Summations Only

Even dropping the "fight the feds stuff", state militias were pretty good defense back in the 18th-19th century. Even the armies had pretty lousy weapons and the country was so sparsely populated that even and part timers practicing very occasionally were good enough.But there's a reason why we changed the makeup of the militia at the end of the 19th century. A bunch of civilians with little to no training relying on hiding in the woods with home defense weapons is simply not good enough anymore.And regarding the "fight the feds stuff", let's recall that the weak central government idea had been demonstrated to be a complete failure. And it's also not the amendment that got ratified.

On the way home this afternoon I listed to an NPR program in which 6 people, 3 gun advocates and three gun control advocates discuss their views on guns. I did not get to hear the entire segment, but what I did hear was pretty illustrative of the difficulty people on opposing sides of the debate in understanding each other. I'll talk about my impressions once I've gotten a chance to hear the whole thing, but I did want to give others a chance to hear the program on air or via the web.On Gun Ownership And Policy, 'A Country Of Chasms' : NPREdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It's likely that they were not members. Apparently the NRA does not even issue Membership certificates. The NRA does offer certificates of completing NRA programs and training. Adam had a certificate for completing a pistol shooting basics course.But what's funny to me is the vehemence of the denial. Would the boy scouts react this way if Adam Lanza had been reported to be an Eagle scout:

quote:

---

In a sharply worded statement, the NRA said, "There is no record of a member relationship between Newtown killer Adam Lanza, nor between Nancy Lanza, A. Lanza or N. Lanza with the National Rifle Association. Reporting to the contrary is reckless, false and defamatory."

---

Quite frankly, the obtainable information would have been utterly unhelpful to the police. They would not have been reasonably expected to take any action on it. Didn't the guns belong to mom?

I'm all for requiring guns to be registered. But I'm pretty sure I don't want the government to behave as you describe. Deciding to investigate mom because she's legally purchased too many guns is on shaky enough grounds. But then the government decides my mom is nuts, so suddenly I'm a target to investigate? That's way too "State-y" for me. Yes a bullet proof vest does raise suspicions, but what should the government do about that? There are plenty of things that are indicators of trouble. I'll bet Lanza's reading list and his internet searches are full of worrying information. But I don't want to give the government access to my information in order to catch that guy.

A transcript of the NPR program mentioned in the title can be found at the link below:On Gun Ownership And Policy, 'A Country Of Chasms' : NPRI had a question for gun advocates regarding this exchange between gun enthusiast Gwaltney and host Melissa Block.

quote:

---

PAUL GWALTNEY: This is where we keep everything. So...

​

BLOCK: In the basement, Paul shows me shelves of ammo and their 36-gun vault.

​

GWALTNEY: And we're making room for a second vault because we're overloading this one. So...

​

(LAUGHTER)

​

BLOCK: It's full?

​

GWALTNEY: It is full. Yes.

​

BLOCK: And he keeps one more handgun upstairs for protection. How many guns in all? Paul tells me that's a question only non-gun owners ask, fixating on the number, implying that people have more guns than they need. For gun owners, he says, there is no distinction between need and want.

---

Gwaltney had something on the order of 50 guns. I simply cannot fathom the idea that only non-gun owners, upon hearing about Gwaltney's overloaded gun vault, and his plans to build a second vault, would not ask how many guns Gwaltney had. Could some gun owner comment on this question?The Gwaltney part was a preliminary to the debate/discussion. The three participants in the gun discussion who owned guns each owned two-three guns and they each knew exactly how many they had.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : effing homonyms.

Hmm. From what I've heard, all of the guns used in the shootings belonged to his mother, but that's not quite a rebuttal of what you said is it? We also know that Adam Lanza tried unsuccessfully to buy a rifle at Dick's sporting goods.

I wish the result were some kind of surprise. But only the fact that a vote was even taken should surprise us.Next time, Gadget. Next time...

I awarded you a cheer for recognizing that your anger had gotten the best of you and deleting your post. But perhaps you should reflect on why someone disagreeing with you, even on an issue like capital punishment, should make you so angry.Surely you've encountered people having opinions similar to Tempe 12 foot chickens before.

Okay. Let's do that. Looks like you offered it as something correct but one sided. But it turns out that your list does not contain much one-sided "truth". So where's the humor? A democrat shot someone. Tee-hee...

Couldn't you just wrap your gun in tin foil? Or are we saving that to make hats?

Here is what an NRA spokes person says about the reaction to Armatix's smart gun. When gun nuts react to market forces... duck and cover!

What are you advocating here. Sweeps of your house by state officials to see if you are being responsible so they can admonish you?Just when would this admonishment take place?I think those are the kind of questions that people think about when they consider "admonishment" to be a rather trivial, nothing of an activity. When your toddler shoots his sister with the gun you left on the coffee table, I don't think admonishment is the proper response.

You aren't doing your job. Get busy.

I'm clairvoyant. Was I right?