slim to none. If ya get an uneasy feeling about someone when talking to them out there keep it short and sweet and just keep on movin'.

[unwiredadventures]

They were burning witches in the 1700s

In the US I believe this took place in the late 1600's.

Obviously, I'm one of the few non-enthusiasts here. But we've all run into situations out on the trail where some yahoos are kerplunking targets without regard to whether it's a legal area, where their shots are ending up, and whether they need to take any precautions at all.

When I've seen this it's usually in an area closer to civilization. Before the trail becomes difficult. Usually in areas where junk has been dumped. There are some people that just aren't responsible and it follows into their other pursuits.

Calico has a clean up day every year to clean up after these types (looks like it was canceled in 2009 due to lack of trash).

[ssc]

Larry,
Great question--no easy answer. I have had good and bad episodes. When the idiots are drinking, it is usually a dangerous situation. No time to go into my thoughts at the moment, but I will prepare a long response. I would suggest we start another thread for this subject, so all may see it as I think it is important--as opposed to being buried in this post.

Regards, Steve