vol_scouter

Beavah, It is also a vacuous argument to discount a view just because Hitler is mentioned. Going to Wikipedia under gun politics in Germany reveals that some guns were more restricted and others less. This act was passed and enforced just prior to Kristallnacht so that Jews would be defenseless. Gun confiscation often precedes abuse of citizens. From Wikipedia: The 1938 German Weapons Act The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law: Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4] The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5] The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5] The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5] Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[6] Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year. On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation, which only applied to newly conquered Austria and Sudetenland, effectively deprived all Jews living in those locations of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[7][8]

Research is how I make my living so in general, more money for research is a positive to me. However, science that is entangled in politics or social policy demonstrate considerable bias toward the left. Most of it comes from the people involved, scientists, journal editors, and peer reviewers, who cannot admit to their personal bias. In the case of guns, the journal article in medical journals that I have read over the past couple of decades were good examples. Several of the papers were poorly done and others came to conclusions not really supported by the data. They all concluded that in some way or another that guns were evil and should be severely restricted (as in Great Britain where you can only have a gun at a range - it cannot be removed) or totally banned. I predict that the published articles portrays guns as having no reason for possession in your modern, civilized society. Thus, the left will have 'research' to back up banning firearms. Cuomo would gladly and enthusiastically confiscate all firearms and he is planning to run for the presidency. Ben Franklin was right. We are heading down a path to no liberty or safety.

Brewmiester, You are correct. As a people, we have given away far too many rights. Some because the people said nthing and in other circumstances, due to a desire to be more secure. In the long run, we lose freedom and never gain the security promised. Freedom inherently means risks.

Moosetracker, from that post, Ben Franklin was speaking directly to you.

There are no taxes on newspapers because freedom of the press is a right. The government could suppress that right by imposing large taxes. In my view, there should be no taxes on firearms or ammunition for the same reason. It is sad to me to see folks who should know more than the average citizen about their rights due to their Scouting experiences to be so willing to give up or suppress their rights, to invade privacy, and to punish law abiding citizens for exercising their rights. If you want to suppress our rights, then repeal or amend the Second Amendment, do not shred the constitution. Are we no longer a nation of laws? Benjamin Franklin echoes true through the ages: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I would add, that they will achieve neither.

Academia controls all of the so called 'reputable' journals and the media. They are left leaning to left wing. There is no opportunity for fair research or review of research. There have been some 'studies' published in medical journals that were poor science and reached unsubstantiated conclusions that were lauded. Contrary views were treated derisively rather than with serious discussions. There is no opportunity for free and honest discourse in academia for anything that has to do with the left's view of the world. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Beavah, Why do you wish to treat citizens as criminals? Whether a person locks their guns and ammunition is entirely their business otherwise you are invading my privacy. Why should I be held responsible when a criminal enters my home and steals a firearm? That is not only wrong but a stupid argument. As far as children or others that I have in my home, I should be held responsible just as I would for a can of gas or a ladder. How I store my guns is not the business of the government. Surely you can do better than trying to argue that dynamite or cannon style weapons are linked to the Second Amendment. There were cannon and explosives in the Revolutionary War. The Amendment does not mention such weapons but rather arms that one bears. It is clear that they meant rifles and handguns. They would likely have classed shotguns as well as being protected. They did not foresee the people being so willing to sell their rights for a false sense of security. They also would expect that the changes that you and others on the left are making to require a constitutional amendment. They certainly would be alarmed that the congress would even consider allowing the president to enact such restrictions unilaterally.

Twocub, You are right, dynamite and other things are not guaranteed rights under the constitution. As to having to keep guns locked up, that is abridging rights. If my guns are locked, then they are of no benefit to me if someone breaks into my domicile. Why should I have to lock them up to keep them from being stolen? The thief commits a crime by entering my house and stealing - even if the house is unlocked it is still a crime. Beavah talks about gun owners mission creep, which is laughable and he can't be serious. The mission creep occurs on the left with the reaction of gun owners to pushing more and more to abridge our rights. If everyone wants to abridge the rights of the people, pass an amendment to the constitution. If the feelings are as strong as everyone says, it will easily pass.

Note that this occurred in 2011 - not recently. More bad journalism or more to the point stories written to harm the BSA, not to report the news. Journalism appears to be dead in the US.

So Norway has very restrictive gun control and had 77 murdered in 2011. In the 1960's, the Bobbies in London used to go unarmed. Over that time, the control in Great Britain has become more restrictive but now the Bobbies are armed due to the violent crime. Gun control and confiscation do not work. The left will nonetheless strip law abiding citizens of their constitutional rights and end up with a more violent society. Freedom has risks. If we give our rights away, we do not deserve to be free.

Fscouter, So my use of the word is correct. When my rights are taken away, my privacy stripped, and my constitutional guarantees violated, then I will be punished. All gun owners are being punished for exercising their rights. Where is the outrage for the violation of our privacy? So someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night and waking from a dead sleep, I have to find the key or remember the combination to the gun safe, open it, go to a separate location to get the ammunition, load the gun, only then can I protect my family. That was not the intent of the founding fathers. If I cannot have a loaded firearm near me in the middle of the night, then I have no protection. Stripping those rights is punishing people for exercising their rights. It is wrong minded.

The courses are very dependent upon the teachers and the organization that sponsors the course. The NOLS courses are typically very well done and high quality from everything that I have heard about them. Unfortunately, they take longer, are often far away, and are quite expensive. I have taught the course through the Emergency Care and Safety Institute (ECSI) that covers everything reasonably well. As said above, the experience will be heavily dependent upon the skill, background, experience, and enthusiasm of the instructors.

But they are being punished if their privacy is violated, they are told how they can protect themselves, they have to register for a guaranteed right, or their addresses are published by so called newspapers who will not do the same for convicted sex offenders. So yes, law abiding gun owners are being punished.

Growing up in the south in the 50's and 60's, we had several guns that were never locked up and a few were always loaded. I learned to shoot and, more importantly, firearm safety from the age of 5. Guns in my home were never used for play. Most of my friends growing up were in similar households. If firearms are locked up and unloaded, they are of no value to defend your home from invasion. That was brought up in the Heller case. Instead of punishing responsible, legal gun owners, we should teach markmanship and firearm safety to all children. They need to understand the actual damage that a firearm inflicts. Seeing the falacious action shows and movies along with less rough and tumble play makes the connection between a firearm and the damage that is inflicted an abstract concept. Address the problem through education and dealing with our mental health issues. How people store their firearms is an invasion of their privacy. I tought that the left wanted privacy rights but this destroys privacy rights.

So Calico, you are correct in your assertion but let's portray it accurately. There were a total of 126 Congressmen representing the House and Senate for southern states. Of those, only 11 were Republicans. Some southern House districts, Senate seats, and governors had not been held by a republican since reconstruction until the 1980's. Why? The democrats were the party of segregation opposing the Republicans who were the party of integration. Here is the breakdown: The House version: Southern Democrats: 787 (7%93%) Southern Republicans: 010 (0%100%) Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%6%) Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%15%) The Senate version: Southern Democrats: 120 (5%95%) Southern Republicans: 01 (0%100%) Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%2%) Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%16%) Beavah and Moose and many in the media say that the Dixiecrat democrats (the term was still being applied in the sixties to the 'solid south') became Republicans. I just listed all the democrat Senators who voted and only one changed - Strom Thurmond. It is not true that the democrats voting against the 1964 civil rights act changed party. According to Stephen Ambrose by NPR, there was a Republican member of the House from the far west who went around the south in the 1950's telling the south to stop segregation. That Representative? Richard Nixon. So yes, Nixon was for integration before most politicians of either party. Like Brewmeister, I get tired of the way the left and the media twist history. They are masterful. As I said, going up in the south, it was clear that the democrat party in the south was the party of segregation. They were the form klansmen and proud of it (Robert Byrd). Those are facts. It is also a fact that the south as a region was wrong in its treatment of blacks. It is also true that it was historically the republican party that passed the 14th amendment and many other civil rights bills. If the past of a party should not be a measure of the party now, why do we hear about McCarthyism frequently? It is used to change the subject and put republicans on the defensive that many were not even alive when it occurred. Racism was and is not just a southern problem.

Beavah and Moose, You both are simply wrong. Here is a list of Dixiecrat Senators. Twenty two of them (did not find a list of names after a few minutes of searching) voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Only ONE changed parties (Thurmond). It is simply liberal lies about the party change that you two discuss. Here is the list: (D)VA Harry F. Byrd, 1933-1965, retired from the Senate for health reasons in November 1965 and died in 1966 (D)VA A. Willis Robertson, 1946-1966, Democrat Spong defeated Robertson in the primary in one of the biggest upsets in Virginia political history (D)WV Robert C. Byrd, 1959-2010, died in office (D)MS John C. Stennis, 1947-1989, Stennis retired from the Senate in 1989 (D)MS James O. Eastland, 1941-1941,1943-1978, he ultimately decided not to seek re-election in 1978 (D)LA Allen J. Ellender, 1937-1972, the veteran senator died during the primary campaign (D) TN Albert Gore, Sr. 1953-1971, defeated by Republican Bill Brock (D)LA Russell B. Long, 1948-1987, retired from the Senate in January 1987 (D)NC Sam Ervin, 1954-1974, resigned in December 1974, just before his term ended (D)NC Everett Jordan, 1958-1973, unseated in the 1972 Democratic primary by Congressman Nick Galifianakis (D)AL J. Lister Hill, 1938-1969 retired from the Senate in 1969 and was succeeded by fellow Democrat, James B. Allen of Gadsden (D)AL John J. Sparkman, 1946-1979 In his last Senate race in 1972, Sparkman easily defeated President Nixon's former Postmaster General, the Republican businessman Winton M. Blount of Montgomery and died of natural causes in a nursing home in Huntsville, at the age of eighty-five. (D)FL Spessard Holland, 1946-1971, left office in January 1971 due to an increasingly severe heart condition and died November 6, 1971 (D)FL George Smathers, 1951-1969, declined to run for re-election to a fourth Senate term and retired from politics (D)SC Olin D. Johnston, 1945-1965, died on April 18, 1965, following a long battle with cancer (D-R)SC Strom Thurmond, Democrat 1946-1964, Republican 1964-2003, died in office (D)AR John McClellan, 1943-1977, died 1977 (D)GA Richard B. Russell, Jr., 1933-1971, died in office (D)GA Herman E. Talmadge, 1957-1981, Talmadge defeated Miller but lost to Mack Mattingly in the general election. Mattingly was the first Republican to represent Georgia in the Senate since Reconstruction (D)TN Herbert S. Walters, 1963-1964, Walters was appointed to the Senate on August 20, 1963 when Estes Kefauver died by Governor Frank Clement at the age of 71 so that Clement could succeed him in the Senate As I stated, growing up in the south with a large population of people of color, unlike NH, I witnessed the terrible discrimination of the democrat party. That is part of the reason that I typically do not vote democrat.

Moose, You are joking, right? Only suppression of blacks voting in the south by democrats was pre-JFK? That is utter nonsense. The sixties was marked by southern democrats opposing integration, supporting the KKK at the very least by going easy on prosecution though some were members, etc. Do you not know about George Wallace? What about Robert Byrd who was a member of the KKK? Total nonsense. Part of the reason that I am a republican is because of the manner that the democrat party treated minorities and women.

Moose, Agree with it is actions that we should judge folks by. So historically, it was the democrat party that suppressed the African-American vote in the south. I note that NH according to the US census bureau, has a population that is 94.6% white and 1.3% black (the census bureau's designation - not mine). So if you were an observer at the polls or had observers at several polls that were reporting a large percentage (say 15%) of voters in a precinct known to have the average make up of NH, then one would have to question the legitimacy of the vote. Clearly, you do not see that as the case but with only one voter out of one hundred expected to be black, it is easy to see where such a concern would be raised. Across the country, many people have petitioned their governments to ensure that only duly registered voters be allowed to vote. All Americans should want only US citizens to vote and to vote only a single time. The democrat party has fought all efforts to ensure against voter fraud. They did not try to modify the legislation to address some of their concerns but support preventing voter fraud. At least in the south where the democrat party has been found to be involved in voter fraud before, one is led to the conclusion that the democrat party believes that voter fraud is in the best interest of the democrat party. Both parties are guilty of not doing what is right and in the best interest of the American people but doing what is best to keep them elected. That is sad. Perhaps in your area, voter suppression is an issue but in my area it is voter fraud. People that are well educated (physicians, attorneys, PhD research scientists) are concerned with the direction that Obama is taking the country. These folks include African-Americans. They are not prejudiced but do not like the direction of the country.

Moose, We will have to disagree on this point. I believe that the left is using race to denigrate those who legitimately disagree with Obama's policies. There are bigots on both sides. Because I am from the south with a southern accent, I have been told that i was a racist by 'tolerant' liberals who only knew that I was from the south. Bigotry and prejudice are present on both sides. There are some who dislike Obama for bigoted reasons but everyone that I personally know could care less about his race but see his rhetoric as extreme and react to that.

Moose, Never said that all. There is just as much if not more bigotry in democrats and liberals as there is in their counterpoints. To discount the legitimate disagreement with Obama's policies by calling it racism is simply intellectually vacuous.

Moose, I know that is very difficult for the left to comprehend but people do not agree with the viewpoint of the left. Obama is the spokesperson and president for that viewpoint. This is not racial but ideological in nature. If Hilliary were to be the president pushing the same agenda, the reaction would be the same with a single caveat. That caveat is that it is maddening and dangerous that the left wishes to write off serious disagreement with policies as merely racism. Having an idea dismissed because if a false cry of racism discredits people and exacerbates the situation. Believe it or not, well educated and informed folks disagree with the left. Dismissing their concerns for any reason is not wise but especially unwise on the false accusation of racism.

Pack, Yes, I did see some of the things that you mentioned though where I grew up was not an epicenter. My wife dealt with riots growing up including one that nearly cost two family members their lives. My high school was bussed my senior year. Though I stayed in my original high school, there were numerous fights and I was threatened with death at knife-point. As you said, there were not the shootings though I knew many high school classmates that had loaded guns in their cars (was not illegal in those days) that were never used. The other part of the observation was that there were a few hotheads on both sides that exacerbated the situation. As noted before, people started buying small handguns and carrying them for protection especially if their daily business took them into neighborhoods that were considered potential powder kegs. Therein lies a difference between then and now. The folks arming themselves for the most part had some reasonable concern that they might be in harm's way. However, now I am seeing housewives in affluent suburban neighborhoods arming themselves because they are afraid of their government. Whether that concern has merit or not is a subject for another discussion. It does show fear and suspicion that cannot be healthy. When one looks at the political rhetoric, there are angry, hateful things said on both sides. Michelle Malkin shared a week's worth of her email once and it was disgusting to see the vile, hateful, and very violent threats leveled at her. No doubt that liberals experience similar things. It goes far beyond the implications that you are dim witted if you do not agree with my opinion that has and will always mark political discourse. So I agree with Moose because the hate and anger between the left and the right is at a high from my standpoint and there is real fear in many citizens for their government. Couple this with the class envy that Obama used quite effectively to help to get re-elected leads to a dangerously divided public. Hopefully, Obama will try to heal those scars in the next four years. Let us all pray for our country and re-discover our commonalities rather than focus on our differences.

Packsaddle, As a matter of fact, I clearly remember the south during the 1960's. There was a great deal of anger and frustration during those years but I did not see the fear of the government that I see now. People were arming for fear of riots and needing to use a firearm to protect their families and themselves, not from the fear that the federal government was going to strip their rights from them (note that this is an observation and not a statement of my personal views). The elections of shown a polarized electorate and parties. The polarization was more complex then because southern democrats were pro-segregation whereas republicans and northern democrats were pro-integration. So the dividing lines were less clear. I tend to agree with Moosetracker on this. Moosetracker, One observation that made southerners bitter was that there was considerable racial discrimination in the north in the 1960's though it was not codified into law as it was in the south (which is a big difference). Nonetheless, the discrimination was present in the north (there were catholic, black, hispanic, irish, polish, etc. neighborhoods with many stories in the paper of people wandering out of 'their' neighborhood into another neighbor hood with injurious consequences). The south had court ordered busing that is still present today in some locales. However, after busing Boston was a blood bath (as had happened in some places in the south), no more northern cities were bused. If it was wrong or a bad idea, then why was it still imposed on the south? If it was a good idea, the north should have been bused as well. This made even people in the south who were pro-integration angry. The discrimination in the US toward blacks, Jews, and other minorities based upon superficial features or their gender is wrong and needed to be changed. For it to happen in any reasonable timeframe required extreme measures. Those measures should have been applied uniformly wherever such discrimination occurred whether codified or not. I still see much discrimination that is accepted towards women that is still wrong. Hopefully, the US will continue to improve in the future while applying the laws and remedies fairly. The anger and division in the country is most disconcerting. Congress is a microcosm of the electorate and we see how well they get alone and compromise to do the people's business reflects the deep ideological divisions currently seen in the country.

Maybe we should learn something from people who deal with this threat on a daily basis: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/30/armed-teachers-guards-key-to-school-security-in-israel/ We need to focus upon the mentally ill who are committing these crimes and not take away our rights. If owning firearms is a bad idea, repeal the Amendment.

Beavah, In the Whiskey Rebellion or any other uprising, the winner defines those roles. We should all remember that our country was founded by people organizing to rid themselves of their government. Had they lost, the would have been hung as traitors and we would learn about them as murderous traitors to the king. If the country was under the kind of gun laws that the left wishes, there would never have been an American Revolution. The founding fathers realized that the government could once again become oppressive and require extreme measures. The Second Amendment was written to guarantee that the citizens would have the ability to do so. If the citizens believe that the Amendment is no longer needed or that the rights need to be changed, then repeal the Amendment and replace it with a revised set of rights or get rid of gun ownership all together. Quit trying to restrict rights. We do not require taxes on Speech, Religion, or the Press (which is why newspapers are not taxed - it would be the government trying to restrict a right by price). With freedom comes risks and responsibilities. We cannot be free without some level of personal risk.