"It's illegal in the US. Why?"

So we have a legal means for putting down dirty, self righteous hippies who are too baked out of their skulls to put two thoughts together coherently.

You know who you are. bo_sox.

bo_sux... Brain-baked hippy with a switchblade and a silver spoon in his mouth.

I'd be much happier if I'd grown up with hippies rather than cell phones.

The only thing worse than a genuine hippy is a wannabe. They flock to Eugene like lemmings. Makes me sick.

sorry to pick on you bo_sox, but you seem to want to bite every single hook in the water.

Why not? There's a lot of hooks to bite, why leave em when there's food on em...

I guess if I was a master troll like krellin, I'd never apologize.

Nah, krellin apologizes in his own cute way.

@ ghug

"it's a good idea to have laws that are going to prevent violence in dangerous situations"

Ha. Very few mass shootings have been committed by people who A) had legally obtained firearms and B) legally carrying their firearms at the time of the shooting. If gun-free zones worked, we would not have had Newtown or Aurora.

Laws do not effectively prevent violence. The bad guys are completely unrestricted, why should the good guys have anything more than the most necessary, sensible restrictions?

@ NigeeBaby

"Like in case of what, oh just in case you need to shoot and kill someone, oh yeah makes perfect sense. Well of course if someone is in a bar brawl you might need to kill them, or if there is a thief running away, or someone being nasty and aggressive or if someone punches you, so many great reasons to shoot someone nowadays, if I lived in that kind of neighbourhood I'd just move, I don't want neighbours that casually carry guns."

Why are you opposed to neighbors that own/carry guns? I don't do so casually; it's a tremendous responsibility that I take very seriously, which is part of the reason why I don't use any mind-altering substances including alcohol. Shooting someone is always a last resort, but this is a messed-up world and every once in a while you need to go to the last resort. It has never happened to me and it will probably never happen, but if the shit happens to hit the fan, I want to be the guy *with* the gun, not the guy wishing he had a gun. Until that day happens, (*if* it happens) my Series 70 will quietly wait on my hip or under my arm, unbeknownst to the outside world.

@ Lando Calrissian

"feeling the need to carry a gun with you I am pretty sure precludes you from being responsible. Being a gun owner is choosing to be reckless and endanger those around you, no matter how supposedly careful you intend to be."

Guns are not dangerous. We could do a little experiment to prove this. I could set my loaded M14 on my porch, point it at the street (two huge safety issues right there that would make it so that I would never consider actually doing this, but I'm giving your argument the utmost leeway) and count how many people get shot. Hell, we'll count how many times the weapon discharges. ZERO! I have been shooting for years, and I have yet to see a gun that can load, aim, and fire itself. Guns are no different than any other unused piece of machinery unless they are operated. An unused gun is a brainless piece of machinery, no more dangerous than a mousetrap. A gun in use is an equalizer.

I really can't believe that you just claimed that all gun owners are inherently irresponsible. Your point is so far beyond the realm of reality that I don't even feel obliged to respond.

My Series 70 is completely incapable of firing unless I say so. I would have to remove it from its holster, depress the grip safety, flick the thumb safety, and squeeze the trigger: three separate actions that take time and could not possibly be performed by anyone other than a human with a basic understanding of the 1911 platform.

Besides, one does not simply go around disarming people. It doesn't happen. Not even criminals are that stupid.

@ bo_sox48

"Most people with a gun don't work that way."

Everyone who is certified to concealed carry works that way, bo_sox48. That's the whole point of concealed carry. The bad guys don't know you're packing. It's not the Wild West; the vast majority of carriers DO NOT open carry. I would NOT be the exception, I'd be the rule. Besides, how many gun owners do you know? If you don't know any, what is your perception of them?

The fact that there are guns in this world and they are accepted as commonplace is a hugely dangerous thing and resonsible for tons of deaths. Any person feeling the need to carry a weapon around compounds this problem immensely. If each person could show courage and responsibility and put their weapons away - get rid of them safely - the world would be a safer palce.

People who carry guns, activists who support gun rights are one of the biggest probels with the USA. I don't really car what kind of justification you have for it - it is needless and irresponsible. It refects poorly on you, especially the fact you are unwilling to cosnider how deeply irrepsosnible ownign and lobbying for guns is. It is shameful that smart people allow entitlement to allow them to make terribel deciisons and take foolish stances.

Guns in the hands of the people are responsible for far less deaths than guns in the hands of governments.

@ Lando Calrissian

Guns exist. 300 million in the United States alone. One does not simply make 300 million guns disappear overnight. If you think guns are a Pandora's box, then that's too goddamned bad for you because that particular box was opened when the Chinese invented gunpowder.

"If each person could show courage and responsibility and put their weapons away - get rid of them safely - the world would be a safer palce."

Do you *really*, I mean REALLY think that complete global disarmament is at all possible, because I'm not giving mine up until EVERYONE else does.

"I don't really car what kind of justification you have for it - it is needless and irresponsible."

I would need a gun if I were attacked by someone who had a gun. I would need a gun if the government starts to tyrannize me. I would need a gun if, God forbid, the United States were invaded. I would need a gun if civil disorder swept the nation. Do I need a gun at this exact moment? Nope. Will there be a point in the future where I will need a gun? I don't know. Better safe than sorry. Like I told bo_sox48, I'll probably never need my Series 70 but I want it to be there if I do need it. Until then, it will quietly wait on my person, just a simple piece of secured, unused machinery that will make all of the difference if I need to call upon it.

"People who carry guns, activists who support gun rights are one of the biggest probels with the USA"

Really? With a 17 trillion dollar national debt, over 10 million Latin Americans of unknown identity bent on reconquista loose within our borders, over 10 percent of our population underemployed or unemployed, and our politicians shredding the Constitution at every opportunity, you consider high gun ownership to be a *problem*? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!

In related news, 100 million American gun owners didn't hurt or kill anyone today.

"It refects poorly on you, especially the fact you are unwilling to cosnider how deeply irrepsosnible ownign and lobbying for guns is."

So, I'm somehow less responsible than non-gun owners just because I have an automatic rifle in my closet and a handgun on my hip? (both well-secured, maintained, and owned/carried by someone (me) highly trained and experienced in their use) #fucklogic

MichiganMan is exactly right. Do you realize that if the government is the only group of people with guns, they can basically do whatever the fuck they want? Kiss your rights goodbye.

@MM ... The government has plenty of toys that are a thousand times more powerful than guns. The only reason they don't use them is because they haven't taken away everyone's right to vote yet, only a few people. Once that goes, watch those toys come out.

And of course if you look in Yemen you'll see plenty of those toys used pretty frequently anyway, but that's a country of Islamist extremists and terrorists obviously. Even if they're American citizens, they're still terrorists, so we can kill them without a trial because we might suspect they are doing some dubious things.

@GunF ... "Everyone who is certified to concealed carry works that way, bo_sox48."

No, everyone who is concealed carry certified is *trained* that way. It says very little, maybe nothing, about how they decide to handle the gun.

"Besides, how many gun owners do you know?"

Let's see... my dad, my mom, a bunch of my older cousins, at least four of my uncles, three uncle-in-laws that I can think of off the top of my head that shoot (I don't know if they are certified to carry or own a gun), my neighbor, my other neighbor, my other neighbor, my first neighbor's son, a couple of my teachers... should I continue or do you get the point? My perception of them is that they are reasonable people, even if they tend to have really short tempers and wouldn't think twice about using it if the situation arose. My hope is that they aren't serial murderers or something like that, and the odds are insanely low, but I guarantee you that the Sandy Hook shooter or even the Florida shooter a few days back were not perceived as murderers by their family and friends either.

The *only* reason I support gun ownership (not automatics or semi-automatics) is because I have had plenty of tense run-ins with idiot cops that would probably hold me hostage in a dark basement if their supervisors gave them the authority to do so, and some departments are coming close to that kind of power.

@ bo_sox48

"The *only* reason I support gun ownership (not automatics or semi-automatics)"

Dude, this isn't 1875. Automatics are a fact of life. You can't just make them go away. The cops and the army have automatics, qualified citizens should be able to have automatics too, without jumping through 600 bureaucratic hoops like I had to. You wouldn't last 20 seconds in a modern shootout without at least semi-automatic capability.

"My perception of them is that they are reasonable people, even if they tend to have really short tempers and wouldn't think twice about using it if the situation arose"

Really? All of the people you listed all have really short tempers? It's a moot point I suppose; I just smell a little BS there.

"but I guarantee you that the Sandy Hook shooter or even the Florida shooter a few days back were not perceived as murderers by their family and friends either."

Of course not. No one would voluntarily remain friends with someone who they believed to have murder on their minds. We don't know much about the Florida gunman as of now, but as for the Sandy Hook shooter, that is an instance of irresponsible gun ownership. For God's sake, the shooter's mom provided the gun, knowing full well that her son was mentally unstable. But you shouldn't punish 100 million gun owners for the irresponsibility of one gun owner. That would be tantamount to locking up all of the black people just because one black person committed a robbery.

"The government has plenty of toys that are a thousand times more powerful than guns."

The Taliban has little more than some AK-47s held together by zip ties and duct tape, and so far they're holding out against "toys that are a thousand times more powerful than guns". The American government is very powerful (way too powerful, actually) but even the government would not stand a chance against 100 million angry, motivated, and armed citizens.

Gun... you really think the American people are ever going to pick up their automatic machine guns (just for you) and go shoot up the Capitol Building? If the Second Amendment is meant to give citizens the right to hold guns, it's not so that half the country can rebel against the government. Get rid of that idiotic idea and come back with something real like I said.

"But you shouldn't punish 100 million gun owners for the irresponsibility of one gun owner. That would be tantamount to locking up all of the black people just because one black person committed a robbery."

No, that wouldn't be anything close. Black people, despite what my Martinsville friends may think, aren't deadly weapons. They don't shoot out speeding pellets from their mouths. (And I'm pretty sure we locked up all the Japanese people because a very low number of them committed wrongful acts, and we still don't do shit to teach kids in schools these days how wrong that was; instead, we hide it and cover it up.)

I'm not arguing that the US shouldn't have decent military technology. I am arguing that if the United States would leave the Taliban and all those other countries across the seas alone, people like the Taliban and bin Laden wouldn't have used a string of hate against this country to get power in the first place and those countries would be stable places. Blame the USSR if you want, but the US could have avoided it all and still can.

"I'm pretty sure we locked up all the Japanese people because a very low number of them committed wrongful acts, and we still don't do shit to teach kids in schools these days how wrong that was; instead, we hide it and cover it up"

Then how the fuck do you, a high school student, know about it? Oh wait, you were *taught* it in school or your read it somewhere because *school* taught and encouraged you to read.

Draug, I was told that it happened. Maybe we had a unit for a few days on it.

And then we moved to concentration camps in Europe for the next three months. Because, you know, we never had concentration camps here.

"Blame the USSR if you want, but the US could have avoided it all and still can. "

Really? You musrt be deluded to think that religious extremists who view anyone who doesn't follow their views as worthy of death to be easily appeased by staying out of their business. Hell a Dutch newspaper prints a political cartoon depicting Allah in a negative light and the Muslim people get up in arms and call for the death of the artist. You think we can wish that kind of hate away with "good will" and non-interference. You are truly deluded.

Draug, it's not the Muslim people that get up in arms. It's the extremists that do that. Islam is not an extreme religion. It may very well be, between the three Biblical religions, the most peaceful in many ways.

And I'm not sure how the USSR was a country of religious extremists but whatever.

"It may very well be, between the three Biblical religions, the most peaceful in many ways."

Islam was founded by blood when Medina fell. Christianity and Judaism were founded by suffering in Palestine and Babylon. Therein lies the key difference.

And Draug wasn't calling the USSR a country of religious extremists.

Goldfinger, I don't consider any of the three religions peaceful at all. They aren't.

And no, he wasn't, I misread that. And while those people may not be appeased by us staying out, we are not benefiting at all from being over there. That ought to be the job of international coalitions like NATO or the UN or whoever else, not the United States and a little help from their friends every now and again.

But bo, even if the UN or NATO are the only ones to intervene, the radicals within Islam will still attack the natins viewed as running NATO and the UN, that is to say, the "West": the US, Germany, UK, France, Italy, etc.

No to change the topic.

I'm reading Hell's Angels now (a rare feat, I seldom read) and just came across this line "California's marijuana laws are among the most primitive manifestations of American politics." We've (you've?) come a long way but HST always has a good way of putting things.

Seeing as most forward thinking people tend to be on the same page with marijuana. It may be more interesting to see where people opinions extend to other drugs. Personally, I lean libertarian on the issue but it may be overstated in response to the common hysteria I normally hear on the topic.

Then Draug, looks like countries like the US should abandon their leadership position in the UN and let the nations that are supposedly united work as one.

Every group needs a leader, bo. Otherwise it'll end up like the Galactic Senate.

Then let the foreign reps lead. That's their job.

@ bo_sox48

"Gun... you really think the American people are ever going to pick up their automatic machine guns (just for you) and go shoot up the Capitol Building?"

No, of course not, because there are hardly any Americans who own automatic rifles these days. Ever since the blatantly unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934, machine guns have been damned difficult to get.

But the American people could pick up their semi-automatic weapons.

An armed revolution is plausible. Of course, an unlikely and disastrous chain of events would be necessary for the hypothetical revolution to precipitate, but you should not assume that the government is 100% in control. There are simply too many variables. What if the military defects, at least partially? I don't know of ANY servicemen who would gun down their own fellow citizens, orders be damned. What if all of the states with important oil terminals secede? No more oil for Big Brother.

"Black people, despite what my Martinsville friends may think, aren't deadly weapons. They don't shoot out speeding pellets from their mouths."

Well, guns aren't deadly weapons either, at least not by themselves. My gun does not shoot out slugs unless I or someone else tells it to do so. It is ALWAYS wrong to take away the rights of the many for the crimes of the few.

"I'm not arguing that the US shouldn't have decent military technology. I am arguing that if the United States would leave the Taliban and all those other countries across the seas alone, people like the Taliban and bin Laden wouldn't have used a string of hate against this country to get power in the first place and those countries would be stable places. Blame the USSR if you want, but the US could have avoided it all and still can."

^I agree with most if not all of that, but you changed the subject. We need to learn to mind our own goddamned business again, like we did in the old days. Countries/factions don't normally attack one another without provocation. Whenever we send our guys overseas, there's a chance that they won't have a pulse when they come home. America needs to become the "good guy" country by leaving everyone else the hell alone. The world does not need a police force, and our guys should not be put into harm's way attempting to serve as a world police force.