EAA bans guns at OSH

Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by Tom-D, Mar 19, 2012.

  1. JGoodish

    JGoodish Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,296
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    JGoodish
    Nope. A firearm isn't violent, the person using it is violent. Such a person could use any number of other instruments in equally violent ways. Those individuals who wish to keep firearms for self-protection aren't intent on violence, they're intent on defending themselves against it.


    JKG
     
  2. Silvaire

    Silvaire En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,469
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Silvaire
    The funny thing about guns and gun control is that a nine year old kid can toss one errant lawn dart and the things are forever banished from the face of the Earth but a nutcase can go in time after time and shoot up a whole gaggle of folks with a gun and you can't so much as even get an ordinance to require a dang permit to own one of the contraptions.

    It really is kind of mind boggling.
     
  3. poadeleted21

    poadeleted21 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2011
    Messages:
    12,332
    They're both equally idiotic bans. But Lawn darts aren't #2 on the amendment list.

    And the funny thing about guns is that a mentally disturbed person can steal a gun from a person 100% legally qualified to own one then commit crimes with it and people will call for more legislation that doesn't do anything to prevent said crime. i.e. nobody even has to throw the errant dart for new laws to be brought up.
     
  4. Clark1961

    Clark1961 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    17,745
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Display name:
    So now you've totally abdicated from your position which claimed that violence is the use of force and are holding forth that guns can kill so they are bad. Guess what, cars can kill much easier (and more commonly) than guns.

    I will point out that recently some folks found it easier to kill with pressure cookers than with guns.

    Obviously you and I won't find common ground on this issue. Have a good evening. Sleep well knowing that folks with guns are defending your freedoms.
     
  5. LDJones

    LDJones Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    10,930
    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jonesy
    Sort of like a safe, tranquil elementary school in CT? :dunno:
     
  6. LDJones

    LDJones Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    10,930
    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jonesy
    Be sure to put a very big sign out front on your house so the bad guys know your rules. I'm sure they'll appreciate not running afoul of your house rules. :yes:
     
  7. gprellwitz

    gprellwitz Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    12,944
    Location:
    Romeoville, IL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Grant Prellwitz
    Apparently, we nutbags can at least read, unlike some poor oxygen deprived people who live a mile up! :wink2::wink2::D
     
  8. poadeleted21

    poadeleted21 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2011
    Messages:
    12,332
    LOL.

    I heard a talk show the other morning that claimed Indiana was the reason the Chicago gun bans didn't work :rofl:
     
  9. LDJones

    LDJones Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    10,930
    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jonesy
    :yeahthat:

    We're so concerned about that here in MN that if you violate one of those "Guns Prohibited" signs it could cost you $25. :yikes:
     
  10. Clark1961

    Clark1961 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    17,745
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Display name:
    Hey, oxygen deprivation has it's benefits...I just forget what they are...who are you?
     
  11. wanttaja

    wanttaja En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,502
    Location:
    Seattle
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ron Wanttaja
    Please point out where I said they were bad. If I thought that, I'd have to get rid of mine.

    Primary purpose of a car is transportation; people misuse them (mostly accidentally) to harm others. A car isn't *designed* to kill. A firearm is. This is not intrinsically bad; it's just the nature of the tool.

    Society recognizes that potential harm a car can do, and establishes training and licensing requirements. All things being equal, the same sort of thing would make sense for firearms. However, the Founding Fathers felt that gun ownership is a fundamental right, and I do not question their judgement.

    While society shouldn't try to bar private, law-abiding gun ownership, society *should* be emphasizing gun safety. One of the more positive things out of the NRA are its gun-safety programs; I was a member of an NRA youth rifle team way back in the dawn o' time.

    During high school, driver's safety courses were mandatory. Gun safety courses should also become part of the curriculum. If nothing else, it might tend to de-mysticize guns; make them less of a forbidden fruit. Knew a kid back in high school who was disemboweled by a shotgun; parents were gone, and the kid and his friend dug out the gun and started playing with it. Decent training might have made him respect the weapon a bit more. I know our Range Safety Officer put the fear of gawd into me... :)

    So, last year, about 20,000 people in the US were killed with guns. If pressure cooker fatalities came within two orders of magnitude of that, you'd certainly see changes instituted.

    In any case, it's a ridiculous argument. Deny a terrorist a pressure cooker, and he'll build a bomb into something else. Deny a lunatic a gun, and the odds are overwhelming that he'll choose a less-fatal weapon. Certainly not one that'll kill ten people in as many seconds.

    But this does illustrate my fundamental concern: Stupid analogies and goofy logic used to defend gun ownership. I support private ownership of firearms; I neither want to see universal registration nor the requirement that the government must approve a law-abiding citizen's decision to arm himself.

    People forget there are three sides to this issue: There are the people in favor of private gun ownership, there are the people who want to take the guns away, and there is the vast mass of people in the middle. Those are the people you must convince...preaching to the choir is no help.

    A good many of those people in the middle aren't stupid. They can see the logical fallacies of claims that pressure cookers are just as dangerous as firearms. Such an argument doesn't help; it even hurts by making the pro-gun side look ridiculous.

    For those who wish to interject that the OTHER side uses the same sort of stupid logic: yes, some of them do. But that's not the side I want to win. I want to hear arguments from the pro-gun side that doesn't make me wince. It happens, but not often enough.

    *Trained* folks with guns are defending our freedoms. There is a difference. I really prefer not to get downrange of the others.

    Ron Wanttaja
     
  12. roncachamp

    roncachamp Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    Messages:
    7,229
    Location:
    De Pere, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Steven P McNicoll
    What's really kind of mind boggling is that you feel the problem is the gun, not the nutcase.
     
  13. jtheune

    jtheune En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,762
    Location:
    Severna Park, MD
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    John T
    What's mind boggling is how wrong you are with your analogy. Lawn darts were banned because they were marketing for children who did not have the understanding of how they could be safely used. Guns happening to have that pesky second amendment and you do have to pass a check to buy one from a register seller. The only way to legally buy one without a background check is from a private party, used.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2013
  14. Anthony

    Anthony Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    18,611
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Anthony
    That is the crux of the problem with that thinking. The blame is taken away from the individual, and put on the inanimate object. The same thing can be said for airplanes. I often hear from friends, and associates, that "small airplanes are dangerous". No, stupid people, doing stupid stuff in small airplanes are dangerous.

    Silvaire, maybe we should more severely regulate or ban small airplanes, huh? They are obviously the problem, not the pilots. :rolleyes:

    And one more thing about the intent of certain products like cars, etc. Cars, guns, knives, swimming pools, planes, hammers, etc do NOT have intent nor purpose until someone (a person) uses them. Inanimate objects do not know intent, only people. Put the blame where it belongs, on the individual.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2013
  15. nddons

    nddons Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    13,303
    Location:
    Waukesha County, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Stan
    ...and hope to never, ever, even have to unholster it to protect themselves, but are prepared to do so.
     
  16. dweyant

    dweyant Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    Messages:
    376
    Location:
    Georgetown, TX
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dan
    Really?

    I have a number of firearms, and I'm pretty certain most of them have never been used for violence of any type, unless you count the destruction of clay pigeons, steel targets, and putting holes in paper.

    Also, your statement that you don't trust people with a CHL is a bit misinformed. CHL holders as a group commit crimes at a slightly lower rate than sworn police officers. Significantly lower rate than the general population, so if you don't trust a CHL holder with a a gun, you must be down right terrified of the general population.
     
  17. wanttaja

    wanttaja En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,502
    Location:
    Seattle
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ron Wanttaja
    Read what I posted...and what you quoted. "Firearms are made solely for the projection of lethal force." If your firearms are not capable (repeat, capable) of killing someone, then you have my apologies.

    First, you should learn to spell out terms.. I used to have a CWP (Concealed Weapons permit), so I assume a CHL is something similar.

    Second, anyone who goes downrange of an untrained individual with a firearm is an idiot. I got my concealed permit after application and fingerprinting. Zip training.

    I certainly believe that someone who takes the effort to obtain a concealed weapons permit is safer than the run-of-the-mill citizen; they have demonstrated the willingness to conform to the law.

    But the percentages intrigue me: What percentage of the run-of-the-mill public carry concealed firearms, vs. those with Concealed Weapons Permits? Certainly, the average citizen would be far, FAR more dangerous with a gun, but the percentage of those carrying is pretty low. No "downrange" issues, for the vast majority of cases.

    Ron Wanttaja
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2013
  18. LDJones

    LDJones Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    10,930
    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jonesy
    I'd bet it wasn't loaded.
     
  19. docmirror

    docmirror Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    12,008
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cowboy - yeehah!
    While I agree with the 'get training' sentiment, that's covered in the 'well regulated militia' in the 2nd A. From those times, the 'well regulated' means trained, so you have the wording already in place to insure training is accomplished. This is one area of the amendment I can see strengthened. The legislation needed to define a 'militia' could be in order, and I think that's where the future of gun regulation will be going.

    First, one must be a member of a militia, which isn't hard, I could call myself and my two buddies a militia. next we need to be well regulated, meaning set standards for training. I'm betting this will be the wedge the feds need to start focused gun control coming up.
     
  20. Bob Noel

    Bob Noel Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    13,177
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bob Noel
    Please read what you wrote.

    Being capable of killing someone is not the same thing as being made solely for the purpose of killing.
     
  21. rwellner98

    rwellner98 Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    717
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    rw2
    FWIW, you and two buddies aren't a militia. The NRA says things like that, but the courts have rules many times for over two hundred years that it ain't so. The militia in question is the state right to raise an army.

    As an example, Jefferson is a president that gun rights people tend to quote. He actually tried his VP (Burr) for treason for forming a private militia. Burr's defense, notably, didn't once mention the notion of the 2nd amendment being an individual right (as opposed to state right) because that notion wasn't created by the NRA until the late 1970's.

    Please note that none of the above is a statement about how things should be (in either direction), merely a statement of fact about how they are.
     
  22. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    47,812
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    LOL... Interesting. I missed it. :)
     
  23. Clark1961

    Clark1961 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    17,745
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Display name:
    Starting at the top. You claim that guns are designed solely to kill. Are you also saying that killing is good? It seems to me that you are suggesting that killing is bad. In other words, you say that guns are bad because we all know that killing is bad.

    Now as to your continued insistence that guns are designed only to kill. That is clearly false yet you refuse to admit it. Guns are designed to safely accelerate a projectile or projectiles with the gun operator having some hope of the projectile or projectiles striking some particular location.

    The killing part comes from the operator's desires in the matter.

    Now how do you want to change your argument again?
     
  24. Silvaire

    Silvaire En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,469
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Silvaire
    You mean the "shall not be infringed" thing? Well let's see...you can't take your gun onto an airliner or into a courtroom. In most cases you're not allowed to carry it around with you in public, to Applebees or Costco, the mall, the theater or the library and these, I think you'll admit, are all sensible restrictions.

    So explain to me what it is you think the second amendment states and why there are restrictions (or infringements) that we consider sensible?
     
  25. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    47,812
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    Incorrect. Cite a SCOTUS case that uses the 2nd as justification for the standing Army, and also look up the laws the standing Army is actually authorized from.

    SCOTUS has *never* tied the 2nd to the justification for the United States to field a military.
     
  26. nddons

    nddons Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    13,303
    Location:
    Waukesha County, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Stan
    They're not that smart. :no:
     
  27. wanttaja

    wanttaja En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,502
    Location:
    Seattle
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ron Wanttaja
    Nope. I say that guns are designed for the projection of lethal force. How that lethal force is used is up to the operator. The gun is neutral. But unless it is *capable* of projecting that lethal force, it is not really considered a gun.

    Nope, never made a moral judgement about killing. I'm an omnivore with a preference for beef. Without killing, dinnertime would be less enjoyable.

    As an ex-military officer and amateur military historian, I understand that killing human beings in sometimes necessary. So no moral judgement there, either.

    Nope. I say that guns are designed for the projection of lethal force. How that lethal force is used is up to the operator. The gun is neutral. But unless it is *capable* of projecting that lethal force, it is not really considered a gun.

    (Doncha love cut and paste?)

    Ron Wanttaja
     
  28. dweyant

    dweyant Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    Messages:
    376
    Location:
    Georgetown, TX
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dan
    I very much do not agree that those are sensible restrictions.

    You are also wrong, I can carry a gun into just about all of your examples listed above. Laws vary from state to state, but in my state it is quite legal to carry in all of your examples except the courtoom.
     
  29. nddons

    nddons Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    13,303
    Location:
    Waukesha County, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Stan
    Um, not really. Federalists 29 and 46 discuss the benefits of a standing (federal) army vs. militia's from the various states.

    But the most telling document is a letter from John Adams (who makes a fabulous beer) to James Warren:

     
  30. EdFred

    EdFred Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    20,956
    Location:
    Michigan
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ed Frederick
    Nope. Guns are designed to fire a projectile. The amount of force is determined by the amount of gunpowder used to fire and the weight of said projectile.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2013
  31. wanttaja

    wanttaja En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,502
    Location:
    Seattle
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ron Wanttaja
    I think we've got a terminology/interpretation issue here; I use "Lethal Force" to define the level of force produced; not the intent. Perhaps a better term would be "the purpose of a gun is to produce a Lethal LEVEL of Force."

    Better, Bob? :)

    Ron Wanttaja
     
  32. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    47,812
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    The existence of non-lethal or less-than-lethal rounds available for standard firearms, pretty much kills that statement.

    You saying a shotgun suddenly isn't a shotgun when a bean-bag round is loaded in it?
     
  33. Skylane81E

    Skylane81E Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    8,060
    Location:
    Cincinnati
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Duncan
    Roger,

    But as I stated, it took no validity from your post:wink2:
     
  34. Skylane81E

    Skylane81E Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    8,060
    Location:
    Cincinnati
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Duncan
    "A gun is a device for throwing balls"

    -Oliver Winchester
     
  35. EdFred

    EdFred Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    20,956
    Location:
    Michigan
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ed Frederick

    *flexes bicep*

    Well, I was clocked at 92 on the radar gun a couple times.
     
  36. EdFred

    EdFred Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    20,956
    Location:
    Michigan
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ed Frederick
    Uhhhhhh........
     
  37. wanttaja

    wanttaja En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,502
    Location:
    Seattle
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ron Wanttaja
    The way I understand it, there were two kinds of militia back then. There was the "Select" militia; the group that would meet periodically for drill. Otherwise, the "Militia" was defined as, basically, all able-bodied males 17 years of age or older. I believe this was even defined in the first release of the US Code.

    Some people try to claim that the National Guard is the "militia"; in fact, the National Guards were coordinated through the US Government's "Militia Bureau" into the 20th century. However, it's a bad interpretation. The National Guard of today is effectively just another branch of the parent services. The Second Amendment certainly wasn't intended to just let the Government arm itself. The militia was always intended to be a home-defense arrangement; the US Government has been sending the National Guard to overseas wars for more than a century.

    The "Well Regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment is a bit of a puzzler. We must remember that language changes over the years; for instance, in Shakespearian times, "Meat" just meant, "Food"...not specifically animal flesh. I don't recall seeing any interpretations of what "Well Regulated" meant in Colonial times, but the fact is, the founding fathers wanted the average citizen armed to be available to defend their homes.

    It should be noted, though, that in the early days of the country, US Militias basically stank on ice. The early United States didn't start gaining traction until they formed the Continental Army along European lines... including European instructors like Von Steuben. The Militia may have harrassed the British back from Lexington, but it took a well organized, well-trained Army to trap Cornwallis at Yorktown.

    In the War of 1812, militia units didn't work too well either... the Bladensberg Races come to mind. They were usually too badly trained, and too badly equipped. Uniforms consisted of homespun cloth, their everyday clothing (the same "butternut" you see mentioned for Confederate troops fifty years later). Confronted by trained troops, they usually fired one volley and ran.

    There's an amusing story along these lines, related to the US invasion of Canada in 1814. The US 6th Infantry spearheaded the attack, having been trained to perfection by General Winfield Scott. The 6th was well equipped...except for uniforms. They wore the same Butternut as the militia.

    When forces were joined at what would be called the Battle of Chippawa, the British General saw the masses of American troops coming against him. More of that worthless Militia, he said. They'll soon fall apart.

    They didn't. They crossed a stream and formed in line, under heavy fire all the way, and starting coming. The British General had a sudden realization, and he shouted it to his surrounding staff officers:

    "Those are REGULARS, by God!"

    "Regulars, By God" is still the motto of the 6th Infantry....

    Ron Wanttaja
     
  38. nddons

    nddons Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    13,303
    Location:
    Waukesha County, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Stan
    Oh, yea. Well John must have sold the business to Sam. :redface::goofy::cheers:
     
  39. nddons

    nddons Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    13,303
    Location:
    Waukesha County, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Stan
    Agree on all of the above, Ron. I didn't know about the 6th Infantry and the invasion of Canada. I'm going to do some reading on that this weekend.

    By the way, I take it that we didn't want to keep Canada? :D
     
  40. slinger

    slinger Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    56
    Location:
    Bundox
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    taxvictim
    I've read almost all these pathetic antis posts and have definatly decided to leave here and watch some porn.