Laggy
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2020
- Messages
- 130
The militarizing of police was a direct response to the violence of the 70’s. I understand situational need, I just disagree with it as SOP, day-to-day.
Even the NYT admits normal people are driving sales up
- Thread starter hso
- Start date
- Status
The militarizing of police was a direct response to the violence of the 70’s. I understand situational need, I just disagree with it as SOP, day-to-day.
Old Dog
Member
That 'splains things. Know a few things about SPD and SVSD.
Laggy
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2020
- Messages
- 130
Well, most legislators don’t even really know the laws from my conversations and email. I had a very nice, well-intentioned individual at the governors liaison office in Spokane recommend that I go purchase my gun in Idaho, if I am not a felon and don’t wish to wait 10 days. Addressing with legislators, meh. Not after 1693. I feel like it’s pissing in the wind. If I really wanted to, I could move back to Montana and my gun-restriction woes disappear.
Anyway, that tidbit was more fuel for “witnessing” to anti-gun rights people who are now looking to get a gun to protect their family. They can potentially now see the absurdity of restrictive laws. And hopefully, vote against them in the future.
Laggy
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2020
- Messages
- 130
On the OP subject...This really all rolls into educating the new arrivals to the self/personal defense scene. “From my cold dead hands” makes gun owners sound like lunatics. Responsible and reasonable ownership is a better angle. Walking around in public with my AR, is a bad argument. Classified under the “just because you can doesn’t make it a good idea”. I mean the whole purpose of proper CC is to not telegraph that you’re prepared. And I think THAT approach can bring more people into the fold.
All that has done to me is reinforce the perception of the thin blue line. A close family friend was the police chief of neighboring city and a childhood friend of mine became a police officer. They both have passed years ago but I still remember the principles they expressed, usually after a few beers on hunting trips. Neither of them had the slightest problem of me (or other "known good people") owning any gun, quite the opposite, but they had seen so much during their careers that they had distinct reservations against anyone they didn't know.
Then again, they recognized the fact that the vast majority of public are ordinary, decent people and ever-increasing privacy legislation combined with overblown universal equality assumption had just made it very difficult for them to figure out who isn't. Back in the old days all records were accessible to authorities and no-one tried to imply that a repeat offender is a "victim" hence not responsible for his earlier actions.
The world has gone crazy since.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
Same with all people, not just law enforcement. We all feel more comfortable with people we personally know and have judged as "normal".
theotherwaldo
Member
Where I am, the police need to be militarized because they may be facing the Zetas at any time.
-And I am fairly familiar with the local police - I recently gave the Chief my old motor home to put on his hunting lease.
His niece is my Executive Secretary.
Law enforcement problems tend to have local solutions.
Self defense, likewise.
-And I am fairly familiar with the local police - I recently gave the Chief my old motor home to put on his hunting lease.
His niece is my Executive Secretary.
Law enforcement problems tend to have local solutions.
Self defense, likewise.
I'm familiar with what's called tribal instinct, but long term participation in law enforcement seems to fortify it. I'm speaking from a sample size of two but sometimes it got almost extreme, including almost apologetic tone in noting that "unfortunately" I should license my machine guns, like laws didn't or shouldn't apply to "good people". I really can't repeat everything I heard over the years but it sure made me think how common that is.
Here's a paper on the gun buying changes: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3593956
Take aways:
1. Significant increase in gun buying across party lines. Both Republican and Democratic leaning states.
2. Purpose is self-defense
3. Antigun folks find this troublesome and suggest some anti suicide and accident prevention measures.
So much for the gun is not a weapon folks. These folks are not buying tools or toys.
Take aways:
1. Significant increase in gun buying across party lines. Both Republican and Democratic leaning states.
2. Purpose is self-defense
3. Antigun folks find this troublesome and suggest some anti suicide and accident prevention measures.
So much for the gun is not a weapon folks. These folks are not buying tools or toys.
Splitting hairs a bit, nothing is a weapon until it's about to be factually used as such. Of course it's debatable whether possessing a device that's highly useful as a defensive weapon in an emergency is a bad thing at any level, after all.
The brightest side of all this is that gun ownership gives people first hand experience and consequently much more accurate perspective on the whole subject than watching the news or movies for "information".
Old Dog
Member
Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what a couple of the most commonly-asked questions you get from rape, domestic violence and robbery victims might be?
The first questions my liberal leftist PETA-member Volvo-driving vegan Chicago-dweller snowflake sister asked me after she was carjacked (and robbed of her cell phone, ID and credit cards) at gun-point were: how much is a good handgun going to cost me and can I get a license to carrry it?
The first questions my liberal leftist PETA-member Volvo-driving vegan Chicago-dweller snowflake sister asked me after she was carjacked (and robbed of her cell phone, ID and credit cards) at gun-point were: how much is a good handgun going to cost me and can I get a license to carrry it?
Laggy
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2020
- Messages
- 130
Aren’t there exceptions to mandated waiting periods and mandated FFL-mediated personal transfers when dealing with violent crime victims in some states? (ie. you need the gun immediately for defense against a second attack)...or am I dreaming?
doubleh
Member
If it really mattered to me what the New York Times thought I would be offended by their “normal people” comment since they are insuinuating that people that were gun owners before this mess are abnormal. I won’t state what they can do with their opinion on this forum as it’s rather blunt.
Jim NE
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,888
Good comment. Let me translate the NYT story through their standard narrative machine for those who haven't really been paying attention: Now that certain favored (by the NYT) identity groups are buying guns in large numbers, buying guns isn't necessarily a knee jerk crazy fascist thing anymore.
There has been very little reason to take what the NYT says at face value for the last dozen years or so. They are much more accurately defined as a political advocacy organization than a journalistic organization, at least with regard to stories about politics or society. I personally don't care who buys a gun or why as long as it's legal and they have no history of felonious or violent behavior.
For the person who said that politicians should divorce themselves from 2nd amendment antipathy, regardless of political perspective...well, that would be nice, but it wouldn't be realistic, and maybe not even desirable. The reason I say this is because many politicians have adopted the radical idea that the US Constitution is outmoded and corrupt and we all should divorce ourselves from it (the Constitution.) Their moral foundation for warming up to the 2nd could be very dubious. So be very wary of those who temporarily acquiesce to or accommodate Constitutional principals for mostly self serving purposes, like the so called "Free Speech Movement," on west coast campuses in the 1960's. Where is their love of free speech today?
There are those on the left who truly value the 2nd Amendment, and I genuinely see them as allies, but they should put their money where their mouth is and publicly admonish the anti-gun political leaders who share their other beliefs.
Necessary_Nutrient
Member
‘it’s realistic AND desirable. The NRA, back when I was a member was very careful to be a 1-issue advocacy group. Are we better off now with John Bolton speaking at NRA events and Ted Nugent dreaming about shooting Democrats? Hell no.
The main reason for this is that the GOP has proven to be an unreliable steward of our cherished 2A rights because of various other issues best not discussed here. I think many of us would be very well served shaping a moderate, pro-gun Democratic Party. That’s NOT what I’d like to discuss here, though. I stand with other shooters here, I despise the new AWB proposals.
I train Democrats to shoot when I get the chance. Took two of them shooting on Wednesday, one of which who had NEVER shot before absolutely nailed it at 25 yards with an XDm 9mm in failing light with a venom 6MOA! Once you have the chance see what it means to shoot, the freedom, the awesome responsibility- it changes your perspective.
Jim NE
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,888
If you're insinuating that a day at the shooting range is going to make people who have no regard for the Constitution fall in love with it all of the sudden, well....
That isn't to say that Dems can't love the Constitution - a great many do ( including probably the people you took shooting) - but looking the other way as radical elements take over political discourse and falling back on platitudes serves no purpose. James Madison - the guy who wrote the 2nd Amendment - admitted that there is more involved than just the legal structure laid out in the Constitution.Specifically, he said without a moral foundation, no democracy or republic or polity that emphasizes liberty can survive. Yes, we should encourage our leftist friends to respect the 2nd amendment. But we should also insist that they develop a respect for the REST of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, as well.
Necessary_Nutrient
Member
I'd submit that most Democrats generally take the constitution far more seriously than a critical mass of GOP supporters- with the exception of the 2nd amendment. Your entire argument is predicated on a sober, responsible GOP that carefully stewards a great many important things related to reason, restraint, constitutional precedent, etc. Since that isn't something we can expect to see soon, I advocate divorcing this critical constitutional right from that organization.
I'd submit that the two guys I took to the range take their civic duty seriously and soberly and have a greater grasp of our system, our freedoms and expectations/responsibilities of citizenship and what it means than most. Insulting them while knowing jack about them is an obnoxious and self-defeating tactic but it's very common- pretending the other side is something other than what they are based on unrepresentative examples or even with a complete lack of knowledge.
Wouldn't it be pretty to think so.
This is another reason the NRA should stick to its lane, not hiring Dana Loesch to spew a bunch of rhetoric designed to alienate half the USA. The NRA needs to be reaching out to people who don't own guns, not just preaching to the frothily angry choir. I dropped my membership because of her, and their general shift away from guns to cultural issues. The NY Times article shows that there is a receptive group on the blue side, many of whom would be natural 2A advocates if the issues were framed in terms of rights rather than culture.
Last edited:
Ignition Override
Member
Very interesting article, and with much broader info than I would expect from Any NYT article about an extremely complex, often emotional and politicized subject.
Glad that I finally read it.
Glad that I finally read it.
Carl N. Brown
Member
I grew up under Tennessee law.
My newspaper becomes a weapon if I roll it up and use it to jab or strike another person.
The Going Armed law assumes that carrying certain items outside the home implies intent to use as weapon and there are legal definitions & restrictions on what is legal transport versus illegal carry. I can have brass knuckles on my desk as a paperweight, but carry it in my pocket out in public I am going armed with a prohibited weapon.
My gun is definitely a weapon if I use it for offense or defense against another person. But the laws recognize non-weapon possession and uses of firearms.
According to FBI UCR Table of Homicide by Weapon used, more people were murdered in 2018 by assailants using "Personal Weapons" (hands, feet, etc) than by assailants using indentified long guns (shotguns, rifles). It is official. Personal body parts, hands, fists, feet, etc are weapons.
My newspaper becomes a weapon if I roll it up and use it to jab or strike another person.
The Going Armed law assumes that carrying certain items outside the home implies intent to use as weapon and there are legal definitions & restrictions on what is legal transport versus illegal carry. I can have brass knuckles on my desk as a paperweight, but carry it in my pocket out in public I am going armed with a prohibited weapon.
My gun is definitely a weapon if I use it for offense or defense against another person. But the laws recognize non-weapon possession and uses of firearms.
According to FBI UCR Table of Homicide by Weapon used, more people were murdered in 2018 by assailants using "Personal Weapons" (hands, feet, etc) than by assailants using indentified long guns (shotguns, rifles). It is official. Personal body parts, hands, fists, feet, etc are weapons.
Speedo66
Member
Laggy said: ↑
Aren’t there exceptions to mandated waiting periods and mandated FFL-mediated personal transfers when dealing with violent crime victims in some states? (ie. you need the gun immediately for defense against a second attack)...or am I dreaming?
Schlegel said "Wouldn't it be pretty to think so."
OH for one has it, this is from an OH sherrif's website:
For an Emergency / Temporary License:
Aren’t there exceptions to mandated waiting periods and mandated FFL-mediated personal transfers when dealing with violent crime victims in some states? (ie. you need the gun immediately for defense against a second attack)...or am I dreaming?
Schlegel said "Wouldn't it be pretty to think so."
OH for one has it, this is from an OH sherrif's website:
For an Emergency / Temporary License:
- Completed, current Temporary Emergency CCW application from the Ohio Attorney Generals website.
- A sworn statement that states he/she has reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack. Such documents may include temporary protection orders, civil protection orders, a court order, and any report filed with or made by a law enforcement agency or prosecutor.
- A valid Ohio driver’s license or state ID card
- Exact fees (See fee chart)
- Status
