Bob Costas Anti Gun Rant on Sunday Night football last night

Science Chic wrote:

Required military service? Honestly, I'm torn. I believe there would be good lessons learned for everyone to experience it first-hand, but I don't want my kids serving when we have leaders who send us into doomed-to-fail combat situations, with what seems to be no decent comprehension of the history of the culture we are going to "save" and trying to push our ideals on a group that will never accept our way of doing things because that's not what they've learned from infancy and our efforts are destined to only cost us precious lives and massive costly failure. My kids lives are worth more than that.

:thumbsup: Good ideas, any more out there?

If everybody's children served there would be more scrutiny on when and where to send our children. Maybe a little more discretion when the sons and daughters of our leaders are involved.

"The attitude of I want mine and screw the rest."

Gee, that's been the mantra of the right wing for 30 years. Now you're reaping the selfishness that you have shown...And you wonder why?

Badger, I understand your points and have considered them in my opinion, I have also suggested we return to an armory system. This would ensure the local community had access to heavier weapons and assault weapons with a secure place to responsibly store them, but there's no need for private citizens to possess these weapons at home. I think this is a reasonable restriction on weapons that society might be willing to accept. This does not destroy the gun or eliminate citizens' ownership rights, but it would help to control the use of such weapons.

Ok, now you've brought up the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment...so here we go. The amendment states first that due to the necessity of a well regulated militia, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Well, our nation and society has changed a lot since that was penned. We no longer maintain a well regulated militia, but we've retained the right to bear arms. I am glad for this, but I see nothing to support the idea that our right to bear arms is unlimited. All rights have limitations. I am simply suggesting it is time to reconsider what the reasonable limitations on our right to bear arms might be.

Yes, the flat tire is out of fear of having a flat and being stranded. If a flat tire would not strand me, I wouldn't carry a spare. Nobody prepares for a situation they aren't afraid of...even if the 'fear' is nothing more than being afraid of not being ready...fear is the primary motivator for any preparation. You fear the potential of an attack, so you want to be prepared. I don't say you are afraid because I think you're a coward...that isn't what I mean at all. You are afraid because the threat of invasion, while hopefully low chance statistically, is not a completely irrational fear. But still, it is your fear of what could happen that motivates you to take preparations. That's ok. Again, a community armory could go a long was to alleviating those fears for everyone in the community.

*I am adamantly opposed to the idea of requiring everyone to serve in the military. First of all, there's quite a few people that I don't particularly trust to be in the military. If folks can't get through school, I don't want them operating expensive, complicated machinery or weaponry. Requiring citizens to serve in the military would require all of us sacrificing yet more freedom. I was extremely fascinated with the military and drawn to it as a child. I loved reading about our military history, about battles and strategies. I studied the military uniforms, badging, awards, medals, ranks, arms and armor from encyclopedias and any non-fiction references the library would let me take home. I grew up excited for my opportunity to be a member of such an honorable brotherhood. Then, something happened, I witnessed a couple ugly things, and my attitudes changed. I've never developed any disdain or disrespect for the military, but I grew out of my curiosity and my interests changed. It simply wasn't for me anymore. I think that's fine...and I am very happy to have the freedom to make my own decisions about what my life experiences will be. I would defend today's children's right to live the lives they want, to make their own decisions. Again, is Israel the model we want? You know Greece requires everyone serve also...is Greece a good model for our country? Besides this...our modern military could not accomodate all citizens serving. How big would our military be? How big would that budget be? How efficient would it be? I think our military is stronger and more effective because it is staffed by people who chose to be there.

plaidvillain wrote: Badger, I understand your points and have considered them in my opinion, I have also suggested we return to an armory system. This would ensure the local community had access to heavier weapons and assault weapons with a secure place to responsibly store them, but there's no need for private citizens to possess these weapons at home. I think this is a reasonable restriction on weapons that society might be willing to accept. This does not destroy the gun or eliminate citizens' ownership rights, but it would help to control the use of such weapons.

While this may seem like a valid solution I'd offer the possibility of terrorism either foreign or domestic. Essentially you'd be "putting all the eggs in one basket" and its only a matter of time before the wrong person/group gain knowledge of that basket's location and how to render it "non-playable" so to speak. Thusly the best solution to keep that option available is to keep such things as one's personal possessions in the home.

plaidvillain wrote: Ok, now you've brought up the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment...so here we go. The amendment states first that due to the necessity of a well regulated militia, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Well, our nation and society has changed a lot since that was penned. We no longer maintain a well regulated militia, but we've retained the right to bear arms. I am glad for this, but I see nothing to support the idea that our right to bear arms is unlimited. All rights have limitations. I am simply suggesting it is time to reconsider what the reasonable limitations on our right to bear arms might be.

But there's the interesting part of this one, many states actually DO maintain a well regulated militia, Colorado included. Unfortunately due to media hype and of course the "bad apple lot" the term 'militia' has been twisted into a very dark meaning to much of the general public. Rather than make this post an extremely long read, I'll simply say that there is indeed GOOD information out there on such things, but you might have to wade through a lot of misinformation and/or very bad sources with no true value.

plaidvillain wrote: Yes, the flat tire is out of fear of having a flat and being stranded. If a flat tire would not strand me, I wouldn't carry a spare. Nobody prepares for a situation they aren't afraid of...even if the 'fear' is nothing more than being afraid of not being ready...fear is the primary motivator for any preparation. You fear the potential of an attack, so you want to be prepared. I don't say you are afraid because I think you're a coward...that isn't what I mean at all. You are afraid because the threat of invasion, while hopefully low chance statistically, is not a completely irrational fear. But still, it is your fear of what could happen that motivates you to take preparations. That's ok.

I can see the point made there. "Fear" isn't necessarily a bad thing, its motivated many to do good, even extraordinary things, so that is perhaps viable. But let me refer back to the spare tire metaphor and ask, is it really so bad? Being prepared that is? There are many of us, sounds like yourself included, who are very responsible gun owners. Regardless of our preference of firearms we share the common knowledge that the tools are used for their intended purposes and that training is equally essential to safety. You train with your trap gun by using it, so do tactical shooters. The style, targets, and criteria for the sports may be completely different, but the concept behind the activity is quite the same. This too is a form of preparation be it for sport, hunting or again the possibilities which could be endless.

Lastly, and I know this is beating a dead horse, but there are indeed broken individuals that walk this Earth and in every corner of the globe even. You can't legislate these people into NOT being broken no matter how hard you try. If their goal is mass casualties, they will find any means necessary to try and achieve that goal. While I understand not every law abiding citizen would want to carry a firearm, why place such restrictions on the law abiding citizens that would want to? Because again, the broken will find a means no matter what. If a willing, law abiding citizen feels they could be the wrench in the broken's gears, I'm all for it. Will it completely stop violence? Doubtful. Will there be NO casualties if we were an 'armed' nation? Unlikely, but I do think it might possibly hinder several 'would-be' scenarios currently available.

Badger

Definitely good points, Badger, and much to consider. Your comments regarding the broken individuals and folks carrying weapons as protection, I think one important issue needs considered. In the event of a one on one confrontation and shooting, we only get one testimony about what happened. When a police officer is forced to shoot one of these broken individuals, we trust the officer's decision because we've employed that officer to be in that position, and expect the officer's training and character will allow him to make the proper decision. In the case of private citizens, there is not that level of trust for either party. The Zimmerman case of course demonstrates this very well. It is very hard to determine what happened and whether the shooter was justified. We can't automatically extend such trust as we do with the police officer. I know this is a bit tangential to the original discussion and don't mean to divert things, but it is relevant as it ties into some folks' belief that the answer lies in more guns and an armed society. I dispute that more people being armed would contribute to solving the problem. In fact, I think it would greatly compound the problem.

plaidvillain wrote: I dispute that more people being armed would contribute to solving the problem. In fact, I think it would greatly compound the problem.

I don't see how it would compound it personally, but would certainly be willing to listen to scenarios.

It would seem many firearms related crimes tend to favor locations of weak resistence. A guy who holds up a liquor store might fare somewhat well if he knows the store and staff are ill-equiped to hamper his intentions. But that same guy might think twice about walking into a pawn shop and trying the same. Odds are that location just might have an armed employee or two which could ruin the outcome of his projected goal.

Now take into consideration that the goal of an active shooter is to create as much carnage as possible. In this case a well populated, but ill-equiped populace is optimal because again, one or two armed people be it LE or civilian could hamper the goal. Places like movie theatres, schools, parks, stadiums, etc., are potentials. With that thought, it would make sense that if it were known to the would-be shooter that the location encourages concealed carry, well that sort of puts a potential dent in that plan because anyone could possibly return fire and then he/she has gone from 'terrorist' to a survival situation and must address the threat or evade if 'success' is to be accomplished. (Purely hypothetical of course as often times, not even psychologists can determine what really goes on in some of these minds.)

As far as the Zimmerman case, I honestly haven't read up on it enough to decide a 'yay/nay' sort of vote. I also don't know if he had a valid concealed carry permit, but I would say that such a permit would give me (personally) a bit more confidence in his side of the story simply because I've taken the course and the responsibilities are well outlined.

Think I'm pausing here for the time being, I definitely see the discussion has vastly shifted from the original but would certainly like to continue it either here or in another thread. Good to have a debate with actual substance and less banter. :thumbsup: Good night for now.

Badger