Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: A letter from 1100 Green Berets on the second Amendment

World Class Peach





Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/30/2013 at 09:00 AM


A Letter From The Special Forces Community Concerning The Second Amendment
Posted on January 29, 2013 by Bulldog1

I received this letter from members of the SOF community on their concerns for America and the Second Amendment. This letter was signed by over 1100 members of the SOF community, of which the names will not be published as this is Active and Retired members.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is well worth the read.

29 Jan 2013
Page 1 of 3

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!

The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?

What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
29 Jan 2013
Page 2 of 3

Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.

A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”
“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”

So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?

The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
29 Jan 2013
Page 3 of 3

So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:

1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “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”.

2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.

3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.

4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.

7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.

8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.

1100 Green Berets Signed this Letter

We have a list of all their names and unlike any MSM outlets we can confirm that over 1100 Green Berets did sign. The list includes Special Forces Major Generals & Special Forces Command Sergeants Major down to the lowest ranking “Green Beret”.

The letter stands for itself.

Read it and send it everywhere.

 

____________________
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the
Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." -Henry Ford

 
Visit User's Homepage
Replies:

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5481
(5480 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/30/2013 at 09:44 AM
brilliant!! the solution to conflict in the world is more guns for everyone. i mean, whats good for the USA is good for everyone right?

so do these guys think the war zones they fought in would have been safer if the general populations had more guns?

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 17114
(17112 all sites)
Registered: 1/17/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/30/2013 at 09:48 AM
quote:
The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not.


Only an opinion and they can't possibly say for sure. What if one or more people survived because of it? Many people could escape in 6 to 8 seconds and get out of harms way. Would that be a "real " difference? I think so and so would any survivors. Does 6 to 8 seconds make a difference? Hard to say but it beats the hell out of 0 seconds in my opinion. If I line them all up unarmed and tell them that I will start shooting then give them the option of 6 to 8 seconds or 0, I bet their opinion would differ.

 

____________________
Chicago Black Hawks - next season.


 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/30/2013 at 12:11 PM
quote:
brilliant!! the solution to conflict in the world is more guns for everyone. i mean, whats good for the USA is good for everyone right?

so do these guys think the war zones they fought in would have been safer if the general populations had more guns?


It is just one group of peoples take on it but as a example maybe if all people in Iraq had guns then maybe we never would have gone there in the first place because Saddam could never have terrorized his people if they had been armed. Just saying as a example .

who knows about the 6 to 8 seconds like i said just a chance to see how a portion of our own armed forces looks at it for the folks that say we have no chance against the government well looks like many are on the side of the people...

 

____________________
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the

Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." -Henry Ford

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1139
(1139 all sites)
Registered: 7/23/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/30/2013 at 06:16 PM
Mike, the Iraqi people were and are heavily armed. The military tried to disarm the Iraqi population and it didn't go very well. All of these "what if" scenarios make for fun fantasy, but have little to do with reality. And, in the little bit of confirmed information that has come from the Sandy Hook travesty, a group of children were able to push past the shooter as he changed clips. They are alive for that simple reason, he had to take a few seconds to slam in another clip.

 

____________________
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein
Conspiracy Theories: Sophistication for the dim witted.
Stolen from a Mark Ramsey post, don't know where he got it.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/30/2013 at 06:28 PM
This thing has fabricated chain email written all over it. Sorry you fell for it dude.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3219
(3222 all sites)
Registered: 1/7/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/30/2013 at 06:36 PM
quote:
This thing has fabricated chain email written all over it. Sorry you fell for it dude.


Yes it does. May we please see the 1100 signatures and the verification that they are who they say they are?

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 17114
(17112 all sites)
Registered: 1/17/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/30/2013 at 07:00 PM
quote:
Mike, the Iraqi people were and are heavily armed. The military tried to disarm the Iraqi population and it didn't go very well. All of these "what if" scenarios make for fun fantasy, but have little to do with reality. And, in the little bit of confirmed information that has come from the Sandy Hook travesty, a group of children were able to push past the shooter as he changed clips. They are alive for that simple reason, he had to take a few seconds to slam in another clip.


Proof that 6 to 8 seconds makes a difference.

 

____________________
Chicago Black Hawks - next season.


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6649
(6704 all sites)
Registered: 5/4/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/30/2013 at 11:01 PM
Is there a cliff notes version?

 

____________________
"It's all about Allman Brothers pride." T Thompson Greek Theater, Los Angeles 5/6/2005

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46808
(46809 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/31/2013 at 09:50 AM
This is very well written, but whenever things like this go here...

quote:
Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao


...it loses me. Such a stupid reference.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/31/2013 at 05:37 PM
Ok here is the link where I found this story you make the decision...

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/01/29/green-beret-group-lobbies-aga inst-gun-control.html?comp=700001075741&rank=1

Upton-oGoode How ya been The kurds and many other groups of Iraqi's that were gassed and also bombed we not armed like the Iraq Government was or the gassing would most likely never happened... IMO the 6 to 8 seconds all a matter of opinion I know i don't want to have 10 rounders when or if I had to face someone with a 30.. just saying...

 

____________________
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the

Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." -Henry Ford

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16019
(16023 all sites)
Registered: 9/24/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/31/2013 at 05:52 PM
quote:
This thing has fabricated chain email written all over it. Sorry you fell for it dude.


Seems you were mistaken, amazing how that could happen to such a highly educated person, as yourself. Isn't it ? Bet it took the smug, $hit eating grin off your face.

Mike gave a link to where he got the story, of course you'll dismiss it cause the source was from some dim witted person who has a varied opinion than yours. Must be great to thnk so much of yourself and belittle somebody over somrthing as stupid as politics in general.

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/31/2013 at 07:04 PM
Only 6 - 8 seconds to reload with a high capacity clip????????? That just made the point for banning all high capacity clips. 6 - 8 seconds in that situation is long enough to give somebody the chance to overtake the shooter or at least subdue them or at least have a possible chance to subdue him. They just made my argument for me.

Besides..............I could give a rats @ss what a Green Beret thinks about guns of any kind in the hands of civillians. There opinion means no more than mine or yours regardless of their military training which has zero to do with civillians and fire arms. THERE IS ZERO PRACTICAL USE FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN MILITARY AND MAYBE THE POLICE TO OWN ANY KIND OF HIGH CAPACITY AMMO CLIPS!!!!!!!!!!! PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

 

____________________
Pete

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8395
(8396 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/31/2013 at 08:42 PM
quote:
THERE IS ZERO PRACTICAL USE FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN MILITARY AND MAYBE THE POLICE TO OWN ANY KIND OF HIGH CAPACITY AMMO CLIPS!!!!!!!!!!! PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

DHS seems to disagree with you.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assault-weapons-are-bad-why-d oes-the-dhs-want-to-buy-7000-of-them-for-personal-defense/

They specifically state that they judge the weapon to be “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”

That sounds exactly like the kind of defensive weapon one might want to protect their home and family if the worst becomes reality.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 10266
(10265 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/31/2013 at 09:00 PM
In the Tucson shooting [where Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head] the attacker, used a glock 27 pistol with a clip that held 33 rounds [there were 33 wounds] 6 people were killed. the shooter was tackled while changing clips. if he didnt have an extended capacity clip the carnage would have been less severe.

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/31/2013 at 10:10 PM
quote:
quote:
THERE IS ZERO PRACTICAL USE FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN MILITARY AND MAYBE THE POLICE TO OWN ANY KIND OF HIGH CAPACITY AMMO CLIPS!!!!!!!!!!! PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

DHS seems to disagree with you.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assault-weapons-are-bad-why-d oes-the-dhs-want-to-buy-7000-of-them-for-personal-defense/

They specifically state that they judge the weapon to be “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”

That sounds exactly like the kind of defensive weapon one might want to protect their home and family if the worst becomes reality.



Sorry Rich but to me that is a big crock of $hit and proves nothing. Homeland security is there to defend from any kind of group or terrorist attack. That has nothing to do with personal home defense. Those who argue these weapons and the high capacity clips are for home protection are just full of bull$hit in my book. Do people keep these guns loaded with high capacity clips next to their beds in case someone breaks in their house or are they expecting AlQuaida to come marching up the street????? It is a bull$hit excuse to call these types of guns and high capacity ammo clips home protection weapons. It is over the top and ridiculous and I think you and everyone else know it. Thes guns in the hands of civillians are nothing more than toys for grown and supposedly mature adults to go out and act like they are GI Joe at the shooting range. I am sure it's lots of fun but so would blowing up some dynamite and as far as I know you can't own dynamite???

Also, WTF is the deal with these gun zellots not wanting any kind of security checks for sales at gun shows or sales between private owners and collectors?????????????????????????????? In this country right now someone can be on a terrorist watch list and go to a gun show and load up on guns and high capacity ammo clips without ANY background check whatsoever. There is something severely wrong in this country when gun crazy advocates can't even agree on background security checks for ANY kind of gun sale!!!!!!!!!

 

____________________
Pete

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3070
(3075 all sites)
Registered: 5/30/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/31/2013 at 10:14 PM


DE OPPRESSO LIBRE

 

____________________
"What we do in life echoes in eternity."




 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/31/2013 at 11:30 PM
quote:
I could give a rats @ss what a Green Beret thinks about guns of any kind in the hands of civillians. There opinion means no more than mine or yours regardless of their military training which has zero to do with civillians and fire arms.


If that's true, why do you turn around and tell us what type of weapon, ammo clips, what have you, that folks should be allowed to own or not own? Pretty contradictory comments IMO.

The individual law-abiding citizen should retain the right to choose in the matter. Never mind what "reason" I might have for holding this opinion. Being an American is a good enough reason. Plenty good enough.



[Edited on 2/1/2013 by alloak41]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 17114
(17112 all sites)
Registered: 1/17/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/1/2013 at 12:23 AM
quote:
IMO the 6 to 8 seconds all a matter of opinion I know i don't want to have 10 rounders when or if I had to face someone with a 30.. just saying...


So do you go to a movie expecting a gun fight and if so then your free country is not free at all? Would you send your young child to school packing and ready for war? I doubt it as you have always come across as a good guy to me.

I'll ask you the question then. If you are unarmed would you prefer to have 8 seconds or 0? Pretty obvious answer for anyone and truly can't see how opinions could vary on that. Would be absolutely amazed if you pick 0.

 

____________________
Chicago Black Hawks - next season.


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8395
(8396 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/1/2013 at 12:58 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
THERE IS ZERO PRACTICAL USE FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN MILITARY AND MAYBE THE POLICE TO OWN ANY KIND OF HIGH CAPACITY AMMO CLIPS!!!!!!!!!!! PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

DHS seems to disagree with you.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assault-weapons-are-bad-why-d oes-the-dhs-want-to-buy-7000-of-them-for-personal-defense/

They specifically state that they judge the weapon to be “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”

That sounds exactly like the kind of defensive weapon one might want to protect their home and family if the worst becomes reality.

Sorry Rich but to me that is a big crock of $hit and proves nothing. Homeland security is there to defend from any kind of group or terrorist attack. That has nothing to do with personal home defense. Those who argue these weapons and the high capacity clips are for home protection are just full of bull$hit in my book. Do people keep these guns loaded with high capacity clips next to their beds in case someone breaks in their house or are they expecting AlQuaida to come marching up the street????? It is a bull$hit excuse to call these types of guns and high capacity ammo clips home protection weapons. It is over the top and ridiculous and I think you and everyone else know it. Thes guns in the hands of civillians are nothing more than toys for grown and supposedly mature adults to go out and act like they are GI Joe at the shooting range. I am sure it's lots of fun but so would blowing up some dynamite and as far as I know you can't own dynamite???

Also, WTF is the deal with these gun zellots not wanting any kind of security checks for sales at gun shows or sales between private owners and collectors?????????????????????????????? In this country right now someone can be on a terrorist watch list and go to a gun show and load up on guns and high capacity ammo clips without ANY background check whatsoever. There is something severely wrong in this country when gun crazy advocates can't even agree on background security checks for ANY kind of gun sale!!!!!!!!!

We can agree to disagree, but DHS' language was quite clear. If they wanted to express something different, as in "great weapon for scenarios involving terrorists" they would have said so. The simple truth is that for those who want to have such an option in a fully legal manner, these are fine CQB options, and why shouldn't they be permitted to own them?

I understand the paranoia about the scary guns and their magazines, and advantage some politicians are taking of the moment by misleading the public. But the simple facts are that these proposed equipment bans will have virtually zero impact on gun-related murders. That's because the targeted weapons are so rarely used in those crimes. The worst mass shooting in the country (VA Tech) was accomplished with two hand guns and 19 magazines of 10 and 15 round capacity. 19 magazine changes? Kinda wipes out the theory about magazine changes forming some sort of obstacle.

The rest of the Bravo Sierra about these weapons and the people who own and use them are a combination of misinformation and personal opinion, not fact.

And talking about misunderstanding and poor information, let's move on to the "no checks at gun shows" nonsense. This is not remotely true. Any firearms dealer participating at a gun show who is a legal gun dealer (has an FFL) must perform the same background checks and fill out the same forms as they do in the store. Here's a dealer in GA explaining the whole thing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ic7TE9IsOQ

So it's the solely the personal sales that form the problem. But if anyone thinks that some legislation is going to stop the exchange of weapons between individuals - especially the ones likely to commit a crime with that weapon - then I think we're really out in fantasy land.

Almost all legal gun owners are fine with more in-depth background checks. Even the NRA has agreed with that in the past. I've been finger-printed and thoroughly checked in order to get a carry permit, and I think most pro-gun folks have no problem with that. Higher training levels and even skills assessments would be agreeable to most.

But anyone thinking that what's going on in Washington will impact gun-related murders in any significant way is sorely misinformed. It's a political circus focused on image, not major solutions. 90+% of the gun-related murders are committed with handguns. The overwhelming majority of those are in calibers 9mm, .40, and 45 ACP. Every one of those will create a larger and more devastating wound in a victim than an AR-15 will. But what gets trotted out for all the news conferences? It's like proposing to ban squirrels as a means of cutting down on car accidents. Silly political nonsense at its finest.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 17361
(17416 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/1/2013 at 09:42 AM
quote:
But anyone thinking that what's going on in Washington will impact gun-related murders in any significant way is sorely misinformed. It's a political circus focused on image, not major solutions. 90+% of the gun-related murders are committed with handguns. The overwhelming majority of those are in calibers 9mm, .40, and 45 ACP. Every one of those will create a larger and more devastating wound in a victim than an AR-15 will. But what gets trotted out for all the news conferences? It's like proposing to ban squirrels as a means of cutting down on car accidents. Silly political nonsense at its finest.


Agree with this 100% I also think the idea that we will defend ourselves against "tyranny" with small arms is BS, along with the notion that high capacity weapons are necessary for home defense. We like our guns; I get that. We appear to view 32,000 gun related deaths a year as an acceptable level of collateral damage because we like our guns. We are a violent and well armed society who place many things ahead of the sanctity of life. I get that. I wish we would quit trying to wrap that part of our culture in some noble cause and just call it what it is.

 

____________________
Ask not for whom the bell tolls

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/1/2013 at 12:06 PM
quote:
quote:
I could give a rats @ss what a Green Beret thinks about guns of any kind in the hands of civillians. There opinion means no more than mine or yours regardless of their military training which has zero to do with civillians and fire arms.


If that's true, why do you turn around and tell us what type of weapon, ammo clips, what have you, that folks should be allowed to own or not own? Pretty contradictory comments IMO.

The individual law-abiding citizen should retain the right to choose in the matter. Never mind what "reason" I might have for holding this opinion. Being an American is a good enough reason. Plenty good enough.



[Edited on 2/1/2013 by alloak41]


Well, I happen to be in the majority opinion on the topic in this country along with the majority of NRA members. Those Green Berets are in the minority opinion among their fellow Americans. Too bad!!!

 

____________________
Pete

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/1/2013 at 12:18 PM
About 8 or 9 paragraphs down. 31 shots fired in the Giffords shooting before the shooter was subdued WHILE TRYING TO RELOAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/12/ammo.clips.legislation/index.html

Had he not had the high capacity clip and would have had to reload after 10 rounds he would have been subdued with less damage done and less casualties. It is plain and simple common sense.

Are regular citizens gonna start trying to match the criminals and start going to every movie theater and shopping center with semi automatic rifles with high capacity ammo clips slung over their shoulders?????? When that happens if I were a parent I would lock my kids in my house and not let them leave to go anywhere.

 

____________________
Pete

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 23381
(23380 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/1/2013 at 01:02 PM
quote:
quote:
But anyone thinking that what's going on in Washington will impact gun-related murders in any significant way is sorely misinformed. It's a political circus focused on image, not major solutions. 90+% of the gun-related murders are committed with handguns. The overwhelming majority of those are in calibers 9mm, .40, and 45 ACP. Every one of those will create a larger and more devastating wound in a victim than an AR-15 will. But what gets trotted out for all the news conferences? It's like proposing to ban squirrels as a means of cutting down on car accidents. Silly political nonsense at its finest.


Agree with this 100% I also think the idea that we will defend ourselves against "tyranny" with small arms is BS, along with the notion that high capacity weapons are necessary for home defense. We like our guns; I get that. We appear to view 32,000 gun related deaths a year as an acceptable level of collateral damage because we like our guns. We are a violent and well armed society who place many things ahead of the sanctity of life. I get that. I wish we would quit trying to wrap that part of our culture in some noble cause and just call it what it is.


Agree with this completely. Until we get out of the mindset that we aren't fully dressed until we holster our glock regardless of where we are going, we will continue to see collateral damage.


Remember, we used to think it was OK to drive drunk.

 

____________________
Quit!

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 2/1/2013 at 04:06 PM
What a crock of Horse $hit from some of you guys Geeze so you think what Kumono (spelling is on purpose) has done in NY is constitutional? where and when did the people get their say? how many links you want me to post showing new yorkers disdain with this crap? It is all well and good to sit in your homes and say this and that about who should or should not have a gun but you do not have that right! and if you want to live in a unarmed society move to France!

Yes I want 30 round magazines and yes i want a AR15 by my bed it is easy to handle my wife can and does handle it and I am responsible with my guns they are not toys. I walked out the back door one night and was staring a bear in the face, I did not want to kill him but he was into my garbage that contained fish parts he clamined it and snapped his teeth at me I fired a few rounds from my 45. around him without hitting him and he did not budge at that time I wish i had had a aR 15 with a 30 I could have shot up the ground around him till he got the idea or killed him if he wanted me instead. another time out hunting I was calling elk had a cougar come with in 10 yards sneeking in a few shot also chased him off.

So I gave the link and no one says ahhh yes must be legit nope all i hear is the same drivel from uninformed anti gunners that is your right and i applaud you for exercising it allow me the same privilege! Without intervention from some uninformed politician that has NO idea how I live and probably does not care! I know what my rights are and I will continue to vote for people who strive to uphold them. and I am not alone in this thinking.


 

____________________
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the

Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." -Henry Ford

 
<<  1    2  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com