One big class action lawsuit coming up:

[Matthew]

Wouldnt that be a benefit though? Isn't that how species improve?

Would the new species kill off the old?

Cro Magnon and Neanderthal were contemporaries - only one survived.

 

[Cooter]

Would the new species kill off the old?

Cro Magnon and Neanderthal were contemporaries - only one survived.

Its the engine of improvement, why do we resist?

 

[Matthew]

Its the engine of improvement, why do we resist?

First one there is the winner.

"Idiocracy" is sort of depressing now.

 

[Cooter]

First one there is the winner.

"Idiocracy" is sort of depressing now.

Not following.

 

[Matthew]

Not following.

Well, if the first group into the new species manages to kill off the old species, that's progress.

But if the first group into the new species (see the movie "Idiocracy") is the group that should be extinct, then there's not much hope for the rest of us.

 

[Cooter]

Well, if the first group into the new species manages to kill off the old species, that's progress.

But if the first group into the new species (see the movie "Idiocracy") is the group that should be extinct, then there's not much hope for the rest of us.

Ok, I haven't seen it and didn't get the reference. Well I guess it hasn't happened yet so the odds are in our favor.

 

[Matthew]

Ok, I haven't seen it and didn't get the reference. Well I guess it hasn't happened yet so the odds are in our favor.

Here's how it starts:

 

[Cooter]

Here's how it starts:

That gave me a good laugh. The affliction of affluence!

 

[Rushie]

And having a gun handy changes these stories?

There is a school of thought that having a gun provides you attacker with one.

Not sure what your point is. There is also a school of thought that UFOs are kidnapping people and doing experiments on them. Doesn't make it true.

First problem is, certainly there are cases where someone's gun has been taken and used against them. But statistics used for that argument always ignore all the times guns have saved people. Only the times where someone is shot are reported to police but these are not usually published in the news. But a gun never fired is used multiple more times to prevent crimes. These are never in your data.

Had my friend who was leaving the bar had a gun on his hip, when the attackers approached him, he might have merely swept back his jacket and let them see the gun. They then would have turned tail and left him alone. This exact thing happened to my brother. Nothing to report because no crime happened, these never get into your data.

"Having a gun handy" would have changed these stories if the victims had been trained properly. This is why we enrolled our teenage girls in intensive civilian firearms self defense courses. As they were young women going out into the world, we weren't going to just give them a handgun and expect them to automatically use it properly if ever needed. That's nuts. It's like putting someone into a plane and telling them to fly it with no lessons.

Carrying a gun is about so much more than just carrying a gun. It's about situational awareness first of all. The first lesson is to be alert to your surroundings and ready to extract yourself from suspicious situations before it's ever necessary to pull a gun.

But if it comes to that, you know how to position yourself and how to carry it so it cannot be removed easily from you, you know how to draw very fast and shoot without hesitation, you learn to fire while moving quickly backwards and how to never let people get the jump on you.

You get the idea, I could go on. But if you say "but most people don't bother to get such training" my response is, "The gun still might save them. And if it doesn't, the outcome probably would have been the same anyway."

If someone wants to rape or kill you and they don't already have a gun, they will do it regardless, unless you are physically big and strong enough to repel them, and even if you are, what if there are multiple assailants?

Speaking of physical strength, guns are most needed by women, small or weak men, the elderly and the disabled. First, they are more likely to be targets to start with and second, they are outmatched by their attacker even if trained in martial arts or self defense. Only guns level the field for the smaller, the weak and the single person facing multiple attackers. But anyone, even a black belt master, could end up in that last category. Karate-ing your way out of 5 assailants looks good in the movies- real life not so much.

 

[Cooter]

First problem is, certainly there are cases where someone's gun has been taken and used against them. But statistics used for that argument always ignore all the times guns have saved people. Only the times where someone is shot are reported to police but these are not usually published in the news. But a gun never fired is used multiple more times to prevent crimes. These are never in your data.

I was going to quote some stats, but this guy has included some good ones in this article.
https://gunsources.com/guns-save-lives/

Gun owners defend themselves or their homes more than criminals use guns to commit crimes.

 

[FastEddieB]

My Florida permit is widely accepted, but it changes all the time. Whenever I'm going out of state I check to make sure it's still honored everywhere I'll be.

Reciprocity has been in work for a while. I think it will get there eventually.

Coincidentally, for our trip to Barber in AL I had to check for reciprocity with GA:

 

[denverpilot]

Talk about being dishonest. You take the cake. A silly toy. Really?? I can't think of ONE toy, silly or otherwise that I could use to wound 500 people and kill 58 others. Your either being dishonest, or you should reconsider your understanding of the word toy.

Hmmm I can think of a number of toys that could easily be used for deadly purposes. But anyway...

The reason it’s a “toy” is not literal. It’s figurative. It’s a “toy” because it’s unnecessary. Ten minutes of practice at a range will rapid fire any modern firearm. A couple of afternoons will easily perfect reloading technique for anyone who has mediocre or better dexterity. Five days, and you could do it with a difficult style of firearm. Or actually add some accuracy to the rapid fire.

A bump stock is essentially, a spring. You could mildly accelerate rates of fire with something as benign as a rubber band.

It’s just recoil and a bounce. Pretty boring really. Hold the pistol or rifle still and let the recoil bounce your finger on the trigger. With a rifle you can do it with your shoulder. With a pistol you need something to rest on or a pistol that will consistently fire while being “limp-wristed”.

Part of that is this desire for everyone to play fair and be nice, then we don't need to worry about security and safety.

There’s a pretty solid bit of study that says Millennials have an overinflated desire for “fairness”. I won’t pretend to know much about it, but it’s a thing.

A recent similar study shows very little of that trait in the next generation behind them.

Seems most of my gun totin', shoot'em all and let God sort'em out redneck type friends are against the bump stocks. Imagine that.

Just give whirled peas a chance....

Personally I don’t care if they’re banned or not. It’s just politicians having a knee jerk to appease a particular demographic. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows any garage has stuff that can replicate it, and that ten minutes of practice removes any need for such things.

Incrementalism, they ban this then they say well you can do it with your finger we can't ban fingers so we need to ban...blah blah blah.

Just be honest. They want the guns banned.

Incrementalism is just a way to pretend to show “success” with bans of accessories.

I agree that incrementalism is part of the plan, but incrementalism isn't the strategy itself to limit firearms. Incrementalism is being used as the method by which we are conditioned into believing that firearms are dangerous, unnecessary, de-stabilizing, etc. The goal is to change our attitudes towards firearms, and they do that one small step at a time. On that front, I would say the ant-gunners are making good progress.

You should see what governments do with them.

The funniest part of the last week is that the same people who have been claiming a certain politician is literally Hitler, and all country music fans are Nazis, now want that same politician to ban firearms and only law enforcement to have them. Hmmm. Cute isn’t it?

To borrow a phrase: “Bold move, Cotton. Let us know how that works out for you!”

I don’t think they’re having quite the “success” they might think they are. The majority of people are realists when push comes to shove. They know 300 million plus people with firearms aren’t nuts and aren’t any real problem to anyone. They’d know it if they were.

There’s a doofus on Facebook right now who posted that the real problem was the Vegas guy had too many guns. When I pointed out that he could have done everything he did with one gun, maybe two, if he was concerned about a malfunction, he doubled down and has gone on for multiple responses, claiming switching rifles is faster than changing a magazine.

When I pointed out that’s demonstrably false (competition shooters don’t speed up their times by dropping guns and picking up different ones, and Armies don’t bring six rifles for every person in a squad to speed up their rate of fire... these aren’t muskets... and anyone going for any sort of accuracy sure isn’t going to want to switch arms constantly...), he still continues to believe his made up story.

Because it’s his. He wants to believe himself. He doesn’t want that belief tested.

So I asked how much he shoots. Vague answer back about having gone shooting before. I’m guessing once, or twice.

He’s just making crap up and going with it. Which is most of what the typical non-shooter does about firearms.

If you handed them one and asked them to make sure it wasn’t loaded, they’d likely blow a hole in something trying to figure it out. (Maybe you. Not recommended.)

But they are tactical experts on the Internet. Boy howdy.

Kinda fun to mess with at cocktail parties, though.

More fun: He thinks I’m heavily invested in the conversation. I think I answered one of his posts while sitting on the can this morning. LOL.

 

[denverpilot]

Coincidentally, for our trip to Barber in AL I had to check for reciprocity with GA:

Haha. Was just looking at that map and wondering what problem Nebraska (of all places) and New Mexico have with Florida. LOL.

Too many Florida Man jokes?

 

[Skyrys62]

Carrying a gun is about so much more than just carrying a gun. It's about situational awareness first of all. The first lesson is to be alert to your surroundings

Agree.

First, they are more likely to be targets to start with and second, they are outmatched by their attacker even if trained in martial arts or self defense.

Agree again.
And, most everyone is outmatched by someone with a weapon, regardless of size or training.

Up close, a gun is about the only thing that will help deter a knife attacker, even then, you'll need to be alert, and ready to get it and use it.
Like already mentioned, if you're in a situation where you can flash the gun, it may diffuse the situation and avoid it altogether.
It may escalate it, especially if they step back and pull a gun too, but if you're at the ready, they are less likely, and..you've put some distance between you, which is usually desirable.

 

[mkosmo]

Talk about being dishonest. You take the cake. A silly toy. Really?? I can't think of ONE toy, silly or otherwise that I could use to wound 500 people and kill 58 others. Your either being dishonest, or you should reconsider your understanding of the word toy.

You say this "toy" was designed to send a lot of lead downrange quickly, but that it was not designed to do massive damage. What a load of BS. Why send a whole magazine of lead downrange as rapidly as possible if not to do damage? What, do people buy these idiot things to fire into the air, or into a pond? Do they load the gun with blanks? I think not. They are intended to tear things up.

There are only two reasons to buy one, one is to project a lot of destructive force onto harmless targets like TV sets, junk cars, jugs full of liquid, exploding targets, or any other random junk people can dream up, solely for the purpose of entertainment. The other reason is to shoot people as fast as you can solely for the purpose to incapacitate or kill those people. Either way, it is designed to aid you in doing massive damage.

The gun nut bravado in this thread is a little sickening in this thread in light of what has happened.

To steal the analogies from earlier in the thread: You may as well say the same of everything else that has been adapted and abused to cause mass casualties, from trucks and pressure cookers, to everyday fertilizer. If you consider shooting inanimate objects to be massive damage, do you consider wear and tear on the road to be the same? I mean, after the past year, I can't wait for the UK to ban automobiles.

 

[Axtel4]

To steal the analogies from earlier in the thread: You may as well say the same of everything else that has been adapted and abused to cause mass casualties, from trucks and pressure cookers, to everyday fertilizer. If you consider shooting inanimate objects to be massive damage, do you consider wear and tear on the road to be the same? I mean, after the past year, I can't wait for the UK to ban automobiles.

I have thought the same thing. The UK had another incident yesterday.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-pavement-outside-Natural-History-Museum.html

From the article:
"Today's incident follows a series of vehicle attacks across Europe which have left well over 100 people dead in Britain, France, Germany and Stockholm."

 

[DFH65]

While I doubt we will ever know the whole truth and I realize this has the potential to get me labeled as a conspiracy theorist. I don't think this is just a guy who snapped. There was too much planning on his part. I believe there is more to the story and at least what we have been told so far doesn't add up. The 23 or 24 guns is purposeful, the bump stocks were purposeful, the tanerite was purposeful. As mentioned by @denverpilot more guns does not equal more actual lead down range. I could see a maybe four or five guns and that is if he had a few staged for "fighting his way out" or "making a last stand" but 23-24 along with the other things I mentioned is making a statement of some sort. Now finding out exactly what that statement is might take awhile. It could be as simple as crazy runs in the family and he was trying to one up his father.

 

[timwinters]

Y'all don't actually think life is fair?

I learned at a very early age, when I was whining to dad, "that's not fair!!"

and his response was, "son, you'll find that the only thing fair in life is where the 4H kids take their animals."

 

[Half Fast]

Haha. Was just looking at that map and wondering what problem Nebraska (of all places) and New Mexico have with Florida. LOL.

Too many Florida Man jokes?

FL permit is valid in Nebraska and New Mexico. Eddie is in GA.

Permit reciprocity hinges on several factors, like differences between states in training requirements or minimum age. Similar differences exist for driver's licenses and the states are okay with that. I'd like to see nationwide reciprocity. Right now a state can stop honoring another state's permits on a whim.

 

[FastEddieB]

Though not absolute, Karen and I will avoid or expedite travel through states that do not honor our CCW licenses.

Aside #1: I see VA is new on the list of states honoring our GA licenses.

Aside #2: When traveling into a non-reciprocal state, we are always nervous about how to comply. We usually unload the pistols and put them in a suitcase or equivalent and the magazines separate. Yet in Chicago or DC that may or may not be enough to avoid a charge if push ever came to shove, depending on exactly how their laws are written.

Aside #3: In the police academy, I recall a video of a scenario where a traffic stop was being simulated. The officers correctly placed their vehicles about 30' behind the subject vehicle. The driver immediately exited with a rubber knife and ran directly back towards the officer. In most cases, he was on them and stabbing before they could react and draw their weapons. Eye opening. Probably a similar exercise can be found on YouTube.

Aside #4: In critiquing many of the recent police shootings, in my opinion one contributing factor was the officer getting way too close - think Michael Brown or the kid with the toy gun. The whole point of a firearm is to be able to affect things at a distance!

 

[Ravioli]

I don't really understand your point here. Are you saying we don't need either? Or, that it is worthless discuss our need for either?

The last part. Once the discussion degrades to "is it needed" the lines are drawn and there is little chance of changing anyone's mind (or heart).

I know anti-gun atheists and pistol packing bible thumpers. Talk about different perceptions of '"need."

 

[Rushie]

Though not absolute, Karen and I will avoid or expedite travel through states that do not honor our CCW licenses.

Aside #1: I see VA is new on the list of states honoring our GA licenses.

Aside #2: When traveling into a non-reciprocal state, we are always nervous about how to comply. We usually unload the pistols and put them in a suitcase or equivalent and the magazines separate. Yet in Chicago or DC that may or may not be enough to avoid a charge if push ever came to shove, depending on exactly how their laws are written.

Aside #3: In the police academy, I recall a video of a scenario where a traffic stop was being simulated. The officers correctly placed their vehicles about 30' behind the subject vehicle. The driver immediately exited with a rubber knife and ran directly back towards the officer. In most cases, he was on them and stabbing before they could react and draw their weapons. Eye opening. Probably a similar exercise can be found on YouTube.

Aside #4: In critiquing many of the recent police shootings, in my opinion one contributing factor was the officer getting way too close - think Michael Brown or the kid with the toy gun. The whole point of a firearm is to be able to affect things at a distance!

It's a sad secret that cops' training in actual handgun combat is pretty thin. It's well inferior to even amateur competition match shooters. We had cops in our classes and matches because that's where they could get good.

 

[brian]]

Not sure what your point is. There is also a school of thought that UFOs are kidnapping people and doing experiments on them. Doesn't make it true.

First problem is, certainly there are cases where someone's gun has been taken and used against them. But statistics used for that argument always ignore all the times guns have saved people. Only the times where someone is shot are reported to police but these are not usually published in the news. But a gun never fired is used multiple more times to prevent crimes. These are never in your data.

Had my friend who was leaving the bar had a gun on his hip, when the attackers approached him, he might have merely swept back his jacket and let them see the gun. They then would have turned tail and left him alone. This exact thing happened to my brother. Nothing to report because no crime happened, these never get into your data.

"Having a gun handy" would have changed these stories if the victims had been trained properly. This is why we enrolled our teenage girls in intensive civilian firearms self defense courses. As they were young women going out into the world, we weren't going to just give them a handgun and expect them to automatically use it properly if ever needed. That's nuts. It's like putting someone into a plane and telling them to fly it with no lessons.

Carrying a gun is about so much more than just carrying a gun. It's about situational awareness first of all. The first lesson is to be alert to your surroundings and ready to extract yourself from suspicious situations before it's ever necessary to pull a gun.

But if it comes to that, you know how to position yourself and how to carry it so it cannot be removed easily from you, you know how to draw very fast and shoot without hesitation, you learn to fire while moving quickly backwards and how to never let people get the jump on you.

You get the idea, I could go on. But if you say "but most people don't bother to get such training" my response is, "The gun still might save them. And if it doesn't, the outcome probably would have been the same anyway."

If someone wants to rape or kill you and they don't already have a gun, they will do it regardless, unless you are physically big and strong enough to repel them, and even if you are, what if there are multiple assailants?

Speaking of physical strength, guns are most needed by women, small or weak men, the elderly and the disabled. First, they are more likely to be targets to start with and second, they are outmatched by their attacker even if trained in martial arts or self defense. Only guns level the field for the smaller, the weak and the single person facing multiple attackers. But anyone, even a black belt master, could end up in that last category. Karate-ing your way out of 5 assailants looks good in the movies- real life not so much.

Actually the training for young women is a very good idea.

Also consider a martial art. My wife did KukSulWan but TAE Kwan Do is pretty popular. It is a good defensive philosophy, teaches coordination and much more.

To be honest, "hand to hand combat " is more likely to be needed in every day life than a gun.

 

[Rushie]

Actually the training for young women is a very good idea.

Also consider a martial art. My wife did KukSulWan but TAE Kwan Do is pretty popular. It is a good defensive philosophy, teaches coordination and much more.

To be honest, "hand to hand combat " is more likely to be needed in every day life than a gun.

Oh yes. We also had our girls in martial arts from the second grade. Our eldest is now a 6th degree black belt and the youngest is "only" a second degree I believe.

 

[mkosmo]

FL permit is valid in Nebraska and New Mexico. Eddie is in GA.

Permit reciprocity hinges on several factors, like differences between states in training requirements or minimum age. Similar differences exist for driver's licenses and the states are okay with that. I'd like to see nationwide reciprocity. Right now a state can stop honoring another state's permits on a whim.

Absolutely. I mean states like Oregon that honor nearly no other state licenses is just spitting in the face of full faith and credit.

Though not absolute, Karen and I will avoid or expedite travel through states that do not honor our CCW licenses.

Aside #1: I see VA is new on the list of states honoring our GA licenses.

Aside #2: When traveling into a non-reciprocal state, we are always nervous about how to comply. We usually unload the pistols and put them in a suitcase or equivalent and the magazines separate. Yet in Chicago or DC that may or may not be enough to avoid a charge if push ever came to shove, depending on exactly how their laws are written.

Aside #3: In the police academy, I recall a video of a scenario where a traffic stop was being simulated. The officers correctly placed their vehicles about 30' behind the subject vehicle. The driver immediately exited with a rubber knife and ran directly back towards the officer. In most cases, he was on them and stabbing before they could react and draw their weapons. Eye opening. Probably a similar exercise can be found on YouTube.

Aside #4: In critiquing many of the recent police shootings, in my opinion one contributing factor was the officer getting way too close - think Michael Brown or the kid with the toy gun. The whole point of a firearm is to be able to affect things at a distance!

I similarly avoid states that won't honor my permit, or at least allow some kind of protection. The one I ran in to most with my TX CHL/LTC was Illinois, but now they allow travelers the ability to carry in their car (but only their car). In other states, I'd comply with federal transport laws.

 

[Cooter]

The last part. Once the discussion degrades to "is it needed" the lines are drawn and there is little chance of changing anyone's mind (or heart).

I know anti-gun atheists and pistol packing bible thumpers. Talk about different perceptions of '"need."

"Need" should never be part of this conversation, I agree. That's why I wanted him to outline his criteria for what a needs is. His idea of needs will be based on his subjective perception, as will everyone else's. That's why the conversation about gun rights needs to be focused on the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

 

[mkosmo]

"Need" should never be part of this conversation, I agree. That's why I wanted him to outline his criteria for what a needs is. His idea of needs will be based on his subjective perception, as will everyone else's. That's why the conversation about gun rights needs to be focused on the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

Nothing is ever "needed" until it is. Seatbelts and airbags are a reasonable metaphor.

 

[Ravioli]

When it comes down to it, "need" and "want" are pre-loaded words. <-- pun intended

If you "need" a drink your an alcoholic but if you "want" a drink your okay.

If you "want" a particular weapon you are asked about why you "need" it.

Don't even get me started about "wanting" or "needing" to terminate a pregnancy.

So as you may see, the "discussion" ends when those particular words are used.

 

[brian]]

Meh- I've always considered the 2A argument a bit of a stretch. I'm good with the conversation that we are overly regulated. The 2A argument has been a good strategic move by the NRA.

Let's push this word "need" for a second. Location: mid west. Would you rather
A. Not have a car
B. Not have a gun

I suppose we could just go with the strict reading..

Anyway- it seems in America you are either conservative or liberal. I could never identify with either. I guess I'm just a dumb old RINO...

 

[Norman]

"Need" should never be part of this conversation, I agree. That's why I wanted him to outline his criteria for what a needs is. His idea of needs will be based on his subjective perception, as will everyone else's. That's why the conversation about gun rights needs to be focused on the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

Cooter,

You are correct about the 'need'. What follows is my perception:

I have carried, off and on, for the last forty years and with the exception of once needing to convince a very angry German Shepherd that if he came any closer he would be the loser. Other than that occasion I have never had to draw my weapon. However,one never knows when the 'need' to do so may arise. It may be when you are filling your car with gas and someone tries to hijack it. That, to me, indicates a 'need' for being able to defend one's self. (A short PS is in order.Given that is so easy to do I lock the car when entering the gas satation making it a bit more difficult to enter.)

Same applies to a home invasion. The perp is intent on one or two things; stealing your possessions or inflicting bodily harm on you and your loved ones. If you have your gun locked in the safe and the intruder is armed you might as well give your soul to your deity of choice because the perpetrator has the advantage and with only your bare hands you don't stand much of a chance against him.

I am a life member of NRA and a firm believer in The Second Amendment but I would certainly like to see a better way of preventing criminals from obtaining guns. Perhaps better enforcement of federal laws with long prison sentences for violators in a federal pen would help deter them but those laws need to be enforced much better than they were in the previous administration.

I am friends with some sheriff's deputies and they have given me much better information about carrying and the responsibilities that accompany it than did my initial training.

Considering what I have said above I do not consider myself John Wayne or Wyatt Earp; just another citizen who wishes to go his way in peace but be prepared to defend myself or others should the 'need' arise. Hence, I seldom leave home without my sidearm and hope I never have to use it against another human.

FYI, I live alone so have no need to secure my weapon from young and inexperienced hands.

 

[Rushie]

Meh- I've always considered the 2A argument a bit of a stretch. I'm good with the conversation that we are overly regulated. The 2A argument has been a good strategic move by the NRA.

Let's push this word "need" for a second. Location: mid west. Would you rather
A. Not have a car
B. Not have a gun

I suppose we could just go with the strict reading..

Anyway- it seems in America you are either conservative or liberal. I could never identify with either. I guess I'm just a dumb old RINO...

If you really want to get down to it, none of us "need" anything beyond shelter from the elements, water and food. But it's nice to have stuff in addition.

To turn it around, we are now told we "need" things that we all got along perfectly fine without until some expert told us otherwise. Flu shots. Car seats for the babies. There's a good one, my two kids were in a car seat every single ride of their lives until the age/weight they graduated to seat belts. We never- not once- had an accident with them in the car their entire childhood. In retrospect we didn't "need" to have them in car seats at all.

 

[Cooter]

Meh- I've always considered the 2A argument a bit of a stretch.

What part? I'm not seeing which part could be stretched. Do you think it was specific to the time period and doesn't apply now?

 

[Norman]

Meh- I've always considered the 2A argument a bit of a stretch. I'm good with the conversation that we are overly regulated. The 2A argument has been a good strategic move by the NRA.

Let's push this word "need" for a second. Location: mid west. Would you rather
A. Not have a car
B. Not have a gun

I suppose we could just go with the strict reading..

Anyway- it seems in America you are either conservative or liberal. I could never identify with either. I guess I'm just a dumb old RINO...

Brian,

IMO it not the best strategic move by the NRA but was proposed by the founders of our great nation to preserve human rights from being usurped by the King of England who detested the thought of the colonies having the nerve to declare independence and was willing to take over by force.

Now, consider what the militia was back then. It was not the National Guard as some would profess. It was the armed citizenry who had and were able to bear arms against tyranny and in defense of the newly established nation as well as in defense of themselves and others.

Our forefathers had the insight to realize that at some point in history our elected government would become corrupt and wanting power to rule over us. An armed citizenry can put the stops to government takeover.

 

[Cooter]

If you really want to get down to it, none of us "need" anything beyond shelter from the elements, water and food. But it's nice to have stuff in addition.

To turn it around, we are now told we "need" things that we all got along perfectly fine without until some expert told us otherwise. Flu shots. Car seats for the babies. There's a good one, my two kids were in a car seat every single ride of their lives until the age/weight they graduated to seat belts. We never- not once- had an accident with them in the car their entire childhood. In retrospect we didn't "need" to have them in car seats at all.

We're so conditioned to believe gov't knows best and to accept their definitions of responsibility and safety. I grew up in a family that never wore seatbelts, ever. I can't think of a single time I ever wore a seatbelt before I started driving myself. We would also ride in the back of pick-ups sitting on the bed rails or standing up behind the cab. None of us ever got hurt. The worst of it was probably getting something in your eye in the back of the truck when all the hay debris would fly around at highway speeds.

I had a relative that married into the family and she grew up under very different circumstances. They lived about 300yds down a private drive from our house and she would make the kids get buckled into the car seats when driving between the two houses. She would also get furious if she found out we didn't do it. It was gravel and he speed would never be over 15mph.

 

[brian]]

What part? I'm not seeing which part could be stretched. Do you think it was specific to the time period and doesn't apply now?

Well, my wife is a deputy prosecutor- much more capable at reading the actual constitution and related law than it. So you will miss her read of the law.

Regardless, the 2A does not state things as clearly as I've heard many say. The word militia in there doesn't help either.

Then you have to take in case law - basically where the court rules previously. This is why the uber liberal and uber conservative try to stack the courts with like minded individuals.

 

[brian]]

Brian,

IMO it not the best strategic move by the NRA but was proposed by the founders of our great nation to preserve human rights from being usurped by the King of England who detested the thought of the colonies having the nerve to declare independence and was willing to take over by force.

Now, consider what the militia was back then. It was not the National Guard as some would profess. It was the armed citizenry who had and were able to bear arms against tyranny and in defense of the newly established nation as well as in defense of themselves and others.

Our forefathers had the insight to realize that at some point in history our elected government would become corrupt and wanting power to rule over us. An armed citizenry can put the stops to government takeover.

On that one- I wouldn't last long against my former self in the army.

Different world today.

 

[azblackbird]

We're so conditioned to believe gov't knows best and to accept their definitions of responsibility and safety. I grew up in a family that never wore seatbelts, ever. I can't think of a single time I ever wore a seatbelt before I started driving myself. We would also ride in the back of pick-ups sitting on the bed rails or standing up behind the cab. None of us ever got hurt. The worst of it was probably getting something in your eye in the back of the truck when all the hay debris would fly around at highway speeds.

Sounds like you and I had the same upbringing.

Mom or Dad's arms were our seatbelts when I was a little kid. Laying in the back window of the car looking up at the sky was my "spaceship".

 

[Rushie]

Sounds like you and I had the same upbringing.

Mom or Dad's arms were our seatbelts when I was a little kid. Laying in the back window of the car looking up at the sky was my "spaceship".

Me three. Babies when tiny were laid on a blanket in the front seat when mom drove them to the pediatrician. We all sat (laid, stood on our heads, tackled each other) all over the back seat and the "way back" of the station wagon on family trips.

But to be fair those of us who "were just fine growing up without seatbelts" are the ones who lived to tell. A friend of mine had a friend whose two year child fell out of the station wagon's back window and was killed. (Back then we used to drive with open windows in the summer. There was no such thing as car air conditioning.)

 

[Half Fast]

Well, my wife is a deputy prosecutor- much more capable at reading the actual constitution and related law than it. So you will miss her read of the law.

Regardless, the 2A does not state things as clearly as I've heard many say. The word militia in there doesn't help either.

Then you have to take in case law - basically where the court rules previously. This is why the uber liberal and uber conservative try to stack the courts with like minded individuals.

I believe the USSC clarified the 2A pretty well in the Heller decision. Still more work to do, but it was a good start.

 

[Norman]

Well, my wife is a deputy prosecutor- much more capable at reading the actual constitution and related law than it. So you will miss her read of the law.

Regardless, the 2A does not state things as clearly as I've heard many say. The word militia in there doesn't help either.

Then you have to take in case law - basically where the court rules previously. This is why the uber liberal and uber conservative try to stack the courts with like minded individuals.