Machine gun shoot

[M/V_Bear_II]

Originally Posted by jrc

When you teach history, do you teach that the founders believed that rights are given by their Creator not by the men and documents?

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"

And that the 2nd amendment just instructs the government not to infringe on one of those rights? It does not grant any rights.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Further, do you teach that removing an unjust government is also a right?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government,..."

How do unarmed citzens abolish destructive goverments?

Absolutely we study these documents, and in particular the passages you cite. I would point out that the Declaration of Independence is a statement of beliefs, not a legal document. It said, for instance, that all men were created equal - but the Constitution institutionalized slavery. The Constitution, on the other hand, is a legal document, and the Second Amendment is the law of the land.

I would also point out that the foundation of the Framers' philosophy was based on Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, all of whom stated that men in nature - the individual - were given liberty by the Creator. But they also agreed that men had to sacrifice some of that liberty for the security provided by a society. The 3 disagreed on how much of that liberty had to be sacrificed - in general, the Framers leaned toward Locke and Rousseau, because both reserved the right to replace a government if it no longer served the interests of the governed.

And therein lies the conflict, as you pointed out. There is a point where the liberty to own a gun can intrude on a neighbor's right to life or property. Eliminating all gun ownership certainly inhibits the ability overthrow an unresponsive government. Is there a middle ground?

I teach the debate. I don't teach a viewpoint. Students learn much more when they actually think about what they believe, instead of telling me what they think I want to hear.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by M/V_Bear_II

Absolutely we study these documents, and in particular the passages you cite. I would point out that the Declaration of Independence is a statement of beliefs, not a legal document....

And therein lies the conflict, as you pointed out. There is a point where the liberty to own a gun can intrude on a neighbor's right to life or property. Eliminating all gun ownership certainly inhibits the ability overthrow an unresponsive government. Is there a middle ground?
....

Not a legal document? The Continental Congress and King George may have felt differently. But yes it's not the Constitution.

There really is no conflict. Guns operated in a legal manner pose no threat to a neighbor's right to life or property. Guns used in a criminal manner are a threat, but criminality is the threat.

As to a middle ground, there clearly are no absolute rights, so we always live in the middle ground.

To get back on topic. In my opinion, an 8 year old is not physically or mentally able to operate machine gun. He does not have the strengh and coordination to operate it and more importantly he doesn't have the judgement. I think their is criminal negligence here and certainly civil responsibilty, for the father and the gun owner.

You would not let an 8 year old drive a car or use a chain saw, why would you let one operated a machine gun?

[Pine Island Guy]

Originally Posted by M/V_Bear_II

I teach the debate. I don't teach a viewpoint. Students learn much more when they actually think about what they believe, instead of telling me what they think I want to hear.

WHAT?!?!?! You’re actually asking students to think instead of just regurgitate? And you haven’t been sued by a parent for causing undue stress that interferes with their non-school activities? More power to you and keep up the good work, students are lucky to have you as a teacher!

PIG

p.s. just to add in my 2 cents on the original topic... an 8 year-old with an Uzi? The father, the people that ran the "shoot", and the gun-club should all be put on the stand! In my opinion, the lad should have the opportunity to see it being handled and shot, but not actually handle it himself.

[Winnipesaukee]

No, Massachusetts has some of the worst gun laws in the country. Massachusetts also has some of the worst violent gun crimes in the country, also some of the highest numbers of gun-related accidents.

In new Hampshire it is perfectly legal to own a "machine gun." Take the M16, for example. Due to the 1986 ban of the manufacture of automatic firearms (from the "Firearm Owners 'Protection' Act of '86), prices of grandfathered M16's are around $20-25,000. No typo.

But if you're a little short on cash, you can make a quick trip to your local Boston-area black market and buy the same gun for $200.

I don't understand everyone's fear and idolization of firearms. They're inanimate objects. We must be pretty arrogant, ignorant, and thick, to blame these "objects" for our own mistakes and stupidity. I shot automatic "weapons" when I was 8.

Does alcohol make people drive drunk? Did Ted Kennedy's CAR kill Mary Jo Kopechne?

[M/V_Bear_II]

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee

No, Massachusetts has some of the worst gun laws in the country. Massachusetts also has some of the worst violent gun crimes in the country, also some of the highest numbers of gun-related accidents.

In new Hampshire it is perfectly legal to own a "machine gun." Take the M16, for example. Due to the 1986 ban of the manufacture of automatic firearms (from the "Firearm Owners 'Protection' Act of '86), prices of grandfathered M16's are around $20-25,000. No typo.

But if you're a little short on cash, you can make a quick trip to your local Boston-area black market and buy the same gun for $200.

I don't understand everyone's fear and idolization of firearms. They're inanimate objects. We must be pretty arrogant, ignorant, and thick, to blame these "objects" for our own mistakes and stupidity. I shot automatic "weapons" when I was 8.

Does alcohol make people drive drunk? Did Ted Kennedy's CAR kill Mary Jo Kopechne?

I'm curious what makes you say "worst". I think I can guess based on the rest of the post, but I wonder if you could elaborate so I don't errantly impute motives to you.

Also, I thought I would mention this - Only Hawaii has a lower rate of gun deaths than Massachusetts.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri...te-per-100-000

For violent crimes as a whole, MA is pretty close to the median, and below most states with major metropolitan areas.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html

For murder as a whole, MA is 16th, well below other states with large cities.

As for "accidents" - I couldn't find a state-by-state breakdown, but the most recent statistics I found said that there were only 600 accidents resulting in fatalities nationwide (2005, I think). No matter who had the largest share of those, the per-capita rate of accidents isn't likely to be statistically significant. But if you have access to better statistics, I would love to see them.

You are absolutely correct that people, not guns, kill people. But perhaps there is some evidence that limiting access to guns may make it a little harder for people to kill people. Any counterarguments would be welcome.

[Misty Blue]

M/V Welcome. You have opened a debate that gotten the mental wheels turning.

You mentioned that when the second admendment (from the "bill of rights") was written when the common weapons were flintlock round ball rifles and pistols. As you said, 4 rounds per minute and 100 yds. max. I suggest that our founding fathers used the word "ARMS" rather than "GUNS" because they realized that weapons would change.

Had the constitution been written two hundred years ealier, arms to them might have ment swords. Had they written it two hundred years later they would possibly have assumed automatic weapons. I believe that they asumed that the word ARMS would maintain currency within the ammendment.

The Constitution of the United States and it's creators facinate me. Their forethought was outstanding.

When I raised my hand all those many years ago the oath that I took was to defend the Constitution from all enemys, Forign and Domestic.


NEW THOUGHT!

Lake Snake...

The Winnipesaukee Sportsman's Club is a great little Rod and Gun in Moultonborough. It is on Rt.109 right by Suissvalle near the intersection of Rt. 117.

It is a 25' 50' 75 and 100 yard range with a covered shooting building. They have a Trap range and bow stand range as well.

We are currently building a new clubhouse.

The dues are $50 per year (cheap) and the people are friendly.

If you are interested call me 455-7178. Eventhough they are activly looking for new members you must be sponsored. I'd be glad to help.

Misty Blue.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee

No, Massachusetts has some of the worst gun laws in the country. Massachusetts also has some of the worst violent gun crimes in the country, also some of the highest numbers of gun-related accidents.

In new Hampshire it is perfectly legal to own a "machine gun."...

It is also perfectly legal to own a "machine gun" in Massachusetts, and to rent out their use. I was involved with this for many years.

I do not find the Massachusetts gun laws to be restrictive. However I am fully licensed. I'm sure criminals, and those that can't meet the requirements for licensure, find these laws to be very restrictive.

Since the New Hampshire death rate by gun is more than twice that of Massachusetts, it would seem that these restrictions are appropriate and working.

[Pineedles]

While the Statemaster chart shows gun deaths in Mass is nearly 1/2 of what NH is, these relate to all gun deaths, including suicide, accidents, and law enforcement acts. While the infoplease chart refers to crime statistics and the murder rate in NH is less than a third than that of Mass. Violent crime rate too is very telling, as I would expect that many violent crimes involve guns and Mass' rate is 3 times higher. Most gun laws do not have any effect on the criminals who obtain them from illegal sources. One gun law I would support would be, if someone used a gun in the commission of a crime would be sentenced to a mandatory imprisionment of 25 years. That may not deter all criminals from using a gun but it sure would keep the ones who did locked away for a long time.

I would keep an eye on the crime rate in DC, now that the Supremes have decided to allow reasonable legal posession rights. Although DC politicos are already trying to cast that decision to the wind.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

... Most gun laws do not have any effect on the criminals who obtain them from illegal sources...

...If the criminal in question is caught with that gun in Massachusetts the slamming of his prison cell door will effect him greatly. So will the minimum sentence statutes...

Originally Posted by Pineedles

One gun law I would support would be, if someone used a gun in the commission of a crime would be sentenced to a mandatory imprisionment of 25 years. That may not deter all criminals from using a gun but it sure would keep the ones who did locked away for a long time.

So a teenager that shoots a hole through a stop sign with his 22 rifle goes to prison for 25 years? That will teach him!

[Pineedles]

BI are you bipolar today? You quoted me in your second rebuttal as to the effectiveness of gun laws.
You are taking it to an extreme with your teenager shooting a stop sign. I believe that a violent crime should be the precurser to the law. Like Rape or Robbery. Do you think those types of crimes deserve a mandatory sentence for the use of a gun?

[Misty Blue]

When I lived and worked in Mass (Very Western Mass) I found firearm licensing easy to live with. The license to carry (concealed) had to be approved by the local police. Usually not a problem. Some Chiefs of Police were stricter than others. Some would refuse to give them out.

What seemed dumb to me was that when we moved back to NH ( I still worked and rented there) I had to reapply for an "out of state" license. The process, while not impossible, was time consuming, confusing, cost money and had to be repeated annually.

The NH State Police, the Moultonborough Police and Selectmen did all that they could do to help but it seemed that the State of Massachusetts was putting up roadblocks at every turn.

I was still the same guy. I hadn't broken any laws. But I ended up giving up my membership in the South Deerfield Rod and Gun.

Misty Blue.

[Pineedles]

Too many people have the ability to interpret the law for your rights. The local sheriff knows that he probably won't be called onto the carpet because he "lost" your application. Its unfortunate that some Chief's associations side with the gun control advocates. They are probably just trying to protect their empire by wanting more patrolmen under them. However, on the otherside policemen's unions understand that they can't protect everyone and are typically on the side of responsible gun owners. I'm sorry that you had to give up your membership, but I understand that you are not alone.

[Seeker]

Misty, I agree with you 100%. I belonged, and still do, to the Danvers Fish and Game Club since 1954 (off and on) which I believe is the largest in Mass. Since becoming a full time NH resident I cannot go and shoot at my club anymore unless I go thru all the Mass BS to get a new LTC for $100/yr. When I lived there and was a Middlesex Reserve deputy I always had a Class A and now it seems like I just swam across the Rio Grande and shook off the water.
I will be contacting you about joining your club as the nearest one to me is 3 miles away but in Maine.
Seeker

[Winnipesaukee]

No, Bear, you got it backwards. If you are a criminal, Massachusetts doesn't have restrictive gun laws--you don't follow them anyway! It's the law-abiding citizens who must pay $100, go through 2 background checks, be photographed and fingerprinted (to real criminals this is called BOOKING), and wait at least 6 weeks. Or one can save some time and money by simply visiting a shady part of Dorchester or Roxbury (I'm not kidding.).

It is perfectly legal to own a machine gun in MA--if your police chief likes you and decides to grant you a permit for one.

Misty, I don't think the Founding Fathers would appreciate you pulling words out of their mouths. You have no way of telling what they were meant by their wording.

That particular FBI statistic is not credible. Too many variables, inclusions, and exclusions (vague). Not credible whatsoever.

Now, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 1976 when the DC handgun ban (which was recently ruled unconstitutional) was put into place, the violent gun-related homicide rate rose TWO HUNDRED percent between then and 2001.

On accidents, read this. And note Gary Kleck is a renowned (very liberal) criminologist. Source of statistics is the National Safety Council.
http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

[M/V_Bear_II]

Originally Posted by Misty Blue

You mentioned that when the second admendment (from the "bill of rights") was written when the common weapons were flintlock round ball rifles and pistols. As you said, 4 rounds per minute and 100 yds. max. I suggest that our founding fathers used the word "ARMS" rather than "GUNS" because they realized that weapons would change.

Had the constitution been written two hundred years ealier, arms to them might have ment swords. Had they written it two hundred years later they would possibly have assumed automatic weapons. I believe that they asumed that the word ARMS would maintain currency within the ammendment.

The Constitution of the United States and it's creators facinate me. Their forethought was outstanding.

When I raised my hand all those many years ago the oath that I took was to defend the Constitution from all enemys, Forign and Domestic.

That's certainly a defensible position. Not one that I happen to agree with, but defensible.

And I'm not sure whether that last sentence was aimed at me

In any case, thank you for your service.

Originally Posted by Pineedles

While the Statemaster chart shows gun deaths in Mass is nearly 1/2 of what NH is, these relate to all gun deaths, including suicide, accidents, and law enforcement acts. While the infoplease chart refers to crime statistics and the murder rate in NH is less than a third than that of Mass. Violent crime rate too is very telling, as I would expect that many violent crimes involve guns and Mass' rate is 3 times higher. Most gun laws do not have any effect on the criminals who obtain them from illegal sources. One gun law I would support would be, if someone used a gun in the commission of a crime would be sentenced to a mandatory imprisionment of 25 years. That may not deter all criminals from using a gun but it sure would keep the ones who did locked away for a long time.

I would keep an eye on the crime rate in DC, now that the Supremes have decided to allow reasonable legal posession rights. Although DC politicos are already trying to cast that decision to the wind.

So you're saying that NH lends itself more to suicide and death-by-cops?

Many violent crimes involve guns, but not all. Just as many murders are committed with guns, but not all. The difference between gun violence in NH and MA is probably not as wide as would be indicated by "gun deaths", but also probably not as significant as the "murder rate" would suggest.

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee

No, Bear, you got it backwards. If you are a criminal, Massachusetts doesn't have restrictive gun laws--you don't follow them anyway! It's the law-abiding citizens who must pay $100, go through 2 background checks, be photographed and fingerprinted (to real criminals this is called BOOKING), and wait at least 6 weeks. Or one can save some time and money by simply visiting a shady part of Dorchester or Roxbury (I'm not kidding.).

It is perfectly legal to own a machine gun in MA--if your police chief likes you and decides to grant you a permit for one.

Misty, I don't think the Founding Fathers would appreciate you pulling words out of their mouths. You have no way of telling what they were meant by their wording.

That particular FBI statistic is not credible. Too many variables, inclusions, and exclusions (vague). Not credible whatsoever.

Now, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 1976 when the DC handgun ban (which was recently ruled unconstitutional) was put into place, the violent gun-related homicide rate rose TWO HUNDRED percent between then and 2001.

On accidents, read this. And note Gary Kleck is a renowned (very liberal) criminologist. Source of statistics is the National Safety Council.
http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

Any idea where those guns in Dorchester (or D.C.) originate?

Whether you agree with the exclusions or not doesn't make the table incredible. Whether it applies in this case is the issue. If a burglary is committed in which victims are present and force is used or threatened, it becomes an aggravated assault, and thus a violent crime. The definition seems fine to me. It is not, however, suggestive of the overall crime rate.

As for guncite - yes, I saw that before my earlier post. But I'm not sure how it proves that MA has more accidents than NH.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee

No, Bear, you got it backwards. If you are a criminal, Massachusetts doesn't have restrictive gun laws--you don't follow them anyway! ...

No, I have it forwards.

To buy a gun illegally you must find a person that will sell to you. That is more "restrictive" than walking into the nearest gun shop.

An illegal gun will cost you a lot more, another "restriction".

If the seller is in fact an undercover police officer you will find the sale to be VERY "restrictive".

An illegal gun in your pocket in Massachusetts is like a ticket to prison, one year minimum. Better not spit on the sidewalk or jaywalk. I once had three of Boston's finest standing around me asking to see may carry permit. If I had not been able to produce it, that would have been "restrictive".

[Winnipesaukee]

Sorry Bear, backwards.

-You can EASILY find someone to sell you an illegal gun. If you go the legal route, you must (in addition to the procedures I mentioned above to get a permit (LTC or FID)), undergo an NCIS check and fill out a 4473 form.

-Illegal guns are almost always cheaper. Much cheaper. Because they tend to be stolen.

-Most sellers of illegal guns are NOT undercover police. There are so many willing sellers that, while undercovers exist, they are far outnumbered by an abundance of "legitimate" illegal sellers.

Is it easier to go through the red tape to get a legal prescription for Oxycontin, or get it through other illicit means?

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

To buy a gun illegally you must find a person that will sell to you. That is more "restrictive" than walking into the nearest gun shop.

Maybe for us law-abiding forum members that don't hang with the gang-bangers but your average felon (teen or adult) with cash in his pocket won't have any problem picking one up in many areas in Mass from others of his ilk.

[granitebox]

charges have been filed against 3 folks with the gun club

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...2-04-uzi_N.htm

[Lakesrider]

So I am still trying to figure out why the Father was not charged? He was responsible for his kid. He should be going to a different kind of gun show. A firing squad.

[Pineedles]

No, I don't think the father needs to go to a firing squad, he is heartbroken. What you see with these indictments is the anti-gun organizations of Massachusetts and National organizations like Brady's gearing up for their finest hour. Fueled by the impetus of the Obama administration's anti-gun sentiment, these organizations have their first test case. The prosecution will try to put guns on trial after all is said and done, that's why Dad is not being prosecuted, it would be anti-productive to their case to involve a grieving father. You voted for change people, now watch the amazing changes. Your 2nd amendment rights will change, despite what the courts have said.

[wifi]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

....You voted for change people, now watch the amazing changes...

Right on, and there is more (change) in store in other areas

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee

"...Does alcohol make people drive drunk? Did Ted Kennedy's CAR kill Mary Jo Kopechne...?"

I just stumbled across this helpful quote:

"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."