-   Nevada Jeep Forum (
-   -   My writings (

andy02 03-15-2013 01:20 PM

My writings
I recently got into a debate with a person who is "against all guns." When I prodded as to why, I was told to my absolute amazement that it is because "guns kill people." I had to say that a gun has never killed anybody. A gun is an inanimate object, a bullet is an inanimate object. It is the person behind the gun that did the killing, good or bad, justified or not.

To that, I got "well, if we took all the guns away, there wouldn't be any gun crime." First, even if we could take away all guns, what difference does it make if there then wasn't any gun crime? It is not as if there would be any less violent crime, it just means that criminals will come up with new and inventive ways to cause bodily harm. Second, there is no way to "take away all guns." You can take away the guns from the law abiding, but you will never take all the guns away from criminals. By taking guns from the law abiding, all you have done is create a safe haven for criminal activity. Note that between the years of 1976 and 1999 all but one mass shooting where more than three people were killed have occured in so called "gun free zones." Lastly, even if you could magically dis-arm the entire continent, the criminal element would then either import or manufacture their own firearms. Hell, one could make a shotgun from a 2x4, a nail, and 2 rubber bands.

"The second amendment only applies to militias, such as the National Guard!" I would suggest that anybody who belives as such read the second amendment again, then take it in context to what was occuring at the time. The second amendment states "a well regulated miltia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If the second amendment was only for a State militia it would read more like the 10th amendment. Note that the 10th amendment says "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Then take what was written in context, at the time of the writing. At the time, the people of the United States were fighting against the well regulated militia of Britian. In other words, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, we are afforded the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from oppression.

"Keep and bear arms doesn't mean you should be allowed to carry a gun around." The definition of "keep" is to "retain possesion of" according to the Websters New World Dictionary. The definition of "bear" by the same source is "to carry on or about ones self." Seems pretty straight forward to me. Because I know it is coming next, I'll go ahead and tell you that in the time of the writing, "regulated" was used to mean "disciplined." Either way, it is not really an argument for gun control as it speaks of the militia and not to gun owners specifically.

"The writers of the second amendment meant muskets such as what they used. There is no way they could have known how advanced weapons would become." True, there is no way they could have known how advanced firearms would become. By the same token, the freedom of speech, as is afforded by the first amendment must only apply to the verbal word or those which are written on parchment paper using a quill and ink bottle. After all, there is no way our forefathers could have ever known that in todays day and age we would have computers and smart phones. Freedom of press, as is also afforded by the first amendment, must only apply to works printed on a guttenberg printing press. After all, there is no way our forefathers could have known that we would have TV, radio, and the internet. If you want to make that argument, you have to apply it across the board or risk being a hypocrite.

"Our forefathers only meant for guns to be used in hunting." Do I really have to remind you that in the time of the writing, our forefathers were fighting against an oppressive government? Really now, why do you think they would have afforded the right to keep and bear arms if it weren't for self and State preservation? I seriously doubt it was for hunting as most of these men carried a musket and flint lock in the fight against British rule.

Now that I have completely destroyed your arguments for dis-arming the populace, let me start in on gun control as it sits. In statistics reported by the BATF&E, 93% of firearms used in the commission of a crime are obtained illegally. In so much; we can deduce that in the vast majority of cases, restrictions such as "cooling down periods" would have done no good in preventing the crime. To go along with that, the FBI states that 90% of firearms used in the commission of a crime are illegally owned. That is, they are owned by convicted felons, people with mental facilities that do not permit them to have a firearm or those who have been convicted of some sort of assualt. Obviously, the people who lawfully own firearms are not committing crimes with them. Areas with less restrictive gun control laws historically show a decrease in crime. Take Utah, which in the opionion of most has the least restrictive gun control laws in the country has a violent crime rate per capita of less than a 1/4 of that of California, which has the most restrictive gun control laws. In the words heralded by Robert Heinlen: "An armed society is a polite society."

Please don't take that last part to mean that I am against all gun control laws. By no means do I think that any felon should be able to walk into a gun store and purchase a firearm. I have no problem with background checks nor the laws that prevent people like that from owning firearms. I am mearly stating that the majority of gun control laws on the books do very little to prevent crime. Crime will always be a part of society. Unfortunately, the police can do nothing in that regard. Not because they don't want to, quite the opposite, it is because they are reactive by nature. Do you expect them to be in your home when an intruder kicks down the door intent on doing you bodily harm? While it would be nice to be afforded such a luxury, they can't be everywhere at once and when seconds count, they are only minutes away. The only thing you can do in that case (while dialing 911 of course) is to either run away or shoot the bastard. I would caution you that if you are intent on the former instead of the latter, you can't outrun a bullet.

andy02 03-15-2013 01:21 PM

This was in response to someone who commented on the first writing:

This is in response to a message I got. The sender will not be named but basically, it said that gun owners need to child safe all their guns. I respectfully disagree. Firearm safety always starts in the home. There is no need to child proof your guns if you have gun proofed your kids. If you, as a responsible gun owner, teach your children gun safety and the destructive power that a gun has, there is no longer curiosity there. I am by no means saying that you don't have to secure your weapons, that is every gun owners responsibility. However, if you think even for a second that your child hasn't or won't figure out how to get into your safe or remove a trigger lock, you are not only ignorant but felony stupid as well. I, as a child knew how to get into my fathers safe, but I can also count on no hands how many times I opened that safe when my parents weren't around. It just wasn't happening. There were times that for one reason or another there was a firearm sitting unsecured on the coffee table. I can count on one hand how many times I touched that gun in that instance. Twice, when my dad asked me to bring it to him. Anti-gun people would lead you to believe that I should be dead. I will tell you that I am not because my parents are responsible gun owners. It is your duty as a parent and/or gun owner to be just as responsible as my parents were and still are

andy02 03-15-2013 01:23 PM

I just got done watching the President address the "Nation" on gun control. I put Nation in quotes because if you saw the behind the scenes shot, you know that there was basically nobody there, but I digress. While he was speaking, I was sitting here, furiously writing notes. Notes about what he said and my responses. The questions that I had, the answers that I had and the basic bewilderment that came from some of his statements. I admit that I didn't write down every point that he made, mainly because it was difficult to tell when he was making a point and when he was grandstanding. With that out of the way, lets hit on the points that I did get.

The President says that in the month and two days since the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown 900 people have been on the judgment end of bullet. To that point, I ask, how many of those were justifiable? How many of those were gang related? How many of those were suicide? The biggest question that I have, Mr. President, is how many of those were in areas where law abiding citizens were not allowed by some sort of law or regulation to carry a firearm. Until you can answer those questions, your point is moot.

Mr. President, you called for more stringent background checks. This point, to a certain extent, I actually agree on. I have been saying for years that we don't need new laws. We need to better enforce the ones that are actually on the books. If strengthening backgrounds checks is one of those, then so be it. My only question is, what is there to strengthen? Do we not run people through NCIS prior to a firearm purchase? Do we not have a mental health database that the names are run through? Mr. President, you yourself said that 1.8 million firearms purchases have been stopped by the background checks we have in place. How many of those after being stopped went to the black market to buy a firearm anyway? Answers, Mr. President, we need them.

Sir, you called for the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to investigate causes and prevention of gun crime? Did you mis-speak Mr. President? The CDC is going to investigate the causes and prevention? What exactly are they going to be investigating? How lead poisoning effects the human body? It would seem obvious to me that a center designed around controlling diseases is not up to the task of investigating gun crime. Unless of course, you are calling gun crime a disease and in that case, we should really be turning to the pharmaceutical companies and the FDA to develop a drug or vaccine to prevent gun crimes. Hey, my logic seems about as sound as yours right?

President Obama, you called upon Congress to act on a scope of different things. Most of which just don't make much sense. For instance, you wanted Congress to make tougher penalties for people performing "straw purchases." I have no problem with that Mr. President. My only question is, how do you know who is making a straw purchase and who is not? Isn't that one of the key problems with straw purchases in the first place? Perhaps we should turn to pharmaceutical companies again and have them develop something that allows us to reads people's minds. You know; because that, like my previous point, would work.

Mr. President, you called for a "Universal Background Check" for all firearms purchases. This is again, something that I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is your statistic claiming that 40% of firearm purchases go through no background check what-so-ever. That percentage is nothing more than a falsehood. You want the actual facts Mr. President? Let's look at where this stat is derived from one by one. The Brady Campaign (where that 40% comes from) claims that there are no background checks at gun shows, more commonly referred to as the "gun show loophole." This should more accurately be referred to as the "private seller loophole" or something of that sort. Fact of the matter is that most of the sellers at gun shows are licensed sellers and therefore, are already required to perform background checks. The Brady Campaign lumps all firearm sales at gun shows into a single group and claims that no background checks are required.

Secondly, the Brady Campaign claims that internet sales are not required to perform background checks. This should more accurately say that background checks are not required between two private parties who find each other on the internet. Fact of the matter is that Federal law already requires a firearm sold from a company over the internet to be sent to someone holding a certified Federal Firearms License (FFL). That FFL is then required to perform a background check. Again, the Brady Campaign doesn't take that into account and lumps all internet sales in together again claiming that no background checks are required.

President Obama, you said that opponents to your changes are fear mongering against tyrants. Mr. president, aren't you using the same tactic? Parading children who have written letters asking questions, saying that they want their siblings to be safe is a fear mongering tactic that is designed to incite an emotional response rather than an intellectual response. Sir, I am not a fear monger. I just want to be assured that my second amendment rights will not be trampled on by you or anyone else. That doesn't just stop at handguns and bolt action rifles. I want to be allowed to purchase, and retain a sporting rifle or as you would call it, an assault rifle. Being that you are pushing for another ban on "assault weapons," it is not fear mongering but truth. Tyranny, Mr. President, is the rule unrestrained by law or Constitution. Being that instead of going through Congress and instead, you pass Executive Orders, that makes you a tyrant.

Now, let's take a look at a point that you hit on and I said something about. You unceasingly push for a ban on "assault weapons." An assault is defined as a "threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm" and a weapon is defined as "an instrument of attack or defense in combat." In other words Mr. President, anything and everything could be used as an "assault weapon." Being that we know you are actually talking about firearms, let's look at it in a different light. You claim that "assault weapons" have one purpose, to kill as many people in the shortest time possible. Sir, my personal AR-15 is used for "sport" shooting. It has never once killed anybody. I know this because I built it. Fact of the matter is that your so called "assault weapons" are used in less than 1% of crime. A stat that I didn't pull from some fantasy world. It is pulled from the Federally funded Department of Justice. Being that the AR-15 is the most commonly sold rifle in the US and that less than 1% of crimes use them, they aren't out causing havoc. Most owners use them like I do. For sport.

Mr. President, I know I have asked you a lot of questions. I know that some of those don't have real answers. I would just like to point out one small thing. Gun control laws that have been passed up to this point have had little to no effect on reducing crime. In fact, quite to opposite. Vermont with the least restrictive gun laws in the US has a murder rate per 100,000 of 2.6. Washington DC had a murder rate of 35.4 when all guns were banned. Sir, we the people are not as stupid as you seem to think. It is not all that difficult to find the information about the correlation between gun control laws and crime rates. At some point, you are going to have to admit lowering crime is not your agenda and that banning firearms is.

Oh, and just in case you forgot Mr. President.
"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."
Please note that nowhere in the second amendment does it use the words hunter, sportsmen, or protection. The second amendment is very clear. What is not clear, are your intentions.

andy02 03-15-2013 01:24 PM

To Sen. Feinstein

I watched with great amusement as Sen. Cruz from Texas "lectured" you on the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. I must say that I found your response not only idiotic but narcissistic in nature as well. The people are not here to stroke your ego and we are relatively sure that you are "not a sixth grader" at least judging by your appearance. However, to say that you didn't act like one while throwing your little hissy fit is something else entirely.

To put it bluntly, Sen. Cruz was not lecturing you on the Constitution and he wasn't attempting to make you sound like an idiot. You have the ability to make yourself sound like an idiot on your own and do so on a fairly regular basis. You said to him that you wish for him to "respect your views." Does that street not go two ways? Are you not disrespecting his (and my own) views by attempting to ban some of the very firearms that we love? Maybe I fail to see your logic. Please, enlighten me. I would be willing to enter a debate with you on the subject any day at any time. You see, I am just as passionate about keeping my firearms as well as the right of my children to keep theirs as you are about taking them away. I have done my research and there is nothing that you can say that I don't have a response for. Like it or not, I am ready and should the opportunity present itself, I have to say that you would be severely outgunned. [pun intended]

At this point, I would like to point out a couple of flaws in your retort to Sen. Cruz. You said that your bill "exempts 2,271 weapons." So what? What about the thousands of others that it doesn't exempt? What is wrong with those besides they look scary to you? What about all the jobs that will be lost by your misguided attempts to enact such a ban. While we are at it, why don't we just call a duck a duck and announce that your real reasoning behind this is that you would like to ban all firearms and that you would like the Government to confiscate all firearms? Is that not what your words were on 60 Minutes when you were interviewed in 1995? I can provide a link to the video if you would like.

You asked if the people needed "a bazooka." To be quite honest, no they don't. However, unless I somehow missed it, bazooka is nowhere in your bill. Can you please point me to where in the text that is referred? The fact of the matter is you can't because it is not there. Just like the word "need" is nowhere to be found in the 2nd Amendment. You asked if they needed "other high-powered weapons that military people use in close combat." Rest assured that I as a military member have never carried an AR-15 into any theater of battle. I have on the other hand carried either an M-16A2 or an M-4. The difference is the ability to fire in "burst" which is three rounds with every pull of the trigger, a true "assault" rifle. Further, the caliber of .223/5.56 is not "high-powered." If you think it is, you should really take a look at rounds like the .308 or 30-06. In the grand scheme of things, those aren't all that high-powered either.

Finally, you made reference to child pornography being illegal. The point behind child pornography being illegal is not because it is vile and disgusting although I agree that it is. The point is that you as a child pornographer are infringing upon the rights of someone else by doing so. You are infringing upon the rights of someone who is either too young to resist or doesn't have the mental capacity to do so. If that weren't the case, all pornography would be illegal. Once you are considered of age, you are free to perform in all the pornography you want and any coercion is considered sexual assualt or rape. Note that by consenting, no rights are being violated and therefore, no crime committed. I ask, what rights am I infringing upon by owning a certain type of firearm? The only rights I see being trampled upon in this case are mine and those of millions of other legal firearms owners.

Sen. Feinstein, I look forward to what I assume is going to be another egotistical response. I just wonder if you are going to emulate as well as insult the intelligence of other sixth graders and if this hissy fit will make headlines.

With respect to your position (albeit not to you)


sirhk100 03-15-2013 01:28 PM


But, is this gonna qualify as a manifesto once I do read it? Just curious...

gregaf3 03-15-2013 01:34 PM

That's a bunch of reading. Any chance that you can throw some pictures of guns, jeeps, girls, motorcycles, or anything amusing between each paragraph ?

andy02 03-15-2013 01:38 PM


Originally Posted by sirhk100 (Post 15139817)
But, is this gonna qualify as a manifesto once I do read it? Just curious...

Not at all.


Originally Posted by gregaf3 (Post 15139845)
That's a bunch of reading. Any chance that you can throw some pictures of guns, jeeps, girls, motorcycles, or anything amusing between each paragraph ?

No, I said writings, not pictures for you to look at while I ramble on about guns. Read them or not, I don't care.

sirhk100 03-15-2013 01:42 PM

Do you offer maybe a comic book version? Cause I don't think I'll be able to read all those words until I pass my next class.

(will read later tonight)

gregaf3 03-15-2013 01:50 PM

Could you possible come over and just read it to me. I will provide you with the occasional Yeah, ok, dang right, That's BS, I know... and other stuff. I need to stay in practice while the wife is out. God forbid if she comes back and I cannot convince her that I am actually listening.

Puck81 03-15-2013 02:51 PM

Great points Andy, now mail them out!!

Sent from my Imagination

dmgiff 03-15-2013 04:18 PM

^^Whatever... bunch of disrespectful tools, the lot of you. :D Great stuff Andy. Please tell me you sent the one to Feinstein? And if there is a response, which I doubt it would contain anything substantive, but if so, you have to post it.

andy02 03-15-2013 05:11 PM


Originally Posted by dmgiff
^^Whatever... bunch of disrespectful tools, the lot of you. :D Great stuff Andy. Please tell me you sent the one to Feinstein? And if there is a response, which I doubt it would contain anything substantive, but if so, you have to post it.

I haven't sent it yet but I will.

andy02 03-25-2013 11:54 AM

Tale of the White Chevy (posted to FB May 14 2012)
I had just gotten on the highway heading into work. I accelerated up to an indicated 68 MPH which is about 65 MPH according to the GPS and set the cruise control. On a Sunday night around 11 PM, there is not much traffic so I settled in for the 32 mile drive to work. After a while, I noted a pair of headlights in the distance. No big thing out here. People are always travelling this stretch of road. I dimmed my high-beams and pressed on. A few seconds later I noted that these headlights looked a little odd but really that was a far as my thought process went. I glanced in my mirror and saw no headlights behind me and there were no taillights up ahead. Just myself and this rapidly approaching vehicle.

Normally, that is no big deal but as I stated before, these headlights looked a little odd. As I cruised on, it dawned on me why they looked so odd. They were much too close to my side of the road. My first thought at that point was a car sitting in the median. You see that from time to time, it is usually some type of law enforcement officer waiting for the next speeder to cross their path. However, these lights were flickering, a sure sign that the vehicle in question was moving. We were about a half-mile away from each other when I determined that the vehicle was in fact moving and was in fact way too close to my side of the road.

My mind started to race and the horror set in that this guy was driving south in the north bound lanes. Time slowed as my mind continued to race. What do I do? Do I continue on sticking to the right lane? No, this idiot was already on the wrong side of a divided highway. Do I pull onto the hard shoulder and let him pass? That could be a viable plan but then again, he was on the wrong side of a divided highway. What the hell do I do?

Without much I slammed on the brakes and dove for the hard shoulder, the last thing I wanted was a head-on collision at speed with this moron. Then the thought occured to me that I was driving a Jeep. Why stop on the hard shoulder? I ditched off into the sand kicking up a cloud of dust as I desperately tried to slow the rate of closure. As I came to a stop I reached over and killed my headlights thinking "this fool (okay, not the word but this is a family friendly place after all) is probably drunk and I don't want him fixating on my lights." As a white Chevy full-size went roaring past in the lane that I was travelling in, I reached for my phone.

I dialed 911 to report this guy. "911 please state the nature of your emergency." The soothing female voice on the other end said. "There is some guy travelling south in the northbound lanes of 95." I replied. "Sir, where on 95?" the voice came back. "Damn, this is a long road." I thought to myself. I don't remember turning the headlights back on, but there sitting not 5 feet in front of me brightly illuminated by my lights was mile marker 99. I passed that info along to the dispatcher and told her that it was a white full-size Chevy pick-up. She then asked if I had gotten the plate number. "Uhh, no. I was a little busy trying to avoid a crash. He shouldn't be hard to find though." I answered in the least sarcastic way I could. Okay, it was really sarcastic but the dispatcher didn't seem to notice.

She told me that she would get units on their way and thanked me before clicking off the line. I set the phone down as I tried to calm my frazzled nerves. I grabbed my flashlight out of the glove box and did a quick once over on the Jeep. I noted nothing amiss and climbed back into the drivers seat, placed the flashlight back in the glovebox and put my seatbelt back on. As I did so, I saw flashing lights coming towards me. Before I was even moving a Nevada Highway Patrol car went flying past travelling south. At least he was in the southbound lanes!

The rest of my drive was un-eventful except that I was really amped up. Every set of headlights that I was coming towards me was a potential threat and I scrutinized each closely before writing it off. I honestly hope I never have to deal with something like that again!

davidsonlaw 03-25-2013 10:14 PM

Boris was a relatively inexperienced laborer living in the outskirts of London. He rode the bus to work every day, because of the difficulty and expense in finding parking near his workplace, but he loved driving the modest Fiat Panda that he owned. One day he was making conversation with the regular bus driver and mentioned that he would be making a trip to France the following month for a vacation. The bus driver said, "you've got to be careful in France. They drive on the wrong side of the road over there. It can be dangerous."

The following week, Boris got on the bus and told the bus driver that he was right. Driving like they do in France was very dangerous.

"I thought you weren't going to France until next month," the bus driver asked.

"That's true," Boris said, "but after our conversation last week, I decided that I had better practice!"

andy02 06-18-2013 03:25 PM


Originally Posted by dmgiff (Post 15140473)
^^Whatever... bunch of disrespectful tools, the lot of you. :D Great stuff Andy. Please tell me you sent the one to Feinstein? And if there is a response, which I doubt it would contain anything substantive, but if so, you have to post it.

So, I finally got a response from Sen. Feinstein. Anybody want to guess as to the contents? I'll give you a small hint. It doesn't contain anything pertaining to what I wrote. Basically, if you have written anything to the White House on the issue of gun control, you have already read her response because the form response from them is almost the exact same as the response that I got from her. The only difference is she deleted three paragraphs. I guess she didn't want to sound like a 6th grader.

The time now is 06:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.