"The guys with the guns make the rules."
Posted by Exalted Buckaroo (+249) 9 years ago
That message brought to you by Wayne LaPierre, CEO & Executive V.P., National Rifle Assn.

Top
Posted by AllenCoe (+143) 9 years ago
If you don't respect your rights, then get the hell out of Montana.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 9 years ago
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 9 years ago
STAND YOUR GROUND!!!

Seriously though - Somalia has neither tax collection or gun control laws. I don't understand why more gun-fetishists don't move there.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (5/8/2012)]
Top
Posted by Goodtime_Charlie (+122) 9 years ago
I agree!! If you dont respect your gun rights then get the hell out of Montana!! No better way to phrase it!!! Maybe we should just all hold hands and sing its a wonderful life... Guns dont kill people!!! People kill people!!!
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3245) 9 years ago
Since I am so non-savvy in regard to guns, I would be interested in knowing what rules you are talking about? Thanks!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 9 years ago
People kill people!!!

Many times, with guns!!!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 9 years ago
Yeah! Thanks guys, for putting guns into the hands of every dumb [email protected] moron who can walk through the door and put the money down. Wayne LaPew is a cat.

Plus. If the title of this thread is correct. Why are there still chemtrails?

[This message has been edited by Bob Netherton II (5/8/2012)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Simon Niece (+301) 9 years ago
There are many times more firearms in the US than there are automobiles; yet automobiles "kill" many more people each year than firearms "kill" each year. This is just one example of many examples that could be brought forth in support of firearm ownership(supported by FACT, not rhetoric and emotion). Do the research using unbiased sources and you will learn. I absolutely agree that it is horrible when a human being is violently murdered by any means. The truth is people have been murdering people for thousands of years(long before guns). Private gun ownership was (and still is) ensured by the founding fathers of the US as an "insurance policy" for all our other freedoms. If only the government, military and police forces have guns what does that make us "common people"? 'Outlaw guns and only Outlaws will have guns'. Do the research. Thats all I have to say about that.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 9 years ago
The mind boggles, Simon. But I'd be wasting my time.
Top
Posted by Brandon Loomis (+96) 9 years ago
OH KNOW, they want to take our 22's away

Seriously while listing "scary gun names" AK47's tech9's 22's??? Kinda shows how uneducated the makers of this awesome scare tactics video really are.

Wikipedia says Mexico has strict gun laws, maybe you should move there. Shouldn't that mean its safer there?
Top
Posted by Exalted Buckaroo (+249) 9 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 9 years ago
New scenario:

A guy walks into a full movie theater. He's fully armed with all the legal weapons he can get in the country where he resides. Knives, machetes, maces, smoke bombs, but no guns. He rushes at the audience with knives in both hands. Several people jump on him from behind and restrain him until police arrive. So what do you think the death count would be?
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 9 years ago
Shouldn't the law making it illegal to kill people have been enough to stop him?
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 9 years ago
We outlawed drugs and thank goodness that those aren't a problem anymore.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Tucker Bolton (+3677) 9 years ago
Ah, good, rich white men and the corporate whores that keep them and the media, feeding the fear machine are a success. More guns please. More linear thinking and less thought.

The symptoms of a fear driven, failing society are obvious. The one thing that will surely save us is having G-d on our side and some more fricking guns. Yep, I think you geniuses have a handle on things. I'll sleep better tonight knowing that we are secure.

Oh and don't forget to vote for the next republicrat. That's what we need a better con man at the helm. Lets keep them damned socialists at bay.

This is odd. I feel nostalgic for the cold war.

Just a fact or two. I'm not anti gun but if you use a rifle or shotgun for hunting, keep them locked up and unloaded until hunting season.

If you keep a handgun for protection, a member of your family is twenty two times more likely to die than an intruder.

Home protection is a myth. Fewer than one out of four violent crimes is committed while the victim is at home.

Among all the instances when a gun is used to shoot an intruder only 2% are used on the actual intruder. 98% of the time it is a loved one, themselves or the intruder takes the gun from the victim and kills him with it.

We have over a quarter billion guns in American home.

There are 500,000 guns stolen each year in america. The vast majority of these guns end up in poor neighborhoods where they are sold or traded for legal and illegal goods and services.

[This message has been edited by Tucker Bolton (7/23/2012)]
Top
Posted by mule train (+1056) 9 years ago
Hypothetically speaking, if I wanted to go murder as many people as possible in say a movie theatre somewhere....what would I use if I din't have a gun? After all, I know that people kill people, not guns killing people. so let's think outside the box, and not use an innocent gun to do my devilish deed. What say you defenders of liberity? What tool(s)should I use to kill a large number of people? Not sure my ninja star collection will suffice.
Top
Posted by MCGuy (+59) 9 years ago
One name comes to mind Muletrain....Timothy McVeigh.

[This message has been edited by MCGuy (7/23/2012)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 9 years ago
Give them a couple extra pumps of that butter flavored crap. Trans fats are deadly.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 9 years ago
AAAAAHHHHH. Tim Mcveigh. What we need is for the NRA to step in and make sure ALL ARMS are legal. That way, if a guy like MCveigh comes around with a bomb, a bomb packing bystander can blow him up first.

I'd kind of like to know from our "2nd Amendment Supporters" what the limit is. How big a clip do you really need to protect yourself? Do you really need 100 rounds without reloading at your immediate, and I mean instantaneously immediate, disposal?

How big a weapon does one require for their own protection. Is 50 calibre enough or going too far?

Just remember. Bombs don't kill people. People kill people. And guns are just a tool.

And by the way. I support the 2nd Amendment. I just don't support the paranoid nut jobs that think they need all of this fire power.
Top
Posted by mule train (+1056) 9 years ago
Well noted mc guy. 4800 lbs of ammonium nitrate fertilizer does the job. How much does that cost? Just curious. Seems like a $1,000 and a 30 min. Background check would be easier. But hey, ammonium nitrate fertilizer doesn't kill people. People kill people!
Top
Posted by MCGuy (+59) 9 years ago
Actually Mule Train, I read that this nut job spent well over 11000.00 on all the crap he bought before he went nuts in a theater.

I'm not what you would call a total gun nut and I've voted Democrat in the last couple elections. Just explain to me how the assault weapons "ban" would have done anything to stop this from happening. There are millions of these assault weapons on the street already.

By the way, his AR-15 (Horrible Assault Weapon) jammed on him and he went to a handgun. I believe he had a pump shotgun as well. Better ban all those too.
Top
Posted by Exalted Buckaroo (+249) 9 years ago
Thanks to Tucker, Wendy and Bob II, reason is rising to the surface. You know, we're told that Aurora PD arrived on the scene 90 seconds after the Joker opened fire. Forensics may eventually tell us how many were killed and/or wounded in that opening burst but, whatever the number, the argument that unfettered access to high-capacity magazines on semi-automatic platforms isn't central to the capacity of an unstable person to kill & maim fails as miserably as our attempt to regulate to reality on the subject of assault weapons.

After this latest incident, we should all feel justified in filing an assault with a deadly weapon charge against anyone who looks our way or raises his voice while brandishing an AR-15 or it's equivalent. After all, why do you think they call them "assault weapons"?

Tucker, I'm just glad you and Glenna chose to sit out that particular premiere.
Top
Posted by mule train (+1056) 9 years ago
Well for the record I own 15 guns. Not one assault rifle. Are they fun to shoot? Yes. Are they made for any other purpose than killing humans? No. Why ban tommy guns? Why ban rocket launchers? Why not let the criminally insane access to anything they want? I don't know about banning altogether, but after the sht that went down in aurora...I would say there is something wrong with you if you didn't agree to some kind of restriction....even if it meant a 6 month waiting period vs a 30 min wait.

[This message has been edited by mule train (7/23/2012)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 9 years ago
The argument against ANY restriction is the old slippery slope routine. In my opinion, the slippery slope has allowed us to slide way too far in the wrong direction.
Top
supporter
Posted by cj sampsel (+479) 9 years ago
I own multiple firearms, believe in the second amendment but refuse
to belong to the NRA. I think it should be harder to purchase guns.
Yeah you could still buy them on the "black market."
Yeah people kill people but guns make it a helluva lot easier.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Tucker Bolton (+3677) 9 years ago
I just read that gun sales in the Denver area have skyrocketed since this past Friday at the movies. That sounds so innocuous doesn't it? Friday night at the movies. The background check or thirty minute inconvenience has increased in Denver and surrounding counties by 41%. That is since the shootings. I will probably not carry a firearm with me the next time I go to the movies but I do have a question for the armed and newly armed citizens.

What is the etiquette, should an armor clad, armed to the teeth, person storm into a crowd? Lets assume that 1/4TH of the crowd is packing. Does one call it like a fly ball? "I've got it" and the rest of the eager protectors, aqueous and trust in the guy or gal who has dibs or does every one open up at once? I can see this second option as dangerous. Hell, the guy that called dibs might get pissed and shoot one of the well meaning armed people. Oh, some people might even miss and hit the wrong person. If he or she dies that would be safer but if they are only winged (I heard that in a Roy Rogers movie.)They will be upset and might shoot back.

Should the unarmed in the crowd remain seated or offer to reload for the others? I go to the movies in Denver. I have never been in a situation like this but I can see it as a reality if there is not a psychic change in America. Yep, I'm talking about some serious soul searching.

Lets face it. Obama hasn't come to take your guns away and he is not going to. Admit it, many of you were afraid that was going to happen. Don't deny it. I've heard you say it. The gun lobby just has too much money and they throw a lot of it around in DC. No self respecting politician or any other thief is willing to turn down cash money. Who builds guns? Corporations and who owns corporations? Rich white guys. They spread that money around so that they can continue to get richer. They know that something shiny, that you have a right to own will make you happy.

How bad do you need a lightweight, semi-automatic, assault rifle with a fifty round clip and three or four thousand rounds to shoot that mangy antelope? How safe would you be with a loaded Glock filled to the brim with sixteen hollow points in your bedside table? I'm sure your kids would love to show there classmates.

I'm not sure if I am saddened more by the awful event itself or by the reaction I have seen as the result. I don't think more guns are the answer.
Top
Posted by Jan Cornutt (+275) 9 years ago
I just Love crisis management.....korkyII
Top
Posted by mule train (+1056) 9 years ago
Had there been a guy with a concealed weapon permit in the crowd that night in Aurora, the only thing he would have accomplished is a) drawing fire away from everyone else, and b) getting killed. The shooter had on body armor. No way the concealed weapon guy with no armor wins that one, especially when he is shooting his .38 snob nosed. You want to own an assault rifle? Fine, but first take a series of tests to prove your not under duress and mentally competent. Then wait 3-6 months and it's yours!

But Tucker's right, there are a lot of stolen guns on the market. Our neighbor in Denver was buglarized 6 months ago. Among the items stolen...a 9mm Glock handgun.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 9 years ago
Maybe we can boycott movie theaters. Then the big chains, faced with declining profits, could duke it out with the NRA. Maybe then we could have a sensible discussion of reasonable gun control laws.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 9 years ago
I could be wrong, but I think people are overestimating the effectiveness of body armor. It keeps you alive, but it's not like you just walk through a hail of bullets like people were throwing ping pong balls at you. My impression is that getting shot wearing a bullet proof vest is a lot like getting hit with a sledge hammer. You may not die, but it's going to interrupt what you're doing.

Ironically, the best scenario when it's 300 people vs. 1 guy with a gun would be to rush him. Even if 2 or 3 people came after him the second he opened fire he wouldn't have had more than a couple victims but sadly nobody thinks that clearly or has that much courage in that kind of shocking situation and the natural reaction is to run away, which may save you but maximizes the casualties. In ancient times battles usually ended after a very brief confrontation and 90% of the casualties were taken while one side or the other was running away.

[This message has been edited by Levi Forman (7/25/2012)]
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17062) 9 years ago
Levi, have you ever seen the story about the North Hollywood bank robbers? Cops with standard sidearms didn't have a chance against those guys until they armed themselves with much heavier weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...d_shootout

"Local patrol officers at the time were typically armed with their personal 9 mm or .38 Special pistols, with some having a 12-gauge shotgun available in their cars. Phillips and Matasareanu carried illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an AR-15 rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor. They also wore body armor of their own. Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' bullets were ineffective. SWAT eventually arrived with rifles powerful enough to penetrate the body armor. Several officers also appropriated AR-15 rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident sparked debate on the need for patrol officers to upgrade their capabilities in similar situations in the future."
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1525) 9 years ago
I believe the police were armed by a civilian who owned a gun store. The firearms these people used were illegal. If the AK-47 rifles they used were fully automatic they were either bought in that configuration illegally or underwent extensive modification to be made fully automatic or selective fire. The receiver has to be split to do this. Had someone walked up to them and told them what they were doing was illegal , it would have diffused the entire situation.

Perhaps these people would be better suited in a career in politics or law enforcement.

There has never been a crime in the US with a legally owned machine gun , yet they have all but been outlawed.

What if Sherry in Sidney had a ladysmith. If you do not know what a ladysmith is then google it. She was capable of making use of it.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17062) 9 years ago
My reply was directed at Levi's comment about, "...overestimating the effectiveness of body armor. It keeps you alive, but it's not like you just walk through a hail of bullets like people were throwing ping pong balls at you." That's basically what these guys did against trained law enforcement officers.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 9 years ago
Yes I am familiar with that episode. I can't guarantee that this is real but I have no reason to doubt it. All I'm saying is that armor or no, you don't want to get shot, and nobody goes calmly about their business while bullets are hitting them, no matter how much armor they have on.



[This message has been edited by Levi Forman (7/25/2012)]
Top
Posted by Elizabeth Emilsson (+797) 9 years ago
Think of all the places you do not want to be where people packing concealed weapons may have cause or think they have cause to draw their weapons and start firing. Here in Colorado, a couple won their law suit to carry concealed weapons in the Post Office. Picture this scenario: Some the people waiting in line getting so exasparated with the snail like progress of postal workers and the line not moving and decide to start blasting away. This is why I never think about carrying a gun. (or standing in line at the Miles City Walmart)
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 9 years ago
Thing is, there are a lot of states that have had concealed weapon permits for a long time, Montana included and the incidents of people whipping out guns over people taking cuts in line at Walmart are almost exactly zero. Contrary to popular belief, having a handgun in your pocket does not turn you into a psychopath.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 9 years ago
Let's do this. Let's say you're all right and a majority voted to create a law that makes it illegal to produce or own "assault weapons". Explain to me how this law will be enforced in such a way that wouldn't be comparable to say, outlawing homosexuality.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17062) 9 years ago
As long as your "assault weapon" stays at home in your bedroom, who cares?
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 9 years ago
Amiright?
Top
Posted by Kay (+51) 9 years ago
Right on. Research with logic not emotion.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 9 years ago
Apparently he didn't have body armor after all.

Retailer who sold to Holmes getting backlash

TacticalGear.com filled an order received on July 2 from Holmes, who allegedly opened fire inside an Aurora, Colo., theater on Friday, killing 12 people. Holmes paid $306.79 for an urban assault vest, two magazine pouches and a tactical knife.

Chief Executive Officer Chad Weinman said despite its name, the urban assault vest is not bulletproof, but is simply a vest made for carrying accessories.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 9 years ago
It must look really cool for 300 bucks.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17062) 9 years ago
Top
Posted by Brandon Loomis (+96) 9 years ago
Can we get the name of this thread changed to "Hypothetical situations created on why gun ownership is bad!"

People should only comment on the Aurora shooting after all the facts have come out. If in fact it's true that he wasn't wearing a bullet proof vest people like this will look silly...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-m-burns/second-amendment-straying_b_1697572.html

"First, as a practical matter, it should be noted that this argument borders on the absurd."

That's in response to the hypothetical situation gun advocates have come up with. Directly following the author says.

"The suspected shooter, 24-year-old James Holmes, was wearing protective body-armor from head to toe."

This is a copy and paste from the article. What's really absurd is that he claims he was wearing protective body-armor from head to toe.

Really? His shoes, pants, pelvic region, arms, upper body, stomach, and head were all protected by body-armor? Now if you consider shoes protection from a thorn or stubbing your toe. The knee pads to protect you from slipping and falling and scraping your knee. The gas mask to protect from harmful gas. None of these items stop bullets.

It should be noted that article was written by a lawyer, someone who should know better than inaccurate and biased reporting. Notice he says "Suspected" shooter as if it's a possibility that James Holmes did not do this. We know this as fact that he did people are just trying to be politically correct with the suspected nonsense. However he says that James Holmes was wearing body-armor head to toe as if it's so much of a fact that Moses should present it to the masses on stone tablets.

Point is you can use all the hypothetical situations in the world but it doesn't change what happened. A group of unarmed citizens were gunned down by a madman. Maybe a gun toting citizen could have shot and killed James Holmes before injuring so many. Maybe he would have been shot and killed himself. I know one thing for sure I would rather be known in history to go down defending myself, family, and fellow citizens, rather than going to slaughter like a lamb.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 9 years ago
He's using the word "suspected" to protect himself from liable suits. All journalists use this term or the word "alleged" to refer to a perpetrator before he's been convicted. Innocent until proven guilty. Silly in some cases but necessary all the same.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17062) 9 years ago
Liable?
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 9 years ago
Pretty good read, science-based look at the causes of crime and violence.

http://blogs.scientificam...kers-wild/
Top
Posted by Brandon Loomis (+96) 9 years ago
Yeah not the point. The author is willing to say "suspected" even though it is a true statement that James Holmes shot and killed people in a theater in Aurora, CO. Then goes on to say that James Holmes was wearing body armor head to toe, which is a false statement. And he could only be sued if the first statement were found to be not true and he can also print it as his own personal opinion. Since that article is filled with a lot of assumptions and opinion why be a coward and grant James Holmes innocence for the time being.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Tucker Bolton (+3677) 9 years ago
Levi, good article. Thanks for posting it. I hope those who read it will do so in its entirety.

There is a tendency to hop on the band wagon and join the parade of popular opinion. That always gives the joiner the perceived right of , condemnation prior to investigation.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 9 years ago
...social capital defined as interpersonal trust that promotes cooperation between citizens for mutual benefit


I absolutely love this concept. This is something we all need to work on... and is one of the most lacking character traits in our western rural society, particularly where interaction with government agencies is involved.
Top
supporter
Posted by Simon Niece (+301) 9 years ago
Once again I believe Levi has nailed it on the head. Excellent science-based read.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17062) 9 years ago
Was the gist of the article, "Men who cling to their 'guns' are sexually frustrated?"
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeff Denton (+763) 9 years ago
I saw an interesting story yesterday with photo comparisons suggesting that the person known as James Holmes is not the same joker that was brought into the courtroom the day before. It was pretty convincing, when you study the facial features.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Tucker Bolton (+3677) 9 years ago
Let the conspiracy theory's begin.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 9 years ago
I absolutely love this concept. This is something we all need to work on... and is one of the most lacking character traits in our western rural society, particularly where interaction with government agencies is involved.


I don't know if I agree with that. "Interpersonal trust that promotes cooperation between citizens for mutual benefit" is how pretty much all the calves in Custer County get branded every year.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 9 years ago
I don't know if I agree with that. "Interpersonal trust that promotes cooperation between citizens for mutual benefit" is how pretty much all the calves in Custer County get branded every year.


Oh I absolutely agree with you about that, Levi. LOT'S of social capital where brandings, fires, and ranch life are concerned. I was thinking more along the lines of taking that same group of people and put them in a BLM or FS meeting where the topic is say translocation of prairie dogs. You'd quickly see that the social capital account is overdrawn.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 9 years ago
Damn your eyes, David! LIBEL LIBEL LIBEL!!
Top