# Common Sense.........



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

The anti gun crowd wants so called common sense gun law..... There is no such thing, the below says it all.....


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Good analogy and many have made it over the years. The one thing I tell people when this discussion comes up is this.

There are people who do not like firearms. They don't like them and they don't want them. But it's not enough that they don't like them and don't want them... they don't want you to have them, either.

In a nutshell, that pretty much explains the thrust of the anti-gun crowd and the how and why of their mindset.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

It is a myth that police protect anyone from crime. They never have and they never will.

Police arrest criminals after the fact.

If you want to prevent crime you need to do it yourself.


----------



## neorebel (Dec 25, 2013)

Why do they always say common sense when what they propose doesn't make common sense at all......only an idiot would believe it. It's like blaming a car for a DUI.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

AdamSmith said:


> It is a myth that police protect anyone from crime. They never have and they never will.
> 
> Police arrest criminals after the fact.
> 
> If you want to prevent crime you need to do it yourself.


True. Police are very good at interviewing witnesses, taking pictures, drawing body outlines on pavement, and doing other after-the-fact police things. It is rare when they happen upon a crime in progress.



neorebel said:


> Why do they always say common sense when what they propose doesn't make common sense at all......only an idiot would believe it. It's like blaming a car for a DUI.


It's because they don't like firearms and don't want them. The problem is that they don't want you to have them, either.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Common sense died a long and painful death many years ago. 

I was there for the graveside services. It was a sad and moving experience.


----------



## rex (Jan 27, 2012)

I'm willing to bet most of those people have high IQs,it seems the higher the IQ the less common sense they have.They say it's common sense but they have no idea what it is.At least this is a real term,unlike "cop killer bullets" and "high capacity magazines".

If you want to see them look dumbfounded tell them you'll gladly give up your guns-as soon as you eliminate cars,swimming pools,and doctors,it's for the kids ya know?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

"If you want to see them look dumbfounded tell them you'll gladly give up your guns-as soon as you eliminate cars,swimming pools,and doctors,it's for the kids ya know?"

Even if crime suddenly and magically disappeared, I wouldn't give up my firearms. They give me pleasure in many ways. It's my golf.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

paratrooper said:


> Common sense died a long and painful death many years ago.
> 
> I was there for the graveside services. It was a sad and moving experience.



Ahhhh the good old days *When common sense made sense"............*​


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Intelligence does not equate with life experience. Indeed, it's frequently the other way 'round.

Intelligent people live near other intelligent people, and associate primarily with other intelligent people. They inhabit a somewhat insulated, somewhat isolated community.
Many intelligent people are academics. Even anger, in academia, is carefully controlled and almost exclusively verbally expressed. There are norms and forms, you know.
Since intelligent people, particularly academics, live by a rigid and secure set of rules, many of them believe that everybody lives by similar rules.
They haven't the worldly experience to know otherwise.

An extremely intelligent, well-educated woman, a (retired) academic researcher married to a (retired) professor, recently earnestly told me that "everybody abides by the law."
"All our government has to do," she firmly stated, "is make a law. Then people will obey that law."

"The definition of 'criminal,'" I said, "is 'someone who does not obey the law.'"

"Oh, well, of course," she said. "I mean everybody else. But there are so few criminals. And they don't live here. We needn't worry about them."


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Intelligence does not equate with life experience. Indeed, it's frequently the other way 'round.
> 
> Intelligent people live near other intelligent people, and associate primarily with other intelligent people. They inhabit a somewhat insulated, somewhat isolated community.
> Many intelligent people are academics. Even anger, in academia, is carefully controlled and almost exclusively verbally expressed. There are norms and forms, you know.
> ...


Ah yes, the "head in the sand" routine.

Intelligence; that obscure and hard to define state of being that is so difficult to measure but not very hard to observe. We are born with a certain amount of intelligence and that will never increase during our lifetimes. It will only decrease from disease or injury. Intelligence is very frequently confused with knowledge. What intelligence does do is facilitate the ability to acquire knowledge. And it is knowledge that is the mark of intelligence. Not entirely, but for all intents and purposes, obvious and commonly visible.

Intelligent people abound in so many places, doing so many things, and serving so many of theirs and other's interests. But it is a mystery in that many times, it is NOT so obvious. Think of intelligence as an empty bucket at birth. What you put in that bucket over your lifetime is acquired knowledge. Your ability to acquire that knowledge and how you use it is a measure, a yardstick if you will, of your native intelligence.

What is so amazing about the human brain and its ability to do these things, is that in the entire animal kingdom, nothing comes even remotely close... nothing. Some will argue that a dolphin or a chimpanzee is close to humans in their intelligence. Bunk. Pure BS. Show me the operating system designed and built by a dolphin or a chimp and I might consider this. Or even a pencil or a dinner plate. Some will say that a dolphin or a chimp doesn't need these things. Well neither did humans. But at some point they perceived a need then went about satisfying that perception.

While we may believe that in order for someone to become a professor in academia, they must be highly intelligent, what we are really seeing is both intelligence and a proclivity at some skill or skills. We see this in other manifestations as well, such as mechanics, doctors, engineers, and draftsmen. They exhibit their intelligence, and consequently their knowledge, on different plains doing different things. How does one explain a child prodigy who plays Mozart or Beethoven on a piano at the age of four? A predisposition for sure, but at four?

I could go on with this but I will close by saying that the human brain is probably the most amazing creation in existence. The mere fact that I am sitting here, typing this out and understanding how it gets to a website to be seen by others is proof of this. We take so much for granted.... just pause and take a moment to consider what you have between your ears. What a truly amazing thing the brain is.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

I suspect that gun appreciation has little to do with I/Q.

It has more to do with life's experiences.

If someone has lived a sheltered life, and is untrained with guns and ammo, then they are going to fear guns, as much as they fear criminals.

On the other hand, if someone has been exposed to shooting and hunting, and/or has been a victim of violent crime, then they will appreciate gun ownership.

Brady is a freak however. He is indeed a victim of a crazed yuppie GOP assassin, however he did not get the point.

Gabbi Giffords on the other hand had a similar experience as Brady, however she proposes more limited measures than a complete handgun ban like Brady has.

Ever since Thompson sub-machine guns/pistols became popular with prohibition gangsters in the 1930's, there has been some sort of a call for some kind of gun control. The Giffords themselves are evidence that gun owning people agree with it to some extent. Where the line should be drawn is always the big question.

The truly naïve think that the police can protect them -- the police cannot.

People need to protect themselves. Some kind of pistol combined with some kind of shotgun is critical to protecting yourself.

Whatever other kind of fire power is finally deemed to be legal and desirable in American society will always be a subject of debate, with the major issue being force multiplication. A Thompson sub-machine gun is a great force multiplier. Question is, what else is just like it?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

*"I suspect that gun appreciation has little to do with I/Q."*
Whoever said or inferred that it did?

*"If someone has lived a sheltered life, and is untrained with guns and ammo, then they are going to fear guns, as much as they fear criminals."*
While I certainly did not live a sheltered life, there were no firearms in my home when I was growing up. I bought my first gun when I was 22 and have never had an unnatural fear of them. But I will agree with you that some people just have a very unnatural fear of firearms bordering on hysteria. I've known a few over the years who fit this mold.

There has been gun control in this country, in some form or another, for as long as we have been a country. Politicians can always be trusted to find ways to squeeze our God given rights and firearms are just one of those rights. That's why the worse enemy of firearms is rust and politicians.

As for what sort of firearms one might want to use in their defense, that's an entirely personal matter. And one is only going to know they took the right decision when the time comes to use that arm in their defense.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> While I certainly did not live a sheltered life, there were no firearms in my home when I was growing up. I bought my first gun when I was 22 and have never had an unnatural fear of them. But I will agree with you that some people just have a very unnatural fear of firearms bordering on hysteria. I've known a few over the years who fit this mold.
> 
> There has been gun control in this country, in some form or another, for as long as we have been a country. Politicians can always be trusted to find ways to squeeze our God given rights and firearms are just one of those rights. That's why the worse enemy of firearms is rust and politicians.
> 
> As for what sort of firearms one might want to use in their defense, that's an entirely personal matter. And one is only going to know they took the right decision when the time comes to use that arm in their defense.


The legislative and judicial issue is whether or not there is a line to be drawn somewhere. Are you arguing for Thompson sub-machine guns?


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Until serious misuse by the criminal element in the 1920s and '30s, which very adversely impinged upon the lives of a very few civilians, Thompson sub-machineguns were available to all, without restriction. So were BARs.
Panic over misuse by alcohol-related criminal syndicates caused the federal government to institute anti-machinegun restrictions during the 1930s. But it was a panicked reaction: Obviously, this law had no effect upon people who were already lawbreakers.

I see no valid reason why the law-abiding are restricted from easy possession of fully-automatic weapons.
It is easily proven by practical experiment that machineguns are far less accurate and effective in unpracticed hands than the cheapest rifle or shotgun. Thus, machineguns are really no more dangerous to the general public than are any other long arm. The recent school "massacres" would've been no more horrific, had the killers used machineguns, than they were with the generally-available arms that were actually used.

If the Constitution's Second Amendment means that we are all members of an unconstituted militia, then we should be unrestricted from arming ourselves with the appropriate, military-issue weaponry, to make us an effective back-up to the armed forces.
That would include man-carried fully-automatic weapons, like M14s, M16s, and Thompsons. And if we were to be unrestricted, then we could openly practice to become properly effective with our machineguns, as befits a properly "well-regulated" militia.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

AdamSmith said:


> The legislative and judicial issue is whether or not there is a line to be drawn somewhere. Are you arguing for Thompson sub-machine guns?


The U.S. vs Miller decision was wrong in that Miller wasn't present so therefore it was a very one sided argument, once again with people who knew little about firearms. And that case revolved around a shotgun.

In answer to your question, yes.... I see nothing wrong with the legal ownership of fully automatic firearms. You can do this in my state as in most of the states in the country. It's just a tedious, expensive, highly regulated, and lengthy affair. I prefer the Original Intent which meant for the People to have access to the type of arms that the military had. And that was the basis in the Miller case.

And the line was drawn... in 1791, by the adoption of the Bill of Rights. It was drawn earlier in my state.

You posed a perfectly valid question regarding whether or not civilians should be allowed to own automatic firearms. And I answered yes plus explained that they already can... under much difficulty. Now if you don't mind I would like to ask you a question in return.

Would you want some additional controls and restrictions over what we currently have at the national level? And if so, what might they be?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Until serious misuse by the criminal element in the 1920s and '30s, which very adversely impinged upon the lives of a very few civilians, Thompson sub-machineguns were available to all, without restriction. So were BARs.
> Panic over misuse by alcohol-related criminal syndicates caused the federal government to institute anti-machinegun restrictions during the 1930s. But it was a panicked reaction: Obviously, this law had no effect upon people who were already lawbreakers.
> 
> I see no valid reason why the law-abiding are restricted from easy possession of fully-automatic weapons.
> ...


We're on the same page with this. I know a man who has three BAR's. Can you imagine that?

BTW, welcome back from your trip (I assume you are back home). How did everything go for you?


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

SouthernBoy said:


> "If you want to see them look dumbfounded tell them you'll gladly give up your guns-as soon as you eliminate cars,swimming pools,and doctors,it's for the kids ya know?"
> 
> Even if crime suddenly and magically disappeared, I wouldn't give up my firearms. They give me pleasure in many ways. It's my golf.


It's my golf !! Very good comparison.
I golf myself. New grips, new driver, special golf balls. Next week, new tees, golf shoes, spikes. The week after a new range finder, new set of irons,,,,etc


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pic said:


> It's my golf !! Very good comparison.
> I golf myself. New grips, new driver, special golf balls. Next week, new tees, golf shoes, spikes. The week after a new range finder, new set of irons,,,,etc


Not a golfer, no interest in the sport. My father was an avid golfer and fisherman. I admire people who chase that perennial white ball across the greens, but it's just not my cup of tea.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> The U.S. vs Miller decision was wrong in that Miller wasn't present so therefore it was a very one sided argument, once again with people who knew little about firearms. And that case revolved around a shotgun.
> 
> In answer to your question, yes.... I see nothing wrong with the legal ownership of fully automatic firearms. You can do this in my state as in most of the states in the country. It's just a tedious, expensive, highly regulated, and lengthy affair. I prefer the Original Intent which meant for the People to have access to the type of arms that the military had. And that was the basis in the Miller case.
> 
> ...


The decision was "wrong" ???

You're presuming a lot about your own legal expertise.

The decision could have been much worse, given that it was split 5 to 4.

Four of the justices absolutely believe that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to civilians anymore. Amazing!

And the other five believe that the states have every right to regulate concealed and open carry. Also amazing!


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

SouthernBoy said:


> Not a golfer, no interest in the sport. My father was an avid golfer and fisherman. I admire people who chase that perennial white ball across the greens, but it's just not my cup of tea.


I understood ,,,it was not confusing ,guns and the enjoyment you get "is your golf":smt023

When I golf, always keep your gun in the same compartment . Golf bags come with many pockets n zippers,lol.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SouthernBoy said:


> ...BTW, welcome back from your trip (I assume you are back home). How did everything go for you?


If it hadn't've been for the cold I caught from the woman sitting behind me in the plane, who didn't cover her coughs and sneezes, it might've been better.
But I only missed two, out of ten, days-worth of our visit, and our hotel room was a comfortable place in which to be miserable.

The weather was milder in Providence than it was on our island, while we were gone. The Northwest deep freeze didn't affect our home, I'm glad to say.
However, we were treated to a gorgeous snowfall, during our drive back from Providence to Boston's Logan Airport. The road was clear, but the trees were beautiful.

Our granddaughter was a pure pleasure, and she treats me as if I were her private multi-purpose play structure. What fun!


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

If you look geographically,,,, where are the gun laws the strictest?
Who are these people? Why is NY, and CALIFORNIA very gun controlling states?

Who are the voters ,that the govt officials are supporting? 

Do the Politicians bend in favor of the controlling vote ?
The politicians know ahead of time where the majority sits.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

*Every* so called gun control law on the books has *only* infringed on the right of law abiding citizens to *keep* and *bear* arms........... They do nothing to stop criminals from using firearms as everyone knows including the legislators.....

Again, *every law*....... Law abiding citizens should have the right to own automatic weapons without registration and paying for a stamp.........


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

AdamSmith said:


> The decision was "wrong" ???
> 
> You're presuming a lot about your own legal expertise.
> 
> ...


The Miller case was in 1934, not 2008. I believe you're confusing the Heller case with the Miller case.

You never answered my question I posed in my post #16. "Would you want some additional controls and restrictions over what we currently have at the national level? And if so, what might they be?"


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pic said:


> I understood ,,,it was not confusing ,guns and the enjoyment you get "is your golf":smt023
> 
> *When I golf, always keep your gun in the same compartment* . Golf bags come with many pockets n zippers,lol.


You keep my gun in your "compartment"? Damn, that's where my guns are going.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> If it hadn't've been for the cold I caught from the woman sitting behind me in the plane, who didn't cover her coughs and sneezes, it might've been better.
> But I only missed two, out of ten, days-worth of our visit, and our hotel room was a comfortable place in which to be miserable.
> 
> The weather was milder in Providence than it was on our island, while we were gone. The Northwest deep freeze didn't affect our home, I'm glad to say.
> ...


I know what this is all about. But wrestling with them is always a lot of fun.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Cait43 said:


> *Every* so called gun control law on the books has *only* infringed on the right of law abiding citizens to *keep* and *bear* arms........... They do nothing to stop criminals from using firearms as everyone knows including the legislators.....
> 
> Again, *every law*....... Law abiding citizens should have the right to own automatic weapons without registration and paying for a stamp.........


Yep. Gun control is nothing more than an attempt by elected representatives and unelected "officials" to convince the public that they are serious about crime and are doing things to lessen it. It is bunk.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> The Miller case was in 1934, not 2008. I believe you're confusing the Heller case with the Miller case.
> 
> You never answered my question I posed in my post #16. "Would you want some additional controls and restrictions over what we currently have at the national level? And if so, what might they be?"


Ok my mistake.


----------



## AdamSmith (Dec 18, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> The Miller case was in 1934, not 2008. I believe you're confusing the Heller case with the Miller case.
> 
> You never answered my question I posed in my post #16. "Would you want some additional controls and restrictions over what we currently have at the national level? And if so, what might they be?"


Me, personally, I would like to see LESS legislation, and a repeal of most of what we have now. I believe Arizona and Vermont have the right idea -- free open or concealed carry everywhere except courtrooms, federal or state office buildings, police stations, banks, stadiums, schools, or churches. In those places just leave the pistol in the car, and bring your mag or slide with you to disable the pistol while it is in the car. That's my personal view.

As such, these "prohibited" locations absolutely NEED to have armed guards present, to ensure the peace. And the guards need to vigilant and professional -- typically sheriff's deputies.

As for the issue of force-multiplying battle rifles, I would limit those to home or shooting range. They are not legitimate hunting weapons.

As for a Thompson sub-machine gun or an Uzi, I see little difference between these and a semi auto battle rifle. Kentucky allows them to be owned and possessed. So why not? The only problem with these would be another Adam Lanza going to another school or mall. But schools and malls can be made safe with secure entrances and metal detectors.

It all depends if anyone is serious about gun safety and the rights under the 2nd Amendment.

We need more sheriff's deputies to secure those places where we do not want to allow open or concealed guns. There needs to be a good guy with a gun everywhere that guns are not allowed.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

AdamSmith said:


> ...As for the issue of force-multiplying battle rifles, I would limit those to home or shooting range. They are not legitimate hunting weapons...


Are you of the school which believes that the Second Amendment deals with "hunting weapons"? If you are, please quote to me "chapter and verse" where that is stated.

Does your own state's constitution include any statement about the right to keep and bear arms? Does it only cover "hunting weapons"? (Quote, please.)



AdamSmith said:


> As for a Thompson sub-machine gun or an Uzi, I see little difference between these and a semi auto battle rifle. Kentucky allows them to be owned and possessed. So why not? The only problem with these would be another Adam Lanza going to another school or mall. But *schools and malls can be made safe with secure entrances and metal detectors*...[emphasis added]


If you just give it a little quiet reflection and rational thought, you will realize that there is _nothing_ which will keep _any_ place safe.
We are being taught to place our reliance in mechanisms and police, to achieve "safety," but recent experience has once again shown that mechanisms are not sufficient, and that the police cannot get there quickly enough.

Safety depends upon people taking responsibility for themselves, which includes parents with "difficult" children. Responsibility includes the lesson that it is wrong to interfere with the liberty and life of others.
Back when people took personal responsibility for themselves, there was less crime, _per capita_, and guns were available by mail-order and in every rural hardware shop and gas station. I know: I was alive, and I was a gun owner, back then.
Panic changed that. But panic always results in irrational "solutions" to the perceived problem. Now we are stuck with those first irrational solutions, plus a good deal more of them, promulgated when it was noticed that the first ones weren't working.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

AdamSmith said:


> Me, personally, I would like to see LESS legislation, and a repeal of most of what we have now. I believe Arizona and Vermont have the right idea -- free open or concealed carry everywhere except courtrooms, federal or state office buildings, police stations, banks, stadiums, schools, or churches. In those places just leave the pistol in the car, and bring your mag or slide with you to disable the pistol while it is in the car. That's my personal view.
> 
> As such, these "prohibited" locations absolutely NEED to have armed guards present, to ensure the peace. And the guards need to vigilant and professional -- typically sheriff's deputies.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your response.

*"...free open or concealed carry everywhere except courtrooms, federal or state office buildings, police stations, banks, stadiums, schools, or churches."*
In my state we can carry in county and state office buildings, police stations, banks, stadiums, or churches*. As for stadiums and churches, those are private affairs so that is left up to them and not the state to decide whether not carry is to be allowed. Churches are mentioned in state statute law but with a caveat. One must have "good and sufficient reason" to carry into a church. Obviously the protection of oneself and ones family constitutes "good and sufficient reason".

I would like to see constitutional carry in my state as it exists in Vermont and the other three states which allow this (Vermont probably has the best position on this).

*"As such, these "prohibited" locations absolutely NEED to have armed guards present, to ensure the peace. And the guards need to vigilant and professional -- typically sheriff's deputies."*
In some of these places, I see no reason not to allow armed citizens to be present as well. We did this years ago in our history... I see no reason not to do so again.

*"As for the issue of force-multiplying battle rifles, I would limit those to home or shooting range. They are not legitimate hunting weapons."*
I'm with Steve on this. Not only does the Second Amendment, and more importantly to my Section 13 of my state's constitution, not mention hunting, it does also not mention anything about personal defense. The reason is obvious. In the late 18th century, hunting and securing your safety with a firearm was a given. No one would have thought to question that, let alone control it (within reason, of course[1]). The purpose of the Second Amendment was to control government and in order to do this, the People's right to arms had to be protected. They knew that the surest and quickest way to subjugate a people was to disarm them. Therefore the People must always be armed and those arms must be the equivalent of those used by armed forces.[2]

[1] Virginia's laws date back to 1607. Of course, murder was not more accepted then than it is now.
[2] A very misunderstood word is "arms" as it is used in the Second Amendment. This is its definition at the time the Bill of Rights was written. An arm was a weapon capable of being carried on or about the person.


----------

