Hunter Lou 1947 : The REAL question is "Does our Federal government understand what their constitutional requirements are, defense of the nation and protection of its citizens being the first requirement, NOT the protection of the government elites from the electorate. They should not be fearful of our votes -- unless they have something untoward in mind and in process.
X Tech Sgt, USAF, Jan 1951 - 1959, 6 1/2 years overseas service
overseas -- where assigned -- N. Africa, Turkey, Europe.
ole sarg wrote:
Those people who do label it so, are lapel pin patriots and chicken hawks. They like to send others to war and stand on the sidelines. Then they do not want to pay the bill. More often than not they are staunch members of the Republican Party. Pity but it is true.
My first leave from Nam was in 63. Got on a civilian 707. Just came in from the field to Tan Son Nhut and some personnel guy said want to go home jump on that plane. I had a 12 guage pump, m16, 45 and 32 with ammo and grenades. Jumped on the plane. Stewardess looked at me and smelled me - made a hoarrible face and said sit in back. After take off she came back and gave me her flight bag. I washed my entire body and what was left of my BDUs in that little sink. Weapons stored overhead. We landed in SF where I was told to give my weapons to some dumb dumb who aked "where's the war"?. Had some major sign for my stuff went to Travis bought cloths and went home to Miami. Was there about 3 days when I told my folks nothing here for me and went back to Okinawa. Wierd.
Those people who do label it so, are lapel pin pat... (
show quote)
No Sarge, that wasn't wierd, think they called it "responsibility of duty" it became a part of all of us we could not turn away from it.
ole sarg wrote:
But stats show that only about 1.2% of bad guys even have semiautomatics. gave the stats earlier in this blog.
The thing that worries me is just any clown being able to have an automatic weapon. They claim personal or home protection or a weak arguement of "Well they have the why can't I". Those are the ones that scare me, half of them don't realize the potential of damage, random injury or death that they hold in their hands.
It's like Sarge said above quoting the stats, the bad guys don't necessarily have them. Suddenly who becomes the bad guy, the guy to be feared, the guy not to be trusted.
Hunter - What is "something untoward"?
Hunter Lou 1947 wrote:
b.c. wrote:
You don't need a full automatic to defend your self or hunt with. But as long as the bad guys have them then the police and yes even the regular citizen should have them to protect them selfs and ther property. And yes this is from a retired Army Sgt.
B.C.
I understand. I ask you this question? "What is the purpose of our government?"
Understand Lou's reasoning but the arguement is very weak. The Police should have them but NOT the general population. It makes no difference if they are retired military or whatever. The average citizen has no obvious need or reason to own one.
ole sarg wrote:
So far I have read no one advocating the banning of weapon ownership.
I have read about responsible weapon ownership and responsible laws to make sure those who are not responsible not being able to buy weapons.
I have read from those who have actually used automatic and semiautomatic weapons against other people call for responsible laws regarding these weapons and the size of magazines.
But, I have not read anyone calling for banning or disarming the people of this nation.
So far I have read no one advocating the banning o... (
show quote)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
Hunter Lou 1947 wrote:
BW326 wrote:
thegrover wrote:
frenchcoast wrote:
jjwright71 wrote:
I volenteered by joining the U S Navy! I am damn proud of it. yes the rich folks skipped to canada ,but as i said i proudly served ,I still sing the starspangled banner at functions. I still salute the flag ,and I believe in "Ol U S A ".This is more than i can say for the present administration.
WTG JJ, that makes 2 of us !!!!!!, I left Nam in 64 after spending 4 years there. Was ordered NOT to arrive stateside IN uniform, we stopped in Hawaii so that the 58 of us on the plane could go to the base exchange to purchase civies and then flew on to San Francisco.
Can't agree with you about your reference to the present administration, President Obama has done a hell of a lot for the veterans.
quote=jjwright71 I volenteered by joining the U S... (
show quote)
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Obama has done a lot for the VA. I am there every week.
quote=frenchcoast quote=jjwright71 I volenteered... (
show quote)
I agree. What surprises me is how many people still label the VA and its many programs for veterans as "handouts" and "welfare".
quote=thegrover quote=frenchcoast quote=jjwrigh... (
show quote)
Yea, it's a damn shame how those who fought for our freedoms were treated after Viet Nam. I regulary use the V.A. for medical. They are doing one hell of a job helping us veterans and we stand proud of that. I have some family members on both sides who i know believe it is a welfair system. These sorry folks didn't serve our country and they don't understand. I'm proud to have had the experience to serve my country. I think every young person should have this experience. It sort of makes you understand what your country stands for. I don't have any respect for the Tea Party movement, Bachmann, West and others, because they are attempting to tear down our proud heritage history for political gain.
quote=BW326 quote=thegrover quote=frenchcoast ... (
show quote)
Think Alexander Hamilton had it right!
" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton
DennisK wrote:
BW326 wrote:
Quote:
Knowing better to get involved in a gun owners right I huess I can continue to rant. Yes, we won't stop all gun violence if we have better gun controls in place. But, what's wrong with having univeral gun laws for every state the same. So that someone can't buy a gun or ammo who should not have them because they have demostrated that they are not fully capable to comprehand any situation or that they have a felony, etc. In some states you can buy a gun at a gun show without any checks is what I understand. What's wrong with having to wait for 10 days to have your application checked? I'd go even further to say if you are out buying an assult rifle or substantial amounts of ammo you need to have a meeting with your local police or sheriff before your application gets approved. There was a red flag in most of the recent mass shootings that could possibly have been prevented. You don't need an AK 47 to hunt deer and certainly 6,000 rounds of ammo. Just ask yourself, what was the purpose of that shooter having bullet proof clothing? Isn't that a red flag. We need to do a better job of protecting our neighbors. We need a better class of politicians than what we have today who stand behind the fear of dissapointing the NRA.
br Knowing better to get involved in a gun owners... (
show quote)
Damn! That's well expressed!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
quote br Knowing better to get involved in a gun... (
show quote)
Yeah,except he is WAAAAYYYYY off base.
quote=BW326 quote br Knowing better to get invo... (
show quote)
Dednnisk : Yes, he is well meaning but uninformed or illogical, and ,yes, WAAAAAY off base as a result. He apparently is unaware that those who are not willing to protect their freedoms DO LOSE them. It is this kind of non-fact based thinking that causes the "igernt" and fellow travelers to undergo the reenactment of historical subjugation and obliteration of nearly entire populations of countries and/or their neighboring countries. He apparently is unaware of Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim and other totalitarian despots of that ilk. He apparently would have us undergo such. I believe a thoughtful vote is a more viable alternative to those scenarios if it comes to that -- if and while we are still allowed to vote. And of course, Presidential edicts do not outweigh the Congress, the Courts, and the Constitution do they. Oh, no, you won't see that. Only totalitarians can do such as that, right ? We potential subjects surely have nothing to worry about in the matter of being entirely and forcibly disarmed, except for the military, the National police, and the political elites. Simply don't trust in the Lord, but rather in the kindness of your benevolent and all-knowing Federal government, controlled by the political elitists.
The fact that the US's cities with the highest violent crime rates
(New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, & Los Angeles) also have the "toughest" anti-gun laws, is meaningless, except in the minds of the Feds and the mayors of those cities, as they "demand" that the rest of the country's honest citizens be summarily
disarmed. I say "honest citizens" because the dishonest have never and never will obey the laws, and thus they haven't and won't disarm.
Indisputable facts., but that won't sway the psychopathic -- oops -- psychedelic -- oops again, -- the psychologically-driven mindset type to gather and review the applicable FACTS prior to making a decision about their existing freedoms hard fought for and won by 200 years worth of US citizens' freely given lives.
jolly1 wrote:
I retired from the Navy in '73 with 30, as an E-7.
1943-45 Pacific, 1950-52 Korea, 1965-67 Vietnam (MACV-TRAC)
Like yoursellf Jolly I was Navy, went in in 1962, first 3 onboard USS Oriskany Tonkin Gulf, 4th as liason at DaNang
they tried swapping Navy & AF pilots, worked pretty good till one of the AF pilots HAD to land onboard at night, think that shut the program down, Spent 4th year in Brown Water, refused shore duty stateside. Completion of 4th year spent the next 2 as security in Embassies throughout
the far east.
Spent the next 20 years kicking myself for getting out. Still sleep only 4 hours a night, old habits learned are hard to break.
star2344 wrote:
Hunter - What is "something untoward"?
Star 2234 :
Untoward is something difficult to manage, or stubborn and willful, or causing trouble or unhappiness. (Or all of these in combination.)
If your scared of someone right to carry a gun. You must be terrified of the road.
The automobile is much more deadly.
Michael O' wrote:
DennisK wrote:
BW326 wrote:
Quote:
Knowing better to get involved in a gun owners right I huess I can continue to rant. Yes, we won't stop all gun violence if we have better gun controls in place. But, what's wrong with having univeral gun laws for every state the same. So that someone can't buy a gun or ammo who should not have them because they have demostrated that they are not fully capable to comprehand any situation or that they have a felony, etc. In some states you can buy a gun at a gun show without any checks is what I understand. What's wrong with having to wait for 10 days to have your application checked? I'd go even further to say if you are out buying an assult rifle or substantial amounts of ammo you need to have a meeting with your local police or sheriff before your application gets approved. There was a red flag in most of the recent mass shootings that could possibly have been prevented. You don't need an AK 47 to hunt deer and certainly 6,000 rounds of ammo. Just ask yourself, what was the purpose of that shooter having bullet proof clothing? Isn't that a red flag. We need to do a better job of protecting our neighbors. We need a better class of politicians than what we have today who stand behind the fear of dissapointing the NRA.
br Knowing better to get involved in a gun owners... (
show quote)
Damn! That's well expressed!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
quote br Knowing better to get involved in a gun... (
show quote)
Yeah,except he is WAAAAYYYYY off base.
quote=BW326 quote br Knowing better to get invo... (
show quote)
Dednnisk : Yes, he is well meaning but uninformed or illogical, and ,yes, WAAAAAY off base as a result. He apparently is unaware that those who are not willing to protect their freedoms DO LOSE them. It is this kind of non-fact based thinking that causes the "igernt" and fellow travelers to undergo the reenactment of historical subjugation and obliteration of nearly entire populations of countries and/or their neighboring countries. He apparently is unaware of Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim and other totalitarian despots of that ilk. He apparently would have us undergo such. I believe a thoughtful vote is a more viable alternative to those scenarios if it comes to that -- if and while we are still allowed to vote. And of course, Presidential edicts do not outweigh the Congress, the Courts, and the Constitution do they. Oh, no, you won't see that. Only totalitarians can do such as that, right ? We potential subjects surely have nothing to worry about in the matter of being entirely and forcibly disarmed, except for the military, the National police, and the political elites. Simply don't trust in the Lord, but rather in the kindness of your benevolent and all-knowing Federal government, controlled by the political elitists.
The fact that the US's cities with the highest violent crime rates
(New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, & Los Angeles) also have the "toughest" anti-gun laws, is meaningless, except in the minds of the Feds and the mayors of those cities, as they "demand" that the rest of the country's honest citizens be summarily
disarmed. I say "honest citizens" because the dishonest have never and never will obey the laws, and thus they haven't and won't disarm.
Indisputable facts., but that won't sway the psychopathic -- oops -- psychedelic -- oops again, -- the psychologically-driven mindset type to gather and review the applicable FACTS prior to making a decision about their existing freedoms hard fought for and won by 200 years worth of US citizens' freely given lives.
quote=DennisK quote=BW326 quote br Knowing bet... (
show quote)
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid for."
BW326
Loc: Boynton Beach, Florida
I must have missed something along the way.
Every time there starts to be a discussion about sensible gun control, people come out of the woodwork and start talking about the government wanting to 'take their guns away'. I don't think I've ever heard anyone seriously suggest that, and yet the very suggestion that maybe we should restrict, at some point, the steady demand by some citizens that they have military grade firepower.
Where does that kind of paranoia come from?
Seriously, using the previous example of cars and highways ... when the government settled on 75 mph speed limits for most highways did you think their intention was to eventually come and take your cars away?
frenchcoast wrote:
Michael O' wrote:
DennisK wrote:
BW326 wrote:
Quote:
Knowing better to get involved in a gun owners right I huess I can continue to rant. Yes, we won't stop all gun violence if we have better gun controls in place. But, what's wrong with having univeral gun laws for every state the same. So that someone can't buy a gun or ammo who should not have them because they have demostrated that they are not fully capable to comprehand any situation or that they have a felony, etc. In some states you can buy a gun at a gun show without any checks is what I understand. What's wrong with having to wait for 10 days to have your application checked? I'd go even further to say if you are out buying an assult rifle or substantial amounts of ammo you need to have a meeting with your local police or sheriff before your application gets approved. There was a red flag in most of the recent mass shootings that could possibly have been prevented. You don't need an AK 47 to hunt deer and certainly 6,000 rounds of ammo. Just ask yourself, what was the purpose of that shooter having bullet proof clothing? Isn't that a red flag. We need to do a better job of protecting our neighbors. We need a better class of politicians than what we have today who stand behind the fear of dissapointing the NRA.
br Knowing better to get involved in a gun owners... (
show quote)
Damn! That's well expressed!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
quote br Knowing better to get involved in a gun... (
show quote)
Yeah,except he is WAAAAYYYYY off base.
quote=BW326 quote br Knowing better to get invo... (
show quote)
Dednnisk : Yes, he is well meaning but uninformed or illogical, and ,yes, WAAAAAY off base as a result. He apparently is unaware that those who are not willing to protect their freedoms DO LOSE them. It is this kind of non-fact based thinking that causes the "igernt" and fellow travelers to undergo the reenactment of historical subjugation and obliteration of nearly entire populations of countries and/or their neighboring countries. He apparently is unaware of Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim and other totalitarian despots of that ilk. He apparently would have us undergo such. I believe a thoughtful vote is a more viable alternative to those scenarios if it comes to that -- if and while we are still allowed to vote. And of course, Presidential edicts do not outweigh the Congress, the Courts, and the Constitution do they. Oh, no, you won't see that. Only totalitarians can do such as that, right ? We potential subjects surely have nothing to worry about in the matter of being entirely and forcibly disarmed, except for the military, the National police, and the political elites. Simply don't trust in the Lord, but rather in the kindness of your benevolent and all-knowing Federal government, controlled by the political elitists.
The fact that the US's cities with the highest violent crime rates
(New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, & Los Angeles) also have the "toughest" anti-gun laws, is meaningless, except in the minds of the Feds and the mayors of those cities, as they "demand" that the rest of the country's honest citizens be summarily
disarmed. I say "honest citizens" because the dishonest have never and never will obey the laws, and thus they haven't and won't disarm.
Indisputable facts., but that won't sway the psychopathic -- oops -- psychedelic -- oops again, -- the psychologically-driven mindset type to gather and review the applicable FACTS prior to making a decision about their existing freedoms hard fought for and won by 200 years worth of US citizens' freely given lives.
quote=DennisK quote=BW326 quote br Knowing bet... (
show quote)
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid for."
quote=Michael O' quote=DennisK quote=BW326 quo... (
show quote)
Frenchcoast : I like your comment, Loosiana. You are by God right. Used to travel a bit over there for Cat when I was an engine rep (diesel, natural gas, turbine, all aplications includin' the oil rigs and marine) for them out of Jackson, Miss covering part of Loosiana, Old Miss, good "Bama", Tayaaseee, and a bit of Floda, and once in a while Geowga. Those were good times and good places and good people ! Real people. What ya got was what ya saw. Non o' that nawthun backslidin' sidesteppin' slippery tongued stuff. Keerful on those snipe hunts, now. Cajun country is different but great. Y'all come, heah !
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
