Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Obama: Don't stock up on guns"
From a Chicago Sun-Times story titled "Obama: Don't stock up on guns":
As gun sales shoot up around the country, President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday that gun-owning Americans do not need to rush out and stock up before he is sworn in next month.
"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."...
Nationally, background checks for gun purchases jumped nearly 49 percent during the week Obama was elected, compared with the same time period last year, according to the FBI's National Instant Background Check System.
Reason's Jacob Sullum summed up his take on Obama's Second Amendment bona fides thus:
Obama's reading of the Second Amendment is so narrow that he sees no constitutional problem with the Washington, D.C., gun ban that was overturned by the Supreme Court or a similar law in Chicago. Maybe he supports the right to own a disassembled rifle and the right to defend ourselves with pointy sticks, but in practice his position is pretty much the same as that of gun controllers who continue to insist that the Second Amendment protects no rights the government need respect.
And Reason's Brian Doherty has written a book on the D.C. v. Heller case, which everyone should read.
Hat tip to Sun-Times story: Dan Gifford.
Colonel George Taylor|12.8.08 @ 6:24PM|#
I believe in common-sense gun safety laws
Buy the unsafe ones now while you have the chance.
MNG|12.8.08 @ 6:33PM|#
He's pretty bad on concealed carry from what I've read. I doubt Congress would send him anything outside of a "gun show loophole" bill though, which McCain would have signed as well.
BDB|12.8.08 @ 6:34PM|#
There are too many southern and western Democrats for the Congress to send him much of anything. It would be filibustered.
|12.8.08 @ 6:34PM|#
Why does he have to complain about one of the few parts of the
economy showing exciting growth this year? That's hardly any way to
boost economic expectations and future growth.
/keynesian
Jordan|12.8.08 @ 6:36PM|#
Straight from this lying moron's website:
Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
So, as long as you don't want to own an Evil Black Rifle (which is
functionally identical to a hunting rifle), or sell your guns to
another individual, or want to own a gun which will be readily
available for self-defense, then yeah, nothing to fear.
CPL|12.8.08 @ 6:38PM|#
"Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear"
Except unlawful gun users.
I used my stimulus check correctly.
New Ruger KP95PR 9mm. Made in America.
And a few lbs of powder to reload the .223's for the AR15.
Priceless.
Colonel George Taylor|12.8.08 @ 6:42PM|#
"Oh my God. I'm back...I'm home. All the time, it was...we finally really did it!! You maniacs! You elected him! Ah, damn you! God...damn you all to hell!"
|12.8.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Someone around here said it well a while ago: Obama believes in reasonable restrictions on guns, and that all restrictions are reasonable.
jasno|12.8.08 @ 6:51PM|#
I'm sure that the fear of future restrictions is driving gun
sales to some degree, but what about the economy?
I don't own guns, but I've been considering purchasing a shotgun
for home protection given the faltering economy.
I don't suppose there's any good data on that. They don't ask for a
reason on the background check form, do they?
DannyK|12.8.08 @ 6:58PM|#
If they could get away with it, Ben & Jerry's would be
circulating rumors that Obama will ban cookie dough ice cream...
better fill up your freezer now, there won't be any after January
20th!
If only H.L. Mencken could be here to watch the show.
|12.8.08 @ 7:09PM|#
Given both his legislative track record, and his statements with
regard to guns, I do not consider it unreasonable that further
restrictions will be placed up the buying and selling of firearms
by the Obama administration.
I fully expect them to pass probably a half-dozen new gun laws, and
would be unsurprised to see a renewal of the ban on so-called
"assault weapons."
Viewed through that lens, I am unsurprised by the panic
buying.
After all, there was a huge run on guns when Clinton took office
before the original "assault weapon" ban was instituted. Why would
anyone consider it ludicrous to purchase a weapon that might end up
being prohibited, when the web page of the president elect speaks
to renewing that exact same ban?
|12.8.08 @ 7:15PM|#
jasno,
That did it for me. My purchase had nothing to do with Obama and
everything to do with the impending economic catastrophe likely to
hit (continue hitting) my area. I live in Detroit.
|12.8.08 @ 7:16PM|#
DannyK
If they could get away with it, Ben & Jerry's would be
circulating rumors that Obama will ban cookie dough ice
cream
If Obama's track record wrt to ice-cream was the same as it has
been for undermining the 2nd Amendment, they'd be right to stock
up.
|12.8.08 @ 7:20PM|#
(...and now for a little troll baiting.)
Well, gun ownership and paranoia do seem to go hand in hand.
|12.8.08 @ 7:23PM|#
I like to give my trade to the local merchants whenever possible. Like CPL, my stimulus check went to my local gun dealer on the outskirts of Chicago. My new Glock 19 is a very fine conceal carry instrument. Unfortunately, Illinois is one of only two states with no conceal carry. We have Czar Daly to thank for that. Bastard.
|12.8.08 @ 7:24PM|#
C'mon now, ain't it possible that the nice Pres.Elect/Senator
from Illinois is just considering a variety of topics that could
help solve the current economic situation? Maybe there is a case to
be made for legislation against hoarding (soon to be
legally defined). There were laws against hoarding during other
crisis times i.e. WW1 and WW2. I wouldn't be surprised if the
current government can come up with creative reasons why it is BAD
for the economy. Just think, if people started buying and hoarding
SUVs and 4x4s * Wouldn't that make it extremely difficult for
slimy politicians .. er elected officials to
make political hay take credit for saving the
unions and their contributions American jobs
by bailing out the Detroit 2.5 auto makers?
/sarcasm>
* same point, different product, see DannyK 6:58 above
Dave W.|12.8.08 @ 7:29PM|#
Gun nuts go nuts for guns. Whoopee. I am sure that Sonny went cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs the morning after Obama / Biden won and that someone stole Lucky's Lucky Charms on the night before.
David Ross|12.8.08 @ 7:33PM|#
I don't much like CS Lewis, but he did comment on a certain
personality type in some of his books... some insufferable lady
whining, "I'm only asking for a small amount of capers on
my salmon, and on bread that is just the teensiest bit toasted". A
similar turn of phrase is found in computer manuals:
"simply do plug z into the Q slot [in some inaccessible,
tiny, brittle part of the motherboard]".
That woman isn't making a moderate request; she's calling you
inconsiderate for not catering to her whim. This computer manual
isn't asking you to do something simple; it's calling you a moron.
And Obama isn't recommending reasonable gun laws; he's calling us
lunatics.
|12.8.08 @ 7:46PM|#
Based on my googling, it seems that the "legal" assault weapons
produced in response to the AWB are just as functional as their
predecessors.
Could someone please tell me the actual benefit of buying the real
deal today rather than wait till after they re-enact the AWB?
|12.8.08 @ 7:51PM|#
"Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that
throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different
during the transition. I think people can take me at my
word."
I think people are stocking up because they are taking Obama at his
word about his creative interpretation of the Second.
|12.8.08 @ 7:55PM|#
Perhaps if Obama wanted to stimulate the economy, he could start hinting at banning other products, causing the sales to -- er -- shoot up.
Jordan|12.8.08 @ 7:56PM|#
If they could get away with it, Ben & Jerry's would be circulating rumors that Obama will ban cookie dough ice cream... better fill up your freezer now, there won't be any after January 20th!
Yeah, it's not like we have a voting record and a website (which I
linked and you ignored) to go on. Nope, we poor dumb rubes are just
being manipulated by the eeevil gun companies.
Could someone please tell me the actual benefit of buying the real deal today rather than wait till after they re-enact the AWB?
Because the fascist pricks will have learned from their
mistake.
|12.8.08 @ 7:59PM|#
Mark-
Now probably wouldn't be a good time to buy, as the increase in
demand has driven prices up and availability down.
However, for those wishing to hedge their bets, it makes sense in
that you would have a firearm that, though it is functionally no
different from one that existed under the ban, would still have all
of the "evil features" on it.
During the previous ban, there were many, many debates regarding
whether or not this-or-that modification to a ban-era firearm would
be a violation of the law, whereas those who'd purchased what came
to be known as pre-ban guns weren't hampered by such
restrictions.
Also, during the ban, pre-ban guns commanded a hefty price premium
over their politically correct cousins.
There is also the chance that a new ban would essentially be a new
law altogether, one that is fundamentally more strict and specific
than the previous one. To believe that they only wish to
re-institute the previously byzantine but ultimately useless law
means taking a politician at his word.
Really, the biggest issue, at least speaking as a competitive
shooter, is the one dealing with magazine capacities. The
limitations imposed by the previous law drove the price of pre-ban
magazines through the roof while making it a felony for anyone
except law enforcement or the military to possess the post-ban
magazines. Essentially, it would have meant being convicted of a
felony and being thrown in PMITA federal prison simply for owning a
stamped sheet-metal box.
cjr|12.8.08 @ 8:01PM|#
"They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns
in this country childproof. They also support making the expired
federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."
Considering that this would eliminate my ability to participate in
my favorite sport, I don't see stocking up as all that bad an
idea.
Lefiti|12.8.08 @ 8:22PM|#
Could somebody pass this on to Reb jacob Sullum:
In Judaism, safety is a religious concern. The Bible requires that
a roof be properly gated, in order to prevent people from falling
off of it (Deuteronomy 22:8). This commandment is understood by the
Talmud as a general directive to remove any safety hazard (Bava
Kamma 15b; Shulchan Aruch CM 427:8). Contemporary rabbinic
authorities include in this commandment an employer's
responsibility to ensure occupational safety (Piskei Uziel 47) and
an injunction against reckless driving (Minchat Yitzchak 8:148).
Someone who refuses to remove a safety hazard can be punished by
excommunication (YD 334:7). In general, safety regulations are
treated with far greater stringency than any other section of
halacha (YD 116:7). Clearly, any Jewish view of gun control would
place high value on safety.
In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun
control. There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma
79a). One who owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal
chains at all times (CM 409:3). Even if the dog is defanged or
trained not to harm people, it must be chained because it may
frighten strangers, and as a result may cause stress related
injuries such as miscarriage and heart attacks (Shabbat 63b). One
of the more pious Rabbis, Rabbi Pinchas Ben Yair, was so stringent
about this law that he refused to own mules, because they can
occasionally cause injury (Hullin 7b; Terumat Hadeshen 2:105).
However, there were instances where allowances were made. In border
communities, where there is a threat of marauders, owners of
dangerous dogs may unchain them at night for protection. Some say
that any dangerous city is similar to a border community (CM
409:3).These sources demonstrate that halacha would require any gun
to be carefully locked at all times, with allowances made in cases
where the gun is actively being used for security. Those who are
more stringent would avoid guns completely. (It should also be
noted that many authorities prohibit hunting for sport; Rama OH
316:2, Darchei Teshuva YD 117:44)
|12.8.08 @ 8:35PM|#
Lefiti: Those restrictions are voluntary. Note the excommunication part. It is the association that enforces them through membership, not the government enforcing them through coercion.
|12.8.08 @ 8:39PM|#
Oh, geez. Here we go w/ arguments for gun control interpreted
from the Talmud.
Anybody ready w/ the Koran? I'm sure we can glean a nearly opposite
interpretation from that ancient text.
galthran|12.8.08 @ 8:47PM|#
I drove by a Denver gun show this weekend about 8:45am, and they were lined up AROUND THE BLOCK! I've been hearing this on the news but seeing was really believing there. The large premium on physical gold and silver hasn't stopped people around here from buying it up nonstop, so maybe it's more than Obamania.
|12.8.08 @ 9:12PM|#
I was at a gun show on Saturday in California where it was mobbed. Ammo sales were more than quite brisk, with handcarts of the stuff being hauled out to waiting cars and trucks. Most people are NOT trusting Obama to uphold the Second Amendment of the constitution. They are stocking up for the next four (eight) years.
|12.8.08 @ 9:24PM|#
Alright, I snuck out a couple of times during the campaign to squeeze off a few clips, but I'm totally going to comply with the White House's gun-free rule.
|12.8.08 @ 9:29PM|#
You promised me you wouldn't say anything about that! Oh, well, at least you didn't mention what a lousy shot I was when we were shooting up the other sides campaign posters.
|12.8.08 @ 9:32PM|#
Actually, we squeezed off a few ROUNDS then thumbed through a stack of Playboy magazines.
|12.8.08 @ 9:41PM|#
No, Obama-man was using an M-1, left over from his college days on the rifle team. He used the clips, 8 rounds, ball ammunition. He was cautious in removing his thumb before slamming the bolt forward, to reduce the possibility of a bruised hand.
|12.8.08 @ 9:43PM|#
while conservative/rural democrats will make big changes to gun control - i mean gun safety- laws less possible, they can always slap a sin tax on everything. if you think ammo is expensive now...
|12.8.08 @ 9:47PM|#
Child-proof hand guns?
What's he gonna do, have those caps you push down and twist?
...which actually aren't child-proof?
Obama|12.8.08 @ 10:08PM|#
Don't buy guns. I promise I won't do anything to take them away.
Unless I can actually get Congress to pass it, or my alien puppet
masters tell me to make an executive order to that effect.
Hail Galgamek!
economist|12.8.08 @ 10:12PM|#
"Did Lefiti just... excommunicate Jacob Sullum?"
Who knows. Though, actually, who can "excommunicate" someone from
Judaism? In the Catholic Church the bishops can do that, so what's
the Jewish equivalent? M
economist|12.8.08 @ 10:14PM|#
Lefiti,
Do you have some sort of personal nut against Jacob Sullum. You
harp on the Jewish thing every time he says something about gun
control. And you aren't convincing anyone else. Indeed, we find
your obsession with the Torah (which also, lest we forgot,
prescribes stoning as the punishment for sodomy, which pretty much
screws Lefiti) strikes us all as a little creepy.
|12.8.08 @ 10:14PM|#
Could someone please tell me the actual benefit of buying
the real deal today rather than wait till after they re-enact the
AWB?
The original ban banned firearms with two or more evil features.
Nearly all subsequently introduced federal bills would ban firearms
with just one feature, similar to the current ban in
California.
Courtesy of wikipedia:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two
or more of the following:
* Folding stock
* Conspicuous pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate
one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables
the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of
the following:
* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor,
handgrip, or silencer
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
* Detachable magazine
|12.8.08 @ 10:27PM|#
I should add to the above.
The original ban banned firearms/magazines manufactured AFTER the
enactment date. Many manufacturers ran their plants 24/7 to have
PRE-BAN stock.
As long as the firearm was pre 9/13/94, it could be sold like any
other firearm; that is, there were no transfer restrictions.
The current CA ban and many of the federal bills introduced to
expand, make permanent, and/or reenact it would restrict/ban any
future transfers. Some only ban private transfers. The same applies
(in CA) and would have applied to magazine transfers.
In theory firearms made after the bill enactment would instantly
become banned firearms.
In CA if you die, your heirs cannot inherit your "assault weapons"
or "high capacity magazines". This was a FAQ entry on the CA DOJ
site a few years back-I haven't checked since.
Several of the "assault weapon" bills would also ban possession of
"assault weapons" by persons under 18 or 21 and many of the '21'
bills expanded the ban on handgun possession to 18-20 year
olds.
Currently 18 USC 922(x) bans possession of handguns by people under
18.
|12.8.08 @ 10:46PM|#
What does the Mahabharata say on gun control? Whatever it is, it's probably highly relevant.
|12.8.08 @ 10:58PM|#
I think I'll start a branch of Islam that looks just like
libertarianism. Then I can selectively quote the Koran to protect
my gun rights as a religious practice.
Just for reference, the secret code is:
Mohammed = Ludwig von Mises
Jihad = Deregulation
Prayer sessions = Drugs
Barack Hosin\' Obama|12.8.08 @ 11:06PM|#
"Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. Of course, after we ban all guns, any gun owner will be ipso facto unlawful."
Kaiser|12.8.08 @ 11:17PM|#
There may be another reason besides just Obama that gun sales are going up. As an avid gun collector myself I can tell you that nothing appreciates in value like guns do. Maybe some people are thinking guns would be a great investment for the time being. Not to mention if Obama does succeed in taking them away, BOOM they just doubled in value over night. Not to mention besides the obvious hunting/collecting value, I find guns to be an excellent stress reliever. Nothing like taking out your anger on some trees with a few magazines full of 7.62x39 rounds.
ellipsis|12.9.08 @ 12:17AM|#
I have mixed emotions about all this panic buying. On the one
hand, it's nice to see that one of my favorite industries is doing
well. On the other hand I have to shake my head at some aspects of
it.
The panic buying on reloading items is the one I don't get. I've
been reloading for 15 years, and I've never seen anything like
this. Obama can't ban reloading; he doesn't have enough votes. Even
the most liberal state has yet to ban reloading. But ebay is full
of users in bidding wars, outbidding each other to the tune of 150%
of list price.
In a year or two, I'm going to be getting all this stuff dirt
cheap, because it's been sitting in a garage unused all this
time.
The whole Y2k thing was similar, but not as bad as the Obama panic.
And in the summer of 2000, I bought reloading stuff for pennies on
the dollar.
Elemenope|12.9.08 @ 12:19AM|#
Well, gun ownership and paranoia do seem to go hand in
hand.
I think more to the point is that reflex or panic gun ownership
relates to paranoia.
As has been gone over time and again, there are more than enough
western and southern pro-Gun democrats to make any significant
shift towards confiscatory policies a non-starter. It really does
not much matter what Obama wants, or even what he does. The best
he's gonna get if he wanted is a watered-down assault weapons ban
and possibly a "gun show loophole" change.
Big fucking deal.
The election is over and everyone needs to fucking breathe.
(Incidentally, I am reminded of Grosse Point Blank wherein
the main character cocks a gun and says "This is me breathing" to
describe the action.)
The Wine Commonsewer|12.9.08 @ 1:40AM|#
I'm not even a gun nut, yet I bought a couple hundred rounds of 12 gage and a couple hundred rounds of .38's. That was the day Obama was elected.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.9.08 @ 1:50AM|#
Girl just knocked on my door and asked me to serve restraining order papers on her hubby while the Sheriff stood by. Ten O'clock at night. Jesus Chrysler. I gave her a hundred bucks and told her to go get a motel room for her and the kids. Hubby is an ex felon and six four to boot. I've got a family and I don't want to endanger them. Retribution and revenge and all that. Guess that makes me a pussy instead of the stand up guy I thought I was some decades ago. I used to be a better man than this.
Elemenope|12.9.08 @ 1:55AM|#
Guess that makes me a pussy instead of the stand up guy I
thought I was some decades ago. I used to be a better man than
this.
If you were able to get her and her kids out of harm's way without
violence ensuing, that's a win. I see no correlation between being
a "real man" and deliberately engaging in an action that will tick
off a guy twice one's own size. That's just macho crap and doesn't
mean anything in the real world with real consequences.
SO, FWIW, you did good.
Naga Sadow|12.9.08 @ 2:49AM|#
TWC,
I'm assuming you aren't prepared to kill him in a fight so I second
Elemenope's comment. If you are having second thoughts use a trick
I've tried before . . . kick his knee out and punch him in the
throat or if he tries to overpower you put your thumbs in his eyes.
NO MERCY!
cjr|12.9.08 @ 7:49AM|#
"As has been gone over time and again, there are more than
enough western and southern pro-Gun democrats to make any
significant shift towards confiscatory policies a
non-starter."
While I hope that you are correct, there are two problems with this
line of thinking.
First, southern and western pro-gun democrats have shown the
tendency, in the past, to become hardcore anti-gunners when the
party leadership starts waving the pork and the committee
assignments.
Second, even if the votes for major bans aren't there, there are
plenty of things the serious antis can do. You're familiar, I'm
sure, with the concept of a "chilling effect?" Personally, I'm more
concerned about such "moderate" measures as taxes on ammunition and
reloading components and reduced access to public and private
shooting ranges. Either of these measures would seriously fuck up
my hobbies, and the worst part is that a significant number of gun
owners might be convinced to support them. There just aren't that
many shooters who practice several times a week and go through tens
of thousands of rounds every year, and I worry that Elmer Fudd and
his huntin' buddies would happily toss us under the bus, in
exchange for getting to keep their single-shot squirrel guns...
VM|12.9.08 @ 7:55AM|#
"Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear."
whenever someone obeying the law has to be reassured, we know that
we're in a fucked era.
lawful protesters have nothing to fear
lawful drivers have nothing to fear
lawful telephone callers have nothing to fear
lawful internet surfers have nothing to fear.
yup. the bullshit alarm is on 11 with this.
|12.9.08 @ 8:02AM|#
while the Sheriff stood by
The Sheriff could have made himself useful by shooting someone's
puppy or something.
|12.9.08 @ 8:58AM|#
Obama believes in gun control for cities and non-redneck suburbs, and has no desire to forgo the country-neck vote by fiddling with their guns. Suburban and city gun owners aren't a big enough demographic to worry about.
|12.9.08 @ 9:42AM|#
I was watching the silly slasher film "The Hills have Eyes" last
night and started thinking of why I would ever practically want to
own a gun. Of course the people I was watching with answered
"never", but I think there are plenty of legit reasons for firearm
use.
If I lived outside a city, where I could not expect immediate
police response to a threat I would own a personal defense firearm.
I would need to live somewhere where I could "squeeze off" a few
rounds w/o endangering the local populace though.
As far as urban self-defense, wouldn't a convincing CO2 bb gun
pistol work just as well for intimidation as a real firearm? Just
don't allow a good look at the barrel.
|12.9.08 @ 9:50AM|#
First, southern and western pro-gun democrats have shown the
tendency, in the past, to become hardcore anti-gunners when the
party leadership starts waving the pork and the committee
assignments.
Second, even if the votes for major bans aren't there, there are
plenty of things the serious antis can do. You're familiar, I'm
sure, with the concept of a "chilling effect?" Personally, I'm more
concerned about such "moderate" measures as taxes on ammunition and
reloading components and reduced access to public and private
shooting ranges. Either of these measures would seriously fuck up
my hobbies, and the worst part is that a significant number of gun
owners might be convinced to support them. There just aren't that
many shooters who practice several times a week and go through tens
of thousands of rounds every year, and I worry that Elmer Fudd and
his huntin' buddies would happily toss us under the bus, in
exchange for getting to keep their single-shot squirrel
guns...
I would add a "Third": They've done it before. Its not like western
and southern "prog-gun" Democrats didn't exist 1994. The goal is to
get the potential opposition on your side. They will attempt to
(again) divide and conquer with a bunch of "we respect the rights
of sportsman and hunters" and "why does anyone need one of these
for hunting" bullshit. The playbook is old, but I'm sure it still
works.
Unfortunately the internet fails to capture much of what was going
on in that period. As an example (one I've described here in the
past), the reason the mini-14 was pulled from the WJC assault
weapon ban was that a congresscritter stood up and said "hey, I own
one of those. I use it to hunt turkey". On that basis, the Mini-14
and Mini-30 are not "assualt weapons". That is an example of the
stupidity of the 1994 ban, but also an example of why "link or it
isn't true" is bullshit when dealing with anything pre-internet. I
could not find any links to support this. But it happened. And if
you can make up, I mean remember, a better reason why the mini-14
didn't make the list, I'd like to hear it. (just kidding, the story
is true - don't remember the name of the guy though)
The Wine Commonsewer|12.9.08 @ 10:45AM|#
SO, FWIW, you did good.
Naga and Elemenope, Thank you.
I appreciate the kind words.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.9.08 @ 10:48AM|#
The Sheriff could have made himself useful by shooting
someone's puppy or something.
Frankly I'm surprised that our Sheriff was even willing to show up.
You pretty much have to have a body in the street before they
respond.
I also told the girl that she needs to have the Marshall serve the
papers and that I'd cover the cost.
Warty|12.9.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Lefiti: Jews' passivity has gotten countless numbers of them
slaughtered over the years. No one should be more heavily armed
than Jews.
Besides, their god doesn't exist.
|12.9.08 @ 11:01AM|#
Don't worry, I'm from the Government and I'm here to help.
Um yeah. Not for a second.
|12.9.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Girl just knocked on my door and asked me to serve
restraining order papers on her hubby while the Sheriff stood
by
This confuses me, TWC. Why would she ask you to do this when the
Sheriff is there?
Hubby is an ex felon and six four to boot
Fun! Nice of her to embroil you in her problems.
Jordan|12.9.08 @ 11:15AM|#
If I lived outside a city, where I could not expect immediate police response to a threat I would own a personal defense firearm. I would need to live somewhere where I could "squeeze off" a few rounds w/o endangering the local populace though.
Do you expect an immediate police response to a threat in a city?
You might want to check your local PD's average response time. It's
probably enough for someone to kill you several times over (if you
go all zombie on them). That's even assuming that you or someone
else have the chance to call them.
Also, hollowpoints and frangible rounds are perfectly safe for an
apartment.
Jordan|12.9.08 @ 11:18AM|#
First, southern and western pro-gun democrats have shown the tendency, in the past, to become hardcore anti-gunners when the party leadership starts waving the pork and the committee assignments.
Also, not all Republicans are reliably pro-gun. Hell, 2 Republicans
just recently reintroduced the assault weapons bill.
Jordan|12.9.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Time it takes to casually walk through the entirety of my apartment: 20 seconds.
Jordan|12.9.08 @ 11:49AM|#
The point is, having a gun and a phone gives me more options than just having a phone.
|12.9.08 @ 12:37PM|#
As far as urban self-defense, wouldn't a convincing CO2 bb
gun pistol work just as well for intimidation as a real
firearm?
Guns are not for "intimidation", they are for killing. You
shouldn't pull a gun on somebody with the intent to make them
wee-wee down their leg, you should pull it with the intent to kill
them. Not wound them. Not scare them. Kill them.
Now, you may not have to actually kill them. Lots of folks will
back down at the sight of a gun. But you're better off, IMO, not
having a gun at all than having a fake gun.
|12.9.08 @ 12:51PM|#
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership would take issue with Lefiti's post.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.9.08 @ 12:53PM|#
This confuses me, TWC. Why would she ask you to do this when
the Sheriff is there?
In Ca the Sheriff can't serve papers. Has to be done by the
Marshall, a process server, or an individual.
She spent all day in court getting the papers in order. Her friend
was going to serve the papers for her because she has no money. The
Sheriff stands by while the papers are served because of the
domestic violence aspect. Once the papers are served, the Sheriff
makes the guy leave the premises and explains how a restraining
order works.
BUT, the friend chickened out, leaving her with nobody to serve the
papers and the Sheriff on the way to the house to meet her (I
listened in on the conversation with the dispatcher, so I know that
part is true).
She wanted me to substitute serve because the Sheriff was on his
way and she wanted to get back into the house with her kids, bathe
them, send them to school.
Since I know the guy and he's got a criminal background and a
temper and knows where we live, I was a little reluctant to do
that.
When I was thirty, I would have done it without thinking about it.
Now I'm old.........so I gave her a hundred bucks to get a motel
room for the night and some McDonalds for the kids.
|12.9.08 @ 12:55PM|#
Phalkor- I hope you don't believe you are safe because you live
in a highly populated area. If anything I would suspect the exact
opposite.
I live in the coutry on a few acres of land with several thousand
wooded acres behind me. I prety much shoot daily if I can. Out in
the country here in the South it is pretty much a certainty that
ever home is armed. So even with the police some time away we don't
worry about it since we are prepared to handle emergencies on our
own.
Actually if someone broke into my home and I shot them dead none of
my neighbors would even bother to come see what happened since
hearing gun shots from my property is a daily occurance.
I would almost say you should fear the police in big cities as much
as the criminals. But really in seconds anyone could kick in your
door and kill you. But the police will write a really well worded
report as they stand over your corpse.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.9.08 @ 12:59PM|#
As far as urban self-defense, wouldn't a convincing CO2 bb
gun pistol work just as well for intimidation as a real
firearm?
Have to completely agree with RC Dean. My children's gun lessons
began with two things:
1. Never point a gun at someone unless you are sure you can pull
the trigger.
2. You must assume that all guns are loaded and treat them as such
even if you 'know' the gun is not loaded.
That said, when I was a kid a buddy of mine carried around a
realistic CO2 pistol in his car. On the way home from the beach
late one night he got run off the road by a low rider filled with
mean looking guys. He jumped out just as the driver of the low
rider got out of his car. He shot the guy in the chest with pellets
from about 20 feet about fifteen times and jumped back in his car
and floored it. Claims that the shock of getting hit in the chest
with fifteen steel pellets knocked the driver of the low rider to
the ground.
I wasn't there so I can't vouch, but his girlfriend said it was
true.
However, I would never bring a pellet gun to a gun fight.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.9.08 @ 1:06PM|#
The point is, having a gun and a phone gives me more options
than just having a phone.
My buddy Jim put it like this:
In my opinion, the best way for legitimate citizens to take care of
themselves is to be armed to the teeth. After all, you'll get
further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone;
"Sir, please be so kind as to leave my property." vs. "Sir, please
be so kind as to leave my property. (CLICK)"
Neu Mejican|12.9.08 @ 1:14PM|#
However, I would never bring a pellet gun to a gun
fight.
Yeah. A nice sized rock to throw would be more effective. Maybe
keep a javelin in your car.
A fake gun just increases your chances of getting shot with a real
gun.
|12.9.08 @ 1:31PM|#
RC Dean and others, I see your point. It would be very bad to
have the pellet gun and brandish it to someone carrying a firearm
with intent to harm. It gives them a reason to shoot you (at least
a better reason).
I used to deliver pizzas. Some of the drivers carried (with
appropriate permits) and I thought it smart. I was mugged in the
first week of work. I got myself the largest mag light available
and keep it within reach in my car at all times. I used it to spot
addresses and carried with me on all deliveries at night. Though
not the same as a firearm, it made me understand why someone would
desire self-defense.
In the city I live in now muggings are fairly frequent but nearly
always w/o bloodshed. Unless I go into the fairly well-known "bad"
areas the only people who get mugged are people who are simply
oblivious to their surroundings.
Good advice though. Fake gun, not effective could get you shot.
However, fake security camera, probably effective.
Naga Sadow|12.9.08 @ 1:42PM|#
phalkor,
As a former juvenile delinquint I asure you . . . security cameras
are useless. Unless you can tell the difference between teenagers
that are basically the same height, hair color, and wear more or
less the same clothes that is, in which case you should work as a
sketch artist.
Naga Sadow|12.9.08 @ 2:22PM|#
If you mean not at all then . . . yes. You would be better off
learning fighting techniques watching "Kung Fu Panda".
"Po: It is said that his enemies would go blind from over-exposure
to pure awesomeness!"
|12.9.08 @ 3:43PM|#
What is infuriating to me is that Obama's opinion on 2A even has
to be a consideration for citizens who want to own and carry
weapons.
Who gives a rat's ass what Obama thinks, 2A is clear.
|12.9.08 @ 3:55PM|#
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Hunter,
The IL legislature and courts might not have sufficient respect for
the law to actually obey it, but your state constitution
specifically allows you to "keep and bear arms".
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245