Have you seen this about guns in Nat. Parks?

[Barn Owl]

Time to go wash my "Thunderwear".

“Thunderwear” and its competitor “Smartcarry” make some the most comfortable deep concealment holsters there are. If you carry, you probably already know that.

http://www.thunderwear.com/

http://www.smartcarry.com/


For those interested, and who would like some shooting fun, try some tannerite.
It takes this guy a dozen shots before he hits it, but when he does………….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkwzWw1ciqc

Where to get it:

http://www.tannerite.com/

http://www.tannerite.com/she_exploding_targets.html


It’s probably people like me who are causing all the problems. 

[Barn Owl]

Oh, one more thing: Yes, it's legal. 

[Greg Roberts]

Just two weeks ago, I had my GMC4104 on the campus of Virginia Tech where I went to school.  We took the opportunity to stop by the memorial markers for the 32 students who were slain there.  I wish I had the wisdom of Jefferson to try to make sense of it all.  Jefferson had a special appreciation for colleges, (he founded the University of Virginia) and I wonder what his thoughts on this tragedy would be?   Would he view the 32 markers and defend statements that the right to bear arms still applies in the same way today?  Would he visualize a world with classrooms full of students each "packing heat" for their own protection?  

This may be pointing out the obvious but these things really are not that complicated.

Just how many of the dead students do you think were armed as they were being shot to death by this maniac?

What in Jefferson's character would make any logical and intelligent person believe that he would not have wanted these students to have the privilege to bear arms and protect themselves at their option (and not the governments option)?

I would guess that all of these students would not be armed even if they were not denied their constitutional right by the government and it is extremist thinking to suggest that a classroom of students would all be packing heat. How many do you think would be alive today if even one of these students had been allowed their constitutional right?

I don't know if a maniac like that fellow would have been at all deterred with the idea that someone at that school might be armed but, I would say that not having to worry about that probably gave him more confidence.

If you were in that school and you were standing there while the fellow shot several students nearby would it be your instinct to protect you and others or would you be the kind of fellow that would run away and hide while people died around you?

And what would you do if you had a concealed handgun? Would you run and hide still or would you exercise your constitutional right to protect life and limb?

I wonder how many of the dead kids wished for a handgun as they all died?

Can responsible and sane citizens protect themselves when threatened as these students were or are we as a people no longer capable as were our forefathers who were so wise and brave? Do you really believe a video game is the problem? Did the muderer have a history of video game abuse that drove him to murder all of these unarmed citizens that did not have the rights that Jefferson intended?

I think Jefferson and all of the forefathers had it right and they came about their opinions honestly. We loose this right and the other rights that they fought so hard for and we end up being exactly what they were before they revolted. I choose to stand by those gentlemen and live by their words and intentions. The constitution does not need to be changed from it's original wording (and I mean non of the changes). What needs to change is people need to stop being passive and expecting the government to fix the problems that they themselves should be correcting. Take responsibility for your kids and stop letting the system do it. Look at the prisons and see who is there and why and then see what there family life was like for the murderers that are there. I promise you it is not full of our finest sons but generally these people are abandoned children and children with little or no parental support and attention. And you want to take the good citizens guns away because of these people's actions? Exactly the opposite would be my instinct. What do you think Jefferson would think? Well, that is my opinion anyway!

[WEC4104]

This may be pointing out the obvious but these things really are not that complicated.

Actually, I do see things as quite a bit more complicated. 

I think the overly simplistic answer is "If students were permitted to carry guns, there might have been someone in the classroom to offer resistance, thereby reducing the loss of life."

It is an answer which poses a quick fix for the events of that particular day, but misses the bigger picture. Virginia Tech has approximately 25,000 students. For simple math, let's say the average class size is 25 students and if the gun restrictions were lifted there would have been at least two gun carrying students in the class that morning.  The horrid events that April took place between 8:00 and 9:00 am on a Monday morning, hardly a time when most kids would have felt a need to carry their weapon. Only the true 24/7 hard core gun toters would be carrying.  The casual carriers would have left theirs back at the dorm. By my conservative estimate, there would need to have been 5,000 total guns on campus to reasonably ensure a chance that there would be one or two in the classroom at the correct time and place that day. Now apply similar estimates to colleges nationwide. Heaven help us, you are talking about hundreds of thousands of stressed-out, hormone-raging, hung-over college students (with minimal firearms training) taking guns to class. How many kids do you think will be injured or killed by accidental discharges alone?  ...and I am not going anywhere near a Frat party. 

Sorry, but I don't see this as Jefferson's master plan. I believe Jefferson and the rest of the forefathers stressed the right to bear arms so that people could defend themselves from the tyranny of an overly powerful government.  Kinda doubt his intent was to make it a status symbol for kids at the local Hip Hop club. 

---


Lastly let me stress that I am not completely one-sided on the gun issues, nor do I have some deep rooted gun phobia lurking within.

- Take me to a target range, or fling some clay pigeons for me to blast, and I'll buy the beer afterward.

- I once had a roomate who was ranked 4th in the state in high powered long range marksmanship. I helped him prepare his custom loaded shells.

- No, you'll never find me out in the woods in my camos during hunting season, but I don't have a problem with those that choose to do so  (just bring me back some nice venison for my freezer).

But where my opinions DO differ is with respect to certain gun control issues.  I believe today's society requires that we impose stronger limitations to offset things that are getting way out of control. We already know that the right to bear arms does not apply to people flying on commercial aircraft (crew excluded), entering court rooms, or attending public high schools.  I wouldn't be opposed to broadening that further, and that includes keeping National Parks that way. Last I checked, my tax dollars were supporting those parks so I think that at least entitles me to an opinion.

Those of you who want to safely and sanely keep guns in your home for the protection of your family, or for legitimate hunting, I have no bone to pick with you. A hundred years ago that would have been +99% of the civilian gun owning population. (non-military, non-law enforcement/security)   Today, I don't even want to guess at the percentage of guns in the hands of unstable folks under the age of 25. As stated in my earlier post, these are all kids raised watching hours and hours of TV in which the show featured a murder that was committed and the crimal is the focus of everyone's attention.

To those of you who hold differing opinions, sorry if this wasn't one of the "good" posts.

[JohnEd]

Of course, bus conversion people, especially us, should be exempt from everything.

Lin for President!

[Jeremy]

Just two weeks ago, I had my GMC4104 on the campus of Virginia Tech where I went to school.  We took the opportunity to stop by the memorial markers for the 32 students who were slain there.  I wish I had the wisdom of Jefferson to try to make sense of it all.  Jefferson had a special appreciation for colleges, (he founded the University of Virginia) and I wonder what his thoughts on this tragedy would be?   Would he view the 32 markers and defend statements that the right to bear arms still applies in the same way today?  Would he visualize a world with classrooms full of students each "packing heat" for their own protection?  

There's another aspect to this that just seems blindingly obvious to me but genuinely seems not to occur to gun-nuts:- it is an unfortunate aspect of society there will always be the occasional maniac with murderous intent amongst us, but it is the easy access to guns that allows such maniacs to create a tragedy such as that which occured at Virgina Tech and other places. What's the worse the guy could have done without a gun? Maybe stabbed two or three people in a crowd before the rest got out of range. That's bad enough but it doesn't compare to 32 young people dead. If the 'cost' of preventing things like this from happening (and all the robberies and muggings etc involving guns) is for the general public to lose the right to carry hand guns then I really do not believe any right-thinking person can deny that cost as being worth paying. It's not about 'liberty' or 'constitutional rights', it's about common sense and basic intelligence. Those people who try to deny the arguement by extending the logic to include anything else that can potentially kill (cars etc) merely reveal the fact that they haven't undertood the fundamental point - cars, knives, even rifles and shotguns all have a legimate application in certain circumstances. Hand guns are a special case simply because that have no purpose other than to kill human beings.

Jeremy

[JackConrad]

Banning hand guns would be OK IF they could guarantee that absolutely no one would have a handgun including those who would use the gun for evil purposes.  Unfortunately it seems criminals have no problems obtaining guns (many obtained illegally).  Just my feelings Jack

[junkman42]

Banning, for a moment I thought the commander of redistribution to be was speaking.  Either You want to be free or not.  All i hear on the tube is this clown who wants to redistribute the wealth and take guns.  If the laws that currently are on the books had been followed the foreign dirt bag would not have been able to get or posses a gun to start with.  I beleive any half baked idiot could cut the stock off of a hunting shotgun,cut the barrel short and have done a lot more damage than He did!  P{erhaps I think differently having spent more than 20 years of My life in the military most being in countrys that have noe right to have guns.  They were dragged from their homes,beat murdered and eliminated on a regular basis,generaly by the police.  I sure as hell would not feel safe if only the common thugs called police had guns.  No thanks on gun control.  John

[Len Silva]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear a Flintlock or Blunderbus, shall not be infringed.

[kyle4501]

.  .  .  . Heaven help us, you are talking about hundreds of thousands of stressed-out, hormone-raging, hung-over college students (with minimal firearms training) taking guns to class. .  .  .  .

Me thinks you have missed the pro gut point entirely.

It is about PROPERLY TRAINED people carrying concealed weapons. I"m not endorsing "anyone" can carry, but I think that if you are a responsible member of society & have shown proficiency in firearms . . . .

BTW, when I was in college, the ones prone to drinking wouldn't dare waste any $$ on something you couldn't drink & the ones with hormones raging wouldn't dare waste any $$ on something you couldn't ****.   

The point is not "if there had been a person with good intentions with a gun in their possession in that room, they could have stopped this tragedy" BUT RATHER "If that had been an option, the criminals wouldn't be the only people with guns".


As for me, I'd feel safer if concealed weapons were allowed in banks & etc, then the robbers would have more to consider before the holdup.

[skipn]

 I usually don't respond to gun issues. In the woods is where I'll address my coments.

 In the woods most are better off with bear pepper spray than slinging lead.

 In the old days....I knew a pro hunter that would dispose of bears using a 22.
   reasons:
      1. It would do the job
      2. It wouldn't get the bears adrenilen raging. (which is worse than a drugy on pcp)
      3. It forced him to make sure of his shot before pulling the trigger.

  As a general rule Grizzlies don't want us for food whereas browns do.

    I have a hunch that a lot of you don't regularly practice. 
    Almost monthly for me but then I have targets out my back deck at 50yds and 100yds. 

   Skip

[jjrbus]

    left click on picture to enlarge

[ktmossman]

If you want to get literal about what the Founding Fathers intended on the right to keep and bear arms, the intent was for the citizens to have at hand the weaponry necessary to overthrow the govt. if need be.  Their goal was that the citizens would never be outgunned by the military.  Which would be interesting to contemplate in modern times...  What kind of gas mileage does a tank get, anyway?  But they also did NOT intend for that to be the only purpose for personal weapons.  At that time, it was still generally acceptable for gentlemen to resolve personal insults on the dueling ground.  In fact, many of the Founding Fathers had participated in duels.  My bet would be that Thomas Jefferson would be appalled regarding the VT incident for many reasons, one of which being that the perp was not dead from multiple gunshots from multiple sources within the first couple of minutes.  Another thing that would bewilder him is the notion that we teach our children to cower under their desks instead of giving them the training and means to take personal responsibility for their own safety and the safety of those around them.

[Lin]

By the way, for the history and constitutional buffs, I think that you will find that the country's founders and most colonials did not carry guns normally.  I would think that concealed carry was very rare indeed.  Further, there is a greater percentage of the population today that own guns than there was all the way up to the Civil War.  The Civil War basically created the arms industry in America which made weapons much more available.  This is not to say the weapons should be banned, but rather even the historical examples used are not that plain.  While working in state parole, we were able to carry concealed weapons any time.  Most agents carried while on the job.  Some didn't even though they were spending their days visiting pure felons.  It was rare, however, to speak to an agent that regularly carried off duty even though they could reasonably expect to bump into someone that they had personally arrested in the past.  Most, if they would ever carry off duty, would do so only if they were going somewhere that they felt warranted it. 

I tend to think that the professionals are usually pretty responsible.  Hence, I would defer to the rangers on the parks issue.  I did once however see a cop who, while warning a classroom of elementary school kids about gun safety, discharge his weapon by accident.  He was obviously not a busnut.

[jjrbus]

Our forefathers are deeply ashamed of us!

 There is a higher percentage of people that own guns today becuse the people of that era did not have the wealth to afford weapons.   

 They did not carry concealed weapons because most of the weapons of that era were impossible to conceal. Anyone that has ever been to a museum can understand that.

You are right historicle examples are not all that plain