New York Gun Owners

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

I don't see how anyone who supports the notion that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for citizens to protect themselves from the government can at the same time hold the notion that banning certain types of firearms from private ownership is appropriate.

If you really think you need protection from a future rogue government why would you not need fully automatic weapons, mortars, RPGs, etc.?

I have the exact same question. In earlier threads I have read posts from teh same individual who in one sentence says that stopping the governement off course is impossible, but that one still needs weapons to try it.

Second, If that really is the thought behind the 2nd amendment, then why is the NRA not lobbying for ownership of nuclear and biological weapons, RPGs, mortars, tanks, fully loaded f16s etc etc etc.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Second, If that really is the thought behind the 2nd amendment, then why is the NRA not lobbying for ownership of nuclear and biological weapons, RPGs, mortars, tanks, fully loaded f16s etc etc etc.

Because if you read the Federalist Papers and personal correspondence of Jefferson, you'll see that the intent of the 2nd amendment was that the militia (which they considered every able bodied male between certain ages) should be armed equivalent to the average foot soldier. They didn't think people should have a cannon in their barn, but they should have a musket. Today that would equate to select fire rifles which is the standard arm of the average infantryman.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Second, If that really is the thought behind the 2nd amendment, then why is the NRA not lobbying for ownership of nuclear and biological weapons, RPGs, mortars, tanks, fully loaded f16s etc etc etc.

Because if you read the Federalist Papers and personal correspondence of Jefferson, you'll see that the intent of the 2nd amendment was that the militia (which they considered every able bodied male between certain ages) should be armed equivalent to the average foot soldier. They didn't think people should have a cannon in their barn, but they should have a musket. Today that would equate to select fire rifles which is the standard arm of the average infantryman.

My son the infantryman has somewhat more than a select fire rifle. He hauls a mortar or .50 cal MG around in one of these.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

And would you say that the average foot soldier, individually, each have the same? No, platoons or groups of soldiers have additional equipment, and it would be the responsibility of the state to provide those things if the militia were called to duty. It is the responsibility of each militia member to have the standard equipment.

[bobsled92 0]

THat's a good thing my Dad has now gone. With owning over 350 handguns, even as a Federal Arms dealer, these weapons were his personal collection and assault weapons were always available to local Depts. (no N. Hollywood troubles there)

_______________________________
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

And would you say that the average foot soldier, individually, each have the same? No, platoons or groups of soldiers have additional equipment, and it would be the responsibility of the state to provide those things if the militia were called to duty. It is the responsibility of each militia member to have the standard equipment.

Which brings us nicely back to the topic of whether it is a right belonging to the states, or one belonging to the people. If it's a personal right meant to protect us from tyrannical government then expecting the state to provide the good stuff makes no sense.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Seems to me "John Rich" was bylined in a feature article in Parachutist this month (about skydiving, of all things).

That couldn't possibly be me - it is said that all I ever talk about is guns!

Thanks for noticing. Chris Needles gave me more credit than I deserve for that mention.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

True, of course. But the comparison is lop-sided, as shown by this 1994 Poll:

"Do you happen to have in your home any guns or revolvers?"

Republican ..............   49%

Democrat ................   37%

Independent .............   39% 

(National Opinion Research Center)

what poll is that????
49+37+39=125%%????

It is the percentage of each group of people who identified themselves in those categories, who own guns. In other words, of those who said they were Republicans, 49% owned guns. So it doesn't have to total to 100%, because each party category is independent of the others.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

But I bet if you did a search for every post that John has ever made on DZ.COM, 95% (or more) are gun related. I don't know about you, but I come to DZ.COM to talk about skydiving.

Perhaps we just like discussing guns with fellow skydivers?

Here is another factor which Canuck should take into account:

There are a great many people here knowledgable about skydiving, but not nearly as many with the same knowledge level about guns.

Thus, by the time I see something related to skydiving upon which I can comment, someone else has usually already beaten me to the punch, and posted what I was going to say. My comment therefore becomes irrelevant and duplicate, so I don't post it.

But the same is not true of "gun" messages. By the time I see those, quite often the response I think that should be made has not already been made by someone else. So I have more opportunities to respond to those kinds of messages.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant anyway. Every member is free to post as many messages as they wish on any subject they wish, as long as they are in the appropriate forum. The idea that someone is "bad" because he posts lots of messages on one subject, does not apply. This observation only seems to suggest that the complainant would prefer to suppress messages about guns with which he disagrees...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

True, of course. But the comparison is lop-sided, as shown by this 1994 Poll:

"Do you happen to have in your home any guns or revolvers?"
Republican .............. 49% Democrat ................ 37% Independent ............. 39%

Uh anything newer than 10 year old Data?????

Do you think that gun ownership trends have changed much in the last 10 years?

If you think my info is wrong, you could easily prove it with just a few seconds on Google. If it's not worth that much trouble to you, then why do you bother to question it?

Let's see how long it takes me to verify that fact:
- Go to Google
- Type in "National Opinion Research Center" - found it!
- Lo and behold, right there on their home page, is: "2001 National Gun Policy Survey Research Findings".
- Download that pdf document.
- Voila!

"All forms of gun ownership are greater among conservatives, lowest among liberals, and intermediate for moderates".

That didn't take long to support my argument with more recent findings. You lose your challenge! Next?

See for yourself here.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I suppose if you want to look at one side as fact and the other as fiction, then you can pick and choose which sites to look at.

Here is the first one that popped up.
http://www.millionmommarch.org/facts/gunlaws/saturday.asp

Uh-huh - are we supposed to believe that the anti-gun groups are opposed to so-called "Saturday night specials" because they are of "low quality"? Yeah, right... I'm sure they are really interested in assuring that gun owners only purchase high-quality handguns. They're just looking out for my interests, as a gun owner! Uh-huh.

And they're worried about these in the hands of criminals. Well, if I'm attacked by a criminal with a handgun, I want his handgun to be a low-quality firearm that is likely to jam, misfire or be inaccurate. That's a good thing.

Of course, their true motive is to drive up the cost of handgun ownership, so that fewer people can afford to own them.

The NRA Position

[quade 3]

Quote

All forms of gun ownership are greater among conservatives, lowest among liberals, and intermediate for moderates.

I'm sorry but I still don't see a direct correlation between conservative = Republican, liberal = Democrat and moderate = independent. And I certainly don't see the same numbers you previously quoted.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

If you seriously do homework on it, rather than one google search, you'll find most gun control actually has beginnings in racism.

And I'm REALLY gonna need a source for that.

You don't need a direct reference. Just go to Google, and type in "saturday night special racism", and all kinds of references will pop up which explain the racist roots of that phrase.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If that really is the thought behind the 2nd amendment, then why is the NRA not lobbying for ownership of nuclear and biological weapons, RPGs, mortars, tanks, fully loaded f16s etc etc etc.

The courts have interpreted the 2nd Amendment to refer to "personal arms", and not crew-served weapons. Thus, any firearm that takes more than one person to operate, is not covered. That would include mortars, tanks, F16's, and so on.

We're just talking about firearms here; handguns, rifles and shotguns.

[quade 3]

Been there, done that.

The issue is that I only seem to get back web sites that are extreme right wing pro gun sites. Also, I couldn't find any of those sites that could actaully cite a believable reference -- they just seem to want me to take their word that the term is racist. So, on that basis alone I have to sort of question the claim of racism.

Could you direct me to a more middle of the road source or anti-hate-speech web site that also equates the term Saterday Night Special with the other term that crops up so frequently as the sites I'm finding via Google?

Is the NRA position that the term is racist? Do they cite examples?

I'm willing to learn here, but you have to point me to credible sources.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

My son the infantryman has somewhat more than a select fire rifle. He hauls a mortar or .50 cal MG around in one of these.

The Stryker is not a one-man platform - it is a crew-served weapon, and thus it, with all its armament, are not considered to be covered by the 2nd Amendment.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Which brings us nicely back to the topic of whether it is a right belonging to the states, or one belonging to the people. If it's a personal right meant to protect us from tyrannical government then expecting the state to provide the good stuff makes no sense.

Correct! It is the state and federal governments, which an armed citizenry is designed to serve as a check against, in case they get too out of control.

The founding fathers were real big on those checks and balances, with; the Senate and the House; Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches; and so on. An armed citizenry is just another of those checks and balances. That's what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

I just went and looked at the very beginning of that PDF...

Just from a cursory inspection, I don't expect much in the way of accuracy or lack of bias from it. Did you notice that the "NGPSs were designed by NORC in collaboration with the Center for Gun Policy and Research of Johns Hopkins University with funding from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago"? It is well known that both the Joyce Foundation and Johns Hopkins are anti-gun proponents, which fund and support anti-gun initiatives.

Perhaps that explains why the introduction to this survey lists 10 bulleted items about the horrors that occur annually because of guns -- but says NOT ONE WORD about the times people use guns to save their lives, defend the weak or the innocent, prevent robberies, rapes, murders... Not one mention there. It's as though defensive gun uses do not exist -- despite reliable studies that put them at between 80,000 and 2 MILLION annually. (And repeat studies edge closer to the 2M mark than the 80k.)

Also, there are claims like, "88% want to make gun-safety training mandatory before a gun may be purchased. 79% support requiring a police permit before a gun can be purchased. 78% favor requiring background checks for sales between private individuals. 77% endorse the mandatory registration of handguns and 77% also agree that 'the government should do everything it can to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals, even if it means that it will be harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase handguns.' 74% want to require that all new handguns be personalized so they can only be fired by their legal owner... 52% favor allowing concealed carry permits only for those with special needs such as private detectives..." also "A near majority of 49% backs having handguns limited to law enforcement personnel." Also, "The public is evenly split on whether laws allowing any adult who passes a criminal background check and a gun-safety course to carry a concealed gun in public makes things safer or less safe."

There is, to me, a pretty clear anti-gun bias in this "survey." It exists in some overt ways and some subtle ways, like the choice of wording in some phrases, or the selection of what to say in the first place.

The survey is not consistent with itself. First it says that a near majority favor limiting handguns to police-only, then it says, "Only a call for the general prohibition of handguns is opposed by a solid majority with just 11% wanting a 'total ban on handguns.'" I guess that 11% wants even the police to not have them?? Otherwise how can there be a difference? Limiting handguns to police-only is the same as a total ban on handguns, if the police are set aside as a separate group which would retain handguns in the face of a "total civilian ban." One scratches one's head over this one.

I reflect back on the preposterously high percentages claimed in the above paragraphs. Do they mean to tell us that even as people support, in such high proportions, all kinds of restrictions on guns, they have nonetheless given clear indication to their state legislators in THIRTY SEVEN of FIFTY STATES that they want concealed carry passed into law?! And this is SINCE 1987. And yet, somehow, the claim is made that 52% think carry permits should not be available unless one is a private detective!? How can concealed carry be so unpopular that 49% support handguns for police only (handguns are what you would be carrying if you had a concealed carry permit). and 52% don't think CCW permits should be generally available, but that the public is "evenly split" on whether concealed carry for those who pass the criteria is good and makes things safer? And if 49% really opposed anyone but the police having handguns, doesn't that mean that the states that have passed concealed carry, which intrinsically means citizens would have handguns, have completely gone against nearly half of their constituents to install a quite unpopular policy? Do you really think that elected officials would pass concealed carry in their states if they believed that just about HALF of the people OPPOSE handguns for anyone but the police?!? This flies in the face of logic. In addition, the claims that such large percentages support all kinds of restrictions and one-gun-a-month ploys and licensing by the police and handgun registration (which would be used and has been used to later collect guns from civilian owners) -- these are preposterous, and the study's publishers should never have made these claims because by their very nature, they are suspect.

Anti-gun propagandists are not very bright. They tend to make such ambitious and grandiose claims that they forget the more modest the claim, the less difficult it would be to believe it. Rather than making small lies that might be believed, they make idiotic grand lies that are immediately called into question. If there weren't such important things at stake, it would be funny.

---Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Been there, done that.

The issue is that I only seem to get back web sites that are extreme right wing pro gun sites. Also, I couldn't find any of those sites that could actaully cite a believable reference -- they just seem to want me to take their word that the term is racist. So, on that basis alone I have to sort of question the claim of racism.

Could you direct me to a more middle of the road source or anti-hate-speech web site that also equates the term Saterday Night Special with the other term that crops up so frequently as the sites I'm finding via Google?

Okay, try this one (below). Clayton Cramer is a guy whose writings I have followed for years, and his work is absolutely solid.

Cramer is the guy who debunked a star author of the anti-gun organizations; Historian Michael Bellesiles. Bellesiles wrote a book claiming that historical records prove that gun ownership was rare in early America. The anti-gun folks went into spasms of joy promoting his findings, claiming it proved the 2nd Amendment didn't mean anything. Cramer followed up on Bellesiles' references, researching the same historical records, and found out that Bellesiles just plain lied about his conclusion - it was not supported by the evidence. In the end, Bellesiles was discredited, lost his university job, and had his prestigious history publishing award revoked. He wasn't counting on anyone actually bothering to check his "facts".

Racist Roots of Gun Control

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

My son the infantryman has somewhat more than a select fire rifle. He hauls a mortar or .50 cal MG around in one of these.

The Stryker is not a one-man platform - it is a crew-served weapon, and thus it, with all its armament, are not considered to be covered by the 2nd Amendment.

He's still an infantryman, and his assigned weapon is a mortar. Were the militia in 1790 allowed horses and carts, or were they the sole province of the government?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

He's still an infantryman, and his assigned weapon is a mortar. Were the militia in 1790 allowed horses and carts, or were they the sole province of the government?

Once again, what is the average, individual infantryman given? Sure, there are specialized weapons which some might be assigned, but is it the default equipment assigned to all new recruits? The idea is not to have a fully armed force standing by at a moments notice. The idea is that the basic tools of war should be maintained by the militia in case they are needed on short notice. If there are formal hostilities, the extra stuff can be obtained. You're being obtuse with this line of attack. You're looking under rocks for exceptions.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

He's still an infantryman, and his assigned weapon is a mortar. Were the militia in 1790 allowed horses and carts, or were they the sole province of the government?

You're being obtuse with this line of attack. You're looking under rocks for exceptions.

No JOKE! But it's what I've come to expect from people who just "don't get" the right tobear arms, why it's important, why it must be protected, why it makes sense...

---Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[JohnRich 4]

Here is another New York "gun" story in the news:

New York Times Tells Its Reporters Not to Carry Guns
January 30, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Journalists covering wars or other conflicts for the New York Times are no longer allowed to carry a firearm while on assignment, according to a policy adopted by the company this week.

The new policy, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, was apparently put into place Wednesday following an internal debate over the issue. A Times reporter in Iraq, Dexter Filkins, was found carrying a gun last year, the Journal reported.

"The carrying of a weapon, for whatever reason, jeopardizes a journalist's status as neutral," Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis told CNSNews.com. "For the same reason, it's also important that Times journalists do not travel with or accompany other journalists they know to be carrying weapons."

The policy was developed internally by senior editors in consultation with the paper's bureaus, Mathis said. It applies to reporters, photographers and other editorial staff "who are on assignment from the Times to cover a war or a civil conflict," she said.

The debate over journalists carrying guns is not new. Fox News correspondent Geraldo Rivera stirred up the issue when he carried a gun while covering the war on terror in Afghanistan.

Earlier this week in Iraq, two CNN employees died from gunshot wounds when their vehicle was ambushed. A third employee in another vehicle was injured. A security adviser traveling with the convoy was credited for saving the lives of the other journalists and employees.

"There is no doubt in my mind that if our security adviser had not returned fire, everyone in our vehicle would have been killed," said CNN correspondent Michael Holmes in a statement. "This was not an attempted robbery; they were clearly trying to take us out."

American Enterprise Institute resident scholar John Lott, author of "The Bias against Guns," said the attack on CNN workers is just one example of the threats journalists face in war zones.

"My concern is that the New York Times is being driven more by appearance than what is actually necessary for the safety of their reporters," Lott said. "It's not the type of image the New York Times wants to give out. They're very politically correct on these things, and they want to be perceived that way."

The Times' decision didn't surprise Joe Waldron, executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. He said, "Hypocrisy has never bothered the New York Times."

The Times has long been a target of criticism for its anti-gun editorials. The paper was also accused of hypocrisy when it was discovered that its former publisher, Arthur Ochs "Punch" Sulzberger, had a permit to carry a handgun.

Sulzberger, whose son "Pinch" Sulzberger now runs the paper, was among several influential New Yorkers with handgun permits whose names were leaked to the press in 1976.

* * * * *

Source:
http://www.cnsnews.com/MainSearch/Search.html

Enter "New York Times Tells Its Reporters Not to Carry Guns" in the search box.

The NY Times seems to be confusing "self defense" with being a "combatant". If they can't understand the difference between the two, they have no business publishing a newspaper.

[quade 3]

John --

It is a matter of journalistic ethics not to carry a weapon into a war area. It makes all the journos targets. This is pretty much understood by all sides similar to hospital facilities and them being off limits as legitimate targets. Of course, this is usually not understood by terrorists, they simply don't play by our rules and tooling around with military advisors in a humvee doesn't help matters.

That said, being a combat reporter is one of the more dangerous positions you can have in civilian life. You're constantly under suspicion of being a spy by both sides.

Bringing that concept to the U.S. city streets is something a bit more interesting.

Most media companies require that their crews be unarmed. Some provide flack jackets, but that's about it.

This isn't a matter of 2nd Amendment rights either since companies do NOT have to respect your Constitutional rights when you are working for them.

Companies are -far- more intrusive into the lives of their employees than the government could ever hope to be.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Quote

He's still an infantryman, and his assigned weapon is a mortar. Were the militia in 1790 allowed horses and carts, or were they the sole province of the government?

You're being obtuse with this line of attack. You're looking under rocks for exceptions.

No JOKE! But it's what I've come to expect from people who just "don't get" the right tobear arms, why it's important, why it must be protected, why it makes sense...

---Jeffrey

Why don't I "get it"? I am fully supportive of this as a personal right. I haven't written anything anywhere at variance with that. In fact, I don't see that assault weapons, RPGs and mortars should be exceptions under the 2nd Amendment as written, pertaining to militias. A mortar would make a damn good militia weapon.

Just because I disagree with John Rich's "statistics" and "logic" on the working or otherwise of gun laws, doesn't in any way imply that I don't support the right of the people to own firearms. Or not to, as they wish. I just don't like bogus arguments.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.