The Myth that Gun Control is Good By Bob Hubbard

[Bob Hubbard]

The Myth that Gun Control is Good
By Bob Hubbard


You've seen it on the news. Another celebrity wants to ban guns, because they are evil. You don't hear that their body guard is carrying however.

The anti-gun crowd loudly proclaims that only by making guns illegal, can we be safe.

Ask them why cities with gun bans have the highest crime rates however, and they fall silent.

Ask them why cities with easy gun laws have the lowest crime rates, and they change the subject.

Now, before we begin this examination of the issue, let me state for the record I am anti-gun. If it were possible to eliminate every gun on the planet, I'd be quite happy to see them go. But that genie is out of the bottle, and will never go back in. Guns are here and they are here to stay. With that said, lets look at some gun myths.

Myth 1 - More restrictive laws will result in less guns in the hands of criminals.

False.

Any politician who pushes this idea is either an idiot or an incompetent, or both. Criminals don't care about the law, that's why they are criminals. All restrictive laws do is keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands.

Myth 2 - Hard gun laws make cities safer.

False.

Hard gun laws ensure that law abiding citizens are defenseless. As #1 established, criminals don't care. Cities such as Washington and Chicago that have gun bans have some of the highest homicide rates in the US. By comparison, the state of Vermont who has the most lax gun laws in the nation, also ranks last on federal crime statistics. If easy access to guns results in high crime, how can you explain this?

The bottom line here is, heavy gun laws result in a less safe society, as the only people who have guns there are police and criminals.

Myth 3 - Gun Ownership is not really guaranteed.

False.

In the early days of out nation, our founding fathers wrote specific guidelines to allow citizens ownership of guns through the Second Amendment.


Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Some choose to interpret this to mean it's about the militias, but that's not the case. If it were, there wouldn't be a specific section for the militias in Article 1, Section 8.

Some say it's about the state, but if that were true, the founders would have said "state" not "people". They were precise in their wording of this document. An earlier draft by Madison said "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

There is of course the question of "A well regulated Militia". Regulated by whom? Again, the intent wasn't government law, but the idea of regular training and practice, which was writen about in Federalist #29 by Hamilton.

Myth 4 - Guns in schools makes them less safe.

False.

Take the Columbine Colorado tragedy as an example. Two armed gunmen were able to move around the school freely, without worry of reprisal, inflicting massive casualties, due to being the only ones armed there.

Contrast that with the Appalachia College of Law school shooting, where the gunman was subdued after 2 armed students confronted him.

If the teachers at Columbine had been armed, it's possible that the body count might have been much lower.

Myth 5 - Gun Control Advocates are practice what they preach.
False.


Rosie O'Donnell, who supports the Million Mom March reportedly keeps armed body guards on staff to protect her family.
Diane Feinstein, one of the biggest opponents of gun ownership in Congress, has an unrestricted concealed weapons permit.
Senators Chuck Schumer another Congressional opponent of gun ownership also has a concealed carry permit. In fact, Senator Schumer possesses an "unrestricted" pistol permit, a rarity in New York City.
Carl Rowan, who often wrote about the ills of firearms ownership shot and wounded a teenager who trespassed on his property. That's when the news came out that Carl Rowan, a fierce gun-control advocate, actually possessed a license to own firearms.

Dig deep enough into the backgrounds of the gun control group and you'll find many more who don't measure up to the limits they would impose on others. Why if they are so opposed to this, would they arm themselves? Is it for their own safety, or is it that they want to be the ones with the guns?

Myth 6 - Gun Laws are for your protection.

False.

It's proven that gun laws only apply to law abiding citizens. Criminals will obtain guns and use them regardless of how many laws there are, and there are quite a few on the books, hundreds in fact. Cities and states with heavy regulation have the highest crime rates in the nation. This simple fact is ignored repeatedly by law makers.

Gun laws exist for one reason. To restrict gun access for law abiding citizens.

Remember, the British Army was on it's way to confiscate the colonists weapons when they were fired upon. A disarmed population is easier to control. The Founding Fathers knew this, which is why they wrote protections into the law allowing civilian gun ownership. This was done specifically to allow the citizens a means of defense against both criminal and oppressive government. In a city where the law is restrictive, criminals know you're probably unarmed. Easy prey. Where you are allowed, and sometimes even required to arm yourself, crime is low because the prey isn't so easy.


A read of this might seem to indicate that I support repealing all gun regulations. I don't. I believe that some laws are in fact necessary. Criminals shouldn't be allowed to have them, their misuse should be punished, etc. Responsible and Educated gun ownership, not repressive and restrictive laws is the answer in my opinion.

Resources:


Michael Badnarik - Good to be the King - Cptr 16 pg105-109
Thomas E. Woods Jr. PHD. - The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History - Cptr 3, Pg22-24


Web Resources


Million Mom March : http://www.millionmommarch.org/aboutus/
US Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net
Federal Crime Statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
Appalachia College of Law school shooting : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
Second Amendment Hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein Pack Heat by Jim Kouri, CPP http://www.houseconservatives.com/blog/second-amendment-hypocrites-senators-schumer-and-feinstein-pack-heat/




====

Bob Hubbard is the CEO of SilverStar WebDesigns Inc (http://silverstarsites.net/), a web design and hosting company specializing in martial arts sites, as well as an administrator on the popular martial arts communities MartialTalk.com (http://martialtalk.com/), Kenpotalk.com (http://kenpotalk.com/) and FMATalk.com (http://fmatalk.com/). He is also a respected professional photographer specializing in martial arts event, nature and portrait photography. His martial arts photography can be found there as well as at his martial arts photography web site, martialphotos.com (http://martialphotos.com/). He may be reached through these sites.
Copyright © 2008 - Bob Hubbard (http://bobhubbard.net/) - All Rights Reserved
Permission is granted to reprint this article on websites, blogs and ezines provided all text, links and authors bio is left intact.

[MA-Caver]

Probably one of the most rational statements I've ever read by an anti-gun person.

Thanks Bob. :asian:

[Kosho Gakkusei]

There will never be as many people killed by guns as there are by simple stupidity.

[Bob Hubbard]

There will never be as many people killed by guns as there are by simple stupidity.
Very true.

[Xue Sheng]

Now, before we begin this examination of the issue, let me state for the record I am anti-gun. If it were possible to eliminate every gun on the planet, I'd be quite happy to see them go. But that genie is out of the bottle, and will never go back in. Guns are here and they are here to stay. With that said, lets look at some gun myths.

But then you would have to be anti-knife, sword, crossbow and bow and arrow :D

[Bob Hubbard]

I actually am. Anti-weapon, I mean. One of those ironies in my life, lol!

Anti-war, yet I study it constantly. Anti-weapon yet my main training is in blade arts. etc.

I'm just weird. :D

[MA-Caver]

I actually am. Anti-weapon, I mean. One of those ironies in my life, lol!
Anti-war, yet I study it constantly. Anti-weapon yet my main training is in blade arts. etc.
I'm just weird. :D
I somehow don't see it that way... you can be against something and still want to study it... it better helps you understand WHY you're against it. It also helps to understand something in order to prevent it.

[Xue Sheng]

I actually am. Anti-weapon, I mean. One of those ironies in my life, lol!

Anti-war, yet I study it constantly. Anti-weapon yet my main training is in blade arts. etc.

I'm just weird. :D

If it helps I am anti-forms but what art do I study... and I am really not all the fond of computers either.... and you think you're weird :D

[CoryKS]

If it helps I am anti-forms but what art do I study... and I am really not all the fond of computers either.... and you think you're weird :D

We expect nothing less of you, tree-kicker. ;)

[celtic_crippler]

Gun control is ridiculous. To put it into perspective, the argument is that they are lethal....well....so is sunlight! Ever heard of melanoma? In 2008 there were 62,480 reported cases and 8,420 deaths in the US from "skin cancer." Should we outlaw going out in the sun?

Knives, pens, pencils, cars, chairs, rolling pins, nail clippers, archery sets, kitchen knives, forks, wire coat hangers, rocks, my aluminum coffee mug, a heavy boot, a candle stick.....all can be used as deadly weapons.

It's not the gun you should be worried about, but the idiot wielding it.

To further point out how silly gun control is I paraphrase a line from a George Carlin bit on the subject..."What about really big guys? They got big-guy hands that can crush your head....It should be illegal to be a really big guy."

[Bob Hubbard]

Ok, but who'se going to tell Andre the Giant he's now illegal?
(yeah I know he's dead, but you get my point right?) :)

[Deaf Smith]

I'd be happy if everyone could only posess a bolt action mauser and 1911 .45. But since getting several billion people to obey that seems to be a streach, then we have to live with the fact bad guys can get whatever is manufactured, or make it themselves!

Any of you ever seen the collection of weapons they get in a prison? Even some firearms. Why the Texas Department of Corrections can't even keep cell phones out of death row! And the U.S. sure can't keep drugs off the street.

Think about that before banning anything so many people feel it's their right. All you will do is get the mafia to import all those goodies at real inflated prices for those that want it. And I bet it won't be simi-autos... it will be the real fully auto 'assault rifles'.

Prohibition all over again! The mob will become stronger. You think Chicago is rotton now? Hahaha wait till they ban guns nation wide.

Deaf

[mook jong man]

Thats what it is like here in Australia , guns are banned and knives are banned but all the crims still seem to have them .

I can't count how many times guns have been taken off security guards by criminals , and now we are even getting drive by shootings .

Lots of stabbings too , seems like every young punk is carrying a blade despite it being illegal to have a knife on your person . We also seem to be going through an epidemic of glassings in pubs and nightclubs ( shoving a beer glass in somebodys face ) even women are doing it to other women . Now they want to try and ban glass containers and bottles in drinking establishments and just have plastic cups .

I don't know what the solution is to these problems but I don't think it is to have knee jerk reactions and run around banning everything.

[Bob Hubbard]

Maybe crime would go down if we ban people. After all, what's the common factor here?

:)

[jks9199]

Ok, but who'se going to tell Andre the Giant he's now illegal?
(yeah I know he's dead, but you get my point right?) :)
I don't want to deal with Andre the Giant Zombie...

No way!

I've said before that I don't have a problem with individual ownership of guns. I'm a fan of it. I'm a fan of CCW, too. With some minimum qualifications and training.

Reasonable gun laws make sense, just like laws about where you can dispose of trash, building codes, and so on. When they go too far, they become like a lot of homeowners associations. Completely nuts and way too restrictive to serve their real purpose.

[Bob Hubbard]

Compare 2 populationally similar samples. Vermont, with lax laws, and DC with hard laws.


2007 Stats

Vermont

12 murders, 9 by gun
80 roberies, 28 by gun
Population 621,254

Vermont has very few gun control laws. Gun dealers are required to keep a record of all handgun sales. It is illegal to carry a gun on school property or in a courthouse. State law preempts local governments from regulating the possession, ownership, transfer, carrying, registration or licensing of firearms.[179]

The term "Vermont Carry" is used by gun rights advocates to refer to allowing citizens to carry a firearm concealed or openly without any sort of permit requirement. Vermont law does not distinguish between residents and non-residents of the state; both have the same right to carry while in Vermont.

The Vermont constitution of 1793, based partly on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, guarantees certain freedoms and rights to the citizens: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State — and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."[180]




District of Columbia
276 Roberies, 62 by gun
181 Murders, data not available on murders by gun
Population: 588,292

In Washington, D.C., all firearms must be registered with the police, by the terms of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.

The same law also prohibited the possession of handguns, even in private citizens' own homes, unless they were registered before 1976. However, the handgun ban was struck down when a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled on March 9, 2007, that the handgun prohibition violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.[30] The ruling also overturned a section of the same law requiring all registered firearms to be kept disassembled or locked with trigger locks. On May 8, 2007, the full U.S. Court of Appeals refused to reconsider that decision. On July 16, 2007, D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty announced that D.C. would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.[31] On November 20, 2007, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, which was now known as District of Columbia v. Heller. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that D.C.'s ban on handguns is unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote.[32]

Pending legislation is expected to modify existing law to clarify that firearms in the home must be stored unloaded and either disassembled secured with a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device. An exception is made for a firearm while it is being used against reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within a registered gun owner’s home. The Chief of Police will require ballistics tests of any handgun submitted for registration to determine if it is stolen or has been used in a crime. MPD will allow the registration of previously possessed handguns other than those that qualify as "machine guns" under District law (that is, all automatics and most semiautomatic pistols) for the next six months.[33]

Sources:
FBI
Wikipedia

[Empty Hands]

Compare 2 populationally similar samples. Vermont, with lax laws, and DC with hard laws.

There are huge differences between Vermont and DC that makes any such sort of simple comparison meaningless. First rule of science: isolate your experiment down to one variable. For one thing, DC is a much poorer, denser place than Vermont. That right there will get you more crime, irrespective of the laws.

[Bob Hubbard]

Very true. My points were to ssimply compare population size, gun laws and crime statistics. Mixing poverty in does change things. There is also the whole "He's comparing a state to a city" argument.

I will however admit to being too lazy/busy right now to do a proper comparison between say, NYC, Chicago, Austin and LA, though my gut tells me Austin is lowest on the crime rate list.

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

ok, not too lazy for a quickie. LOL


Texas Austin 716,817 Pop 540 Violent Crimes 4 Murders
New York Buffalo 273,832 Pop 1,275 Violent Crimes 20 Murders
Illinois Chicago 2,824,434 Pop N/A Violent Crimes 16 Murders
California Los Angeles 3,870,487 Pop 718 Violent Crimes 10 Murders
New York New York 8,220,196 Pop 614 Violent Crimes 6 Murders

***Side Note, Move the **** out of Buffalo ASAP!!!! Sheesh!***

[Empty Hands]

I will however admit to being too lazy/busy right now to do a proper comparison between say, NYC, Chicago, Austin and LA, though my gut tells me Austin is lowest on the crime rate list.

Your stats actually make my point for me. New York City and Austin have similar crime numbers. Actually, NY would have a far lower crime rate since the city is so much larger. Yet, the gun laws in those two cities are very different, with NY the much more restrictive.

I wouldn't say this is an argument for gun control, merely that it is unlikely that gun laws are the primary determinant of crime.

[Bob Hubbard]

To be honest, I question those numbers.
Wikipedia says NYC had 6 murders, yet the NY police disagree
http://nymag.com/news/features/crime/2008/42608/

Ah. I see where I goofed up. "Rates are based on cases per 100,000 for all of calendar 2007."

So, adjusting numbers


Texas Austin 716,817 Pop (7.16) 3,867 Violent Crimes 29 Murders
New York Buffalo 273,832 Pop (2.73) 3,481 Violent Crimes 55 Murders
Illinois Chicago 2,824,434 Pop (28.24) N/A Violent Crimes 452 Murders
California Los Angeles 3,870,487 Pop (38.7) 27,787 Violent Crimes 387 Murders
New York New York 8,220,196 Pop (82.2) 50,471 Violent Crimes 494 Murders

WKBW in Buffalo confirms my calculation of 55
http://www.wkbw.com/news/local/13488952.html

WBBM in Chicago disagrees with my calculations, but not by much.
443 murders in Chicago in 2007
http://www.wbbm780.com/pages/3279838.php?

I'll double check the other 3 when I have a minute.

[Empty Hands]

Yeah, those numbers look more reasonable.

[Langenschwert]

Good post, Bob. I'd rep ya but I can't.

-Mark

[Deaf Smith]

Reasonable gun laws make sense.

Beware 'Reasonable gun laws'. What is reasonable to one, is not to the other!

Obama and company keep talking about 'sensable gun laws'. Same warning applies to that.

Deaf

[Bob Hubbard]

How about, less gun laws, and proper enforcement of the ones we have. There's already a few thousand of em, how many do we need again?

[dart68]

Absolutely an excellent post, Bob. As you said, the genie is out of the bottle. If you could wiggle your nose or cross your arms blink and make all the guns disapear at once then we would be safe from guns being used for violence. We would not be free from all violence, though, and in some instances we would be effectively defenseless.

[Deaf Smith]

The most defensless would be the eldery, disabled, those living alone. Ever worse would be any of those above who are poor.

Very common for thugs to run in packs. Two or more can easly take one elderly or disabled person without much trouble... as long as they don't have a gun!

All weapon control will do is allow the physicaly strong to rule the weak. After all, isnt' it said, "God made man. Col. Colt made men equal".

Deaf

[Bob Hubbard]

Some people shouldn't own guns.
Elderly, disabled, and the mentally unstable are 3 groups that worry me. I wouldn't want a few people I know to own one as I think it's more dangerous to them...shoot themselves in the foot, etc kind of thing. Do I support laws to stop them? No, but I don't think they should have them either.

I think penalties for unlawful use should be stronger. Use a gun in a robbery, even if it's just to wave around, and you're in really deep ****.

Keep schools gun free zones, but have an armed presence, like allow administrators to carry (with proper trainiing) or have an armed guard or 2, especially in problem zones. Minimize the risk, but allow a response should someone try a repeat of Columbine.

I'm honestly conflicted here, with my personal desire to reduce firearms while wanting to reduce crime and accidents while respecting constitutional rights. Hard position to balance sometimes.

[grydth]

I somehow don't see it that way... you can be against something and still want to study it... it better helps you understand WHY you're against it. It also helps to understand something in order to prevent it.

There are varied reasons why we study things.

I have studied the Eastern Front literally for decades, and it is the only topic I write on for publication. Yet I never would have wanted to be any part of either monstrous empire. It isn't only the worst human train wreck in modern history that one can't turn away from... there are lessons which must never be forgotten. One is that the worst abusers of firearms are governments, not individual citizens. Neither maniacal dictator allowed private firearms ownership.... but the Mausers and Moisins were very busy reaping an incredible toll, and very often not during battles.

It is also frequent that people who wish for a better, nonviolent world reach the conclusion that we do not live in such a place.... and very likely will not. It is only prudent to expect and prepare for violence and armed assault. Every time I chamber or round, or start my SUV's ignition, I am afraid and aware that somebody can be dead in a matter of seconds. Best be as prepared as possible to practice defensive driving... and to shoot home invaders through the head. Wish the world were a better place, but not going to let it eat me or my family.

[Deaf Smith]

Some people shouldn't own guns.
Elderly, disabled, and the mentally unstable are 3 groups that worry me.

Whoa Bob. I'm 54! Won't be all that long... Elderly does not necessarly translate to feeblemindeness. Some do, but some don't. Usually if they are that far gone they are in a rest home anyway.

Disabled include those that lost the use of their legs or arms... many a young man has come back from Iraq that way. Others have heart problems. Others just need a cane to walk with. Disabled has nothing to do with their mind.

Now mentally unstable. If they are that unstable they cannot by law own guns in the U.S. just as those who are dependent on drugs.

Deaf

[Bob Hubbard]

Not quite what I was thinking as I wrote it, but I can see I wasn't clear enough. I'l try and elaborate a little bit.

Someone older may not have the quickness of reflex, not the quickness of thought to recognize the threat, ready the weapon and show arms without risk to themselves. I know one senior who cleaned his stove top with gas, while smoking, because he wanted to get the buildup off. The danger of that situation was lost on him, then, and later. Other than th occasional error in judgement and delay reactions, he's ok though.

I know a woman whose hands are so damaged by a disease she's slowly losing a fight to, that for her to handle a gun, it would have to have no guard, nor safety, and she'd need at least 10 minutes to ready it, if she could even hold it. Most of the basic tools like the canopener are a struggle for her.

Neither are mentally unstable, and are otherwise ok. But, putting a gun in eithers hands, makes me more afraid they' shoot themselves in the foot.

In the case of the elderly, hearing and vision loss, as well as "processing speed and power" is often diminished, which would delay their ability to process something simple like friend/foe. It those cases (which also apply to anyone, not just the seniors) something other than a gun, or knife, would be better, like an alarm system which can summon those trained and able to their assistance.

Lou Theze was still wrestling in his 70's, and Mae Young in her 80's. Doesn't mean my grandfather should toss on the tights and climb the ropes. :)

Wasn't refering to the vet, the clear minded, or such. If they can safely handle it, and process things, pass em the ammo. :)

[Keith Kirkendall]

Excellent post. Responsible citizens deserve the right to bear arms. It is senseless to take away guns from law abiding citizens. We need some kind of a fighting chance against the criminals. Proper training for guns is a must as you will need this in case of a criminal gun threat so you will be able to respond and not panic/freeze-up. Believe it or not, law officers usually will not be there for us when the crime is actually occuring...most of the time they are only able to be at the scene of the crime after it has happened. Hey, they are only human. It makes good sense that having weapons of protection in the hands of responsible citizens is a great equalizer against the crooks. A responsible citizen's only chance of stopping a mad gunman from killing masses of people is to be armed and prepared to use the gun to protect innocent people.

[Brian King]

Empty Hands wrote:

“For one thing, DC is a much poorer, denser place than Vermont. That right there will get you more crime, irrespective of the laws.”

Bob Hubbard wrote:

"Very true. My points were to ssimply compare population size, gun laws and crime statistics. Mixing poverty in does change things"

I am not sure that is true. Japan dense population yet I have heard that it is pretty free of crime. And if I remember some stories and states from the depression era crime rates did not raise along with the drop in income and savings. Plenty of poor people in crowded conditions do not become criminals. EH do you have good studies that can prove that causation between crime and wealth and population density? I might suspect that unemployment might raise crime rates as people with time on their hands often get into trouble but just being poor, I have known plenty of poor people that were very honest and have met people that had plenty that still had larceny on their hearts.

Thanks Bob interesting thread.

Regards
Brian King

[Empty Hands]

Japan dense population yet I have heard that it is pretty free of crime.

Japan is also wealthy and homogenous.


EH do you have good studies that can prove that causation between crime and wealth and population density?

Density (http://cjsjournal.brinkster.net/harries.html). Poverty (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119342458/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0).

[Big Don]

CA banned a rifle that has never been used in a crime, anywhere, ever. Mostly because it was "SCARY" looking. http://world.guns.ru/sniper/barrett_m82a1.jpg

[Andy Moynihan]

Does anyone else remember , or am I the last fading gasp of the last generation in which MARKSMANship was considered a duty of CITIZENship.....:(

[Empty Hands]

Does anyone else remember , or am I the last fading gasp of the last generation in which MARKSMANship was considered a duty of CITIZENship.....:(

You're a year younger than me, but I never saw anything like that growing up. Where did you see it? I had extensive training in marksmanship growing up BTW, but that was my choice, not for reasons of citizenship.

[Empty Hands]

CA banned a rifle that has never been used in a crime, anywhere, ever. Mostly because it was "SCARY" looking.

Bipods are scary. They could easily become tripods, and from there...? Better safe than sorry.

[Blindside]

Lou Theze was still wrestling in his 70's, and Mae Young in her 80's. Doesn't mean my grandfather should toss on the tights and climb the ropes. :)

Wasn't refering to the vet, the clear minded, or such. If they can safely handle it, and process things, pass em the ammo. :)

So constitutional rights go away because someone is now too old?

At what level of senility do people lose the right to free speech? Lose protections about undue process and search and seizure? For a someone who claims to have libertarian principles you are sure tending toward regulation. As long as a person is a responsible member of society, they should retain those rights, and if they blow their own foot off or take their own life, so be it. Their right, their responsibility.

[Blindside]

Does anyone else remember , or am I the last fading gasp of the last generation in which MARKSMANship was considered a duty of CITIZENship.....:(

Sorry Andy, I've never heard of this.

[Andy Moynihan]

You're a year younger than me, but I never saw anything like that growing up. Where did you see it? I had extensive training in marksmanship growing up BTW, but that was my choice, not for reasons of citizenship.




Sorry Andy, I've never heard of this.

Must have been an upbringing thing which later became a personal moral thing.....

*wistful sigh, looks at the country the way it is now, pondering how sad it is for a man to have outlived his time before he's even hit middle age......*

[CoryKS]

Bipods are scary. They could easily become tripods, and from there...? Better safe than sorry.

Happens to me all the time. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Empty Hands]

Must have been an upbringing thing which later became a personal moral thing.....

*wistful sigh, looks at the country the way it is now, pondering how sad it is for a man to have outlived his time before he's even hit middle age......*

Oh stop that, it's just self-indulgent. There never was a Golden Age, and there never will be. Humans have had pretty much the same mental outlook for the past 100,000 years. There never was a golden time of honor and good citizenship.

[Bob Hubbard]

So constitutional rights go away because someone is now too old?

At what level of senility do people lose the right to free speech? Lose protections about undue process and search and seizure? For a someone who claims to have libertarian principles you are sure tending toward regulation. As long as a person is a responsible member of society, they should retain those rights, and if they blow their own foot off or take their own life, so be it. Their right, their responsibility.
I didn't say that. Think I said I wouldn't support a law that did it. I just said I didn't think some people should have em. There's a difference. Remember, I'm Jeffersonian in my views.


The Boy Scouts used to have a marksmanship merit badge. I remember shooting at a camp in Tenn. in the 80's. Still have the shell casings in fact.

[Empty Hands]

Oh stop that, it's just self-indulgent. There never was a Golden Age, and there never will be. Humans have had pretty much the same mental outlook for the past 100,000 years. There never was a golden time of honor and good citizenship.

Rethinking this post, I came off as a lot more of a jerk than I intended. Sorry Andy, I wasn't trying to be personal, but it came out that way anyway. I understand your mindset and your frustration.

[Empty Hands]

The Boy Scouts used to have a marksmanship merit badge. I remember shooting at a camp in Tenn. in the 80's. Still have the shell casings in fact.

They still do. "Rifle Shooting" and "Shotgun Shooting". I earned both. Shooting was a lot of fun in the scouts. We were able to do skeet shooting with 12ga pumps, .22 target shooting, and even black powder (don't know the caliber). The badges were great too, since in the course of earning it you learned proper upkeep and cleaning, and with a pump shotgun, that wasn't trivial.

[Deaf Smith]

When I was in the BSA at the camps in the summer they had a rifle range .22 lr. Unfortunatly if you brought a rifle, it had to stay in the range locker. Man that was a bummer (at least for a 14 year old... now days I'd want them locked up to with all those kids.)

Deaf