For years, ATV-riding, gun-toting sport shooters have flouted gun laws in part of Idaho’s high desert by taking pot shots at ground squirrels and other animals. Now, officials say, they’re also setting their sights on National Guard tanks that train in the area.
The federal Bureau of Land Management is considering expanding the gun-restricted area by 41,000 acres to try to limit shootings at Idaho Army National Guard troops who report slugs bouncing off their tanks on a regular basis.
“There’s a segment of the shooting community that will shoot at anything that moves,’’ said John Sullivan, the area’s manager.
“It’s like World War III on the weekends,’’ he said.
Ah, the price of freedom.
#7
My point is that raising the bar emphasizes the responsibilities that a weapon owner has.
The personnel firing weapons in the subject story obviously believe they have no responsibilities, and nothing to lose, by firing at other people. Their “freedom” to be irresponsible trumps the rights of others, and the rule of law.
Freedom is an illusion, as we are merely free to do the right things in life, and we are not free to do as we please. A good percentage of people do not adequately understand what is the right-thing-to-do. People who do the wrong things can be corrected with proactive education, and/or by imposing penalties after-the-fact.
If the porposed cost is the issue, your cable/sat TV + internet costs are much (about 10 times) greater than the suggested stamp tax. The prospective weapon owner would be free to make the choice about where he wishes to spend his money. I also would be in favor of even greater tax levels for those that wish to own weapons that require more training and certification (automatic weapons).
In Germany, the cost of a drivers licence is $2000 (or so), and with this, and stringent vehicle inspection requirements, a licenced driver is able to drive at unlimited speeds on some stretches of Autobahn. Raising the bar allowed more “freedom” in this example.
A call for the freedom to make poor choices is just an expression of undisciplined thinking.
A rational person would be happy to subscribe to the practices of disciplined behavior and thinking.
[edit: comments guide] If you put such burdens on weapon owners then they’ll go to a less legal and more violent source to get their weapons. Hasn’t the war on drugs taught you anything ya big dope?
It is easier to over through the government by voting them out than by armed conflict.
Where do you think your bullets/power, food, medicine, water, housing, and clothes will come from when anarchy ensues?
In time of anarchy would you be willing to serve a local warlord, and pledge your allegiance to him (and give up your attractive wife to him)?
#22
Someone that contemplates breaking the law to acquire a weapon is probably someone that should never have a weapon. That kind of thinking is irrational (crazy).
Certainly someone who contemplates breaking the law to acquire a weapon is not employed in a job that has any duties (or employed at all).
“Mah gran’son talks ’bout mu’ant ninja turtles an’ ah thought that was one.”
BertDawg, #15 is bang on, #21 almost has it right. Freedom IS an illusion. Canada has reasonable gun laws and I have MORE freedom because of it. The only threat to me comes in the way of smuggled guns across the border from the USA. But making it expensive to own a gun just gives rich morons and drug dealers an unfair advantage.
The USA is living in the past. You aren’t a few thousand cowboys looking for a homestead any more. George Washington would shake his head and wonder how y’all could be so dumb as to not realize that the situation has changed. Guns are a liability to everyone except peace officers. Yes, some of them are morons, but that’s a different problem.
And doubt that a gun will ever save your life. Are you going after a drive by shooter after he puts a bullet in your eye? Gun toting assholes always have the advantage of surprise. They’ve made the decision to get you BEFORE you know it.
Good for Canada.
Listening to anonymous official sources got us into the Iraq war, and now we go prattling on based upon one? If it is true then it is a terrible thing, and they should be arrested for breaking numerous laws, but that is hardly established. The amount of evidence free speculation coming from the high towers seems more reflective of people who’ve never had to keep a chicken coop, if nothing else.
But I suppose I am naive; after all, food comes wrapped in plastic from a store the size of a small town.
The nihilistic impulses of some are the most amusing. One might argue that any freedom is illusory, but that only makes it likely to disappear like a shade. You might say, “People gathering together can be dangerous.” and restrict assembly, or “Speech is already restricted by our acceptance of this reality, so there is no freedom of speech.” and restrict speech. Of course, by restricting these things you are making it dangerous to do them, and as men are want to gather and speak out you are creating the danger you are trying to protect against. That is why they were chosen as freedoms, because our forefathers, relying upon more sound philosophy than yours, knew that restricting these things would create dangers bigger than they themselves represented. I notice, for instance, that states with carry laws have less street crime, for instance, or that Switzerland has no home invasions, likely due to the fact that every able bodied male has a select fire rifle in a closet. Besides, the gun registry in Canada is highly over budget largely due to the fact that there are so many guns out there. They are still there.
#24 Is it that “crazy” to protect my home against violent psychos and power hungry government agents that make mistakes of shooting old grandmas? If weapons were illegal I would certainly break the law in order to get one to protect my family and my home. Banning weapons is neither practical or rational. Law enforcement officers do a very poor job of protecting people from violent thugs, and some of them are violent thugs themselves. Wake up buddy.
#28
I’m not sure how much of my message you’re addressing, so I’ll take your argument to the limit.
So you suggest anyone should have any weapon they want; that over regulation primes the populace to suddenly adopt criminal behaviors? You suggest even criminals and crazy folk should not be barred from owning? Full-auto AK-47s for everyone, even children?
Couldn’t we assume some criminals carry? Does that inhibit them from shooting each other?
Doesn’t almost every state have carry laws, or do you mean liberal carry laws (like Vermont)?
I submit that education and regulation set the bounds people need in their lives. Civilization is the result of a continuous refinement of laws and social standards over the preceding millennia. As children are happiest when they live in a structured environment with rules that make sense, so am I happiest when I abide by reasonable laws and standards of conduct. A social melee would have us constantly react to the impulses of everyone around us. That would be exhausting.
Criminals will of course behave like criminals.
FYI: I’ve been doing preliminary research on obtaining a semi-automatic Short Barreled Rifle. If I bought it, it would only be used to practice target shooting (I haven’t ever been shot at, despite once living for 12 months in a “bad” neighborhood that featured quarterly shootings between local criminals). The gun would be an NFA firearm. It is fairly unlikely I would go through with the purchase because I probably don’t want to waste $2000 on a weapon I don’t need (though probably fun to have).
I think that confusing ownership with useage is the issue that tangles up everyone in this argument. People can own guns but when they misuse them like the morons in this story there must be consequences. Just as when if I own a car but in my use of that car I endanger someone then there are consequences. In this case #2 is right on track.
Li, I don’t see where your response makes sense. I’ve never heard of a drive-by killing using free speech. Yelling anti-American sentiments at National Guard tanks isn’t a crime, and it isn’t in the same universe as shooting a gun at them.
I prefer to be able to walk alone at night, or any time, without any fear that I could be shot because anyone who had a very bad day could be carrying a gun.
I’m surprised at you Li. I thought you were the bible-toting type.
#7, #5 What is wrong with you? What, specifically, about freedom don’t you understand?
How about the freedom to breathe and walk down the street without fear or hindrance. The freedom to not be afraid of some yahoo with a high powered rifle will be out taking potshots at anything that moves. The freedom not to be afraid the police swat squad will come at 4:00 AM to arrest me on a phony warrant.
You would penalize everyone for the actions of a few morons?
Yup. Actually, that is the standard operating procedure for right wing neo-con Republican Evangelicals. Unless of coarse it it is the right wing neo-con Republican Evangelicals screwing up in which case, we can just ignore the problem.
We have way too many laws as it is.
Especially the laws the right wing neo-con Republican Evangelicals dislike. All other laws, of coarse, are OK.
If there were some way to bring the founding fathers back today to see what we have done with gift they gave us, it’s difficult to imagine they would be pleased.
Yup, I sure agree with that one. The Second Amendment would most assuredly be phrased quite different. There would be references made to technologies undreamed of 225 years ago.
#30,32,33 You can choose to be afraid of being shot, if you so wish, but it is worth remembering that it is more likely that you will die of a fall, a flu, accidental poisoning, or transportation accident, and I doubt that you are afraid of stairs, cars, coughing people and toilet cleaner. Heck, medical malpractice of various types kills nearly ten times as many people; run, it’s those doctors! How dare you practice your medicine, and make me quiver in my boots as I walk in the park at night. In other words, you can choose to dwell on some irrational fear, but that doesn’t give you the right to tell others what to do based upon your phobia. My Bible (and besides, my Bhagavad Gita and my Book of Change) taught me that it is best not to order people around until I have examined myself, and determined whether I want this because it is truly wise, or merely because I am afraid.
By the way, if you think that people kill because they are having a bad day, then I wouldn’t want to be around you on a Monday morning. Out here in the real world, people kill for money, territory, possessiveness and hatred, not because they are having a bad day. But, of course, murder can be done with many implements, and focusing upon the motives casts blame upon the killer, not the gun, so I suppose you prefer such a superficial understanding.
Please use tinyurl:
nsc.org
cdc.gov
#33 “Yup. Actually, that is the standard operating procedure for right wing neo-con Republican Evangelicals. Unless of coarse it it is the right wing neo-con Republican Evangelicals screwing up in which case, we can just ignore the problem.”
“Especially the laws the right wing neo-con Republican Evangelicals dislike. All other laws, of coarse, are OK.”
Adopting the tactics of lowlifes while castigating all who disagree as part of a reviled group? You seem to dislike the neocons, and we are in full agreement there, but you seem to have a strange fondness for their tactics.
“Yup, I sure agree with that one. The Second Amendment would most assuredly be phrased quite different. There would be references made to technologies undreamed of 225 years ago.”
You act as if we are asking for a neutron bomb and a ICBM in every garage. We just want enough to reasonably provide for defense in times of attack, on both a individual and national scale. By the way (and this applies to #30′s comment as well), if assault weapons cause so much bad behavior, why is it that the Swiss manage such wonderful communal relations and fantastic crime statistics in a nation positively awash in guns. You are horrified by 12 year olds with assault rifles while I’ve seen Swiss girls of that age poking holes in targets at three hundred yards with such tools, while mustachioed men in leather pants sing songs in the background. Scary! Those terrifying Swiss!
By the way, it seems that people here thing that shooting at national guardsmen isn’t allready illegal, when it definetly is. No amount of gun control would make it less legal, in fact. Assault with a deadly weapon is just one of a dozen charges that might be filed against these boobs if the anonymous accusation turns out to be true.
#21 – Mine was not a call for the freedom to make poor choices. On the contrary, it was a call for the freedom to make intelligent choices and give Darwinism its due. I am lamenting the fact that the concept of personal responsibility seems to have fallen by the wayside, in favor of restrictive legislation that attempts to mandate what SHOULD be common sense.
For example that nitwit who recently proposed a law banning the use of iPods, etc., when crossing the street in New York City because two imbeciles were killed doing it. If you’re intelligent enough to look for oncoming traffic before you cross the street while listening to your iPod, you should not be prohibited from doing so because a couple mental midgets were not.
When they outlaw pizza (or MacDonald’s food) because it clogs your arteries, and that makes you a burden on the healthcare system that we all pay for, don’t say I didn’t warn you.
All i’m saying is bring back personal responsibility.
And it is not about the cost of one law (how dare you) – it’s about the aggregate cost of all the laws which are little more than hidden taxes.
It is reprehensibly stupid that we as a society would volunteer ourselves and our loved ones to fight and die or be maimed or crippled to preserve the freedoms we profess to hold so dear, and then turn right around and pay our elected and appointed representatives (many of whom are crooks) to systematically take those freedoms away bit by bit. Zoning laws are a good example. When you can’t do whatever the hell you want to with your own house (like make an apartment for one of your children who has fallen on hard times) because of zoning laws, that is just wrong. There are so many examples of bad laws. The last thing we need is more of them.
#34, Li
You act as if we are asking for a neutron bomb and a ICBM in every garage. We just want enough to reasonably provide for defense in times of attack, on both a individual and national scale.
I’m not sure where you got the idea I want a neutron bomb in every garage, I lean towards fusion technologies myself.
Iraq is a good example. There are far more AK-47s in Iraq then there are Americans. Yet, the Iraqi insurgents are getting the worse of it, by far. Simply because the Americans also have helicopter gunships, unmanned Predator aircraft, infra-red sensors, night goggles, F-16s with their loads of smart bombs, radio and visual transmitters on the ground, tanks, and a highly organized structure. So yes, enjoy your assault rifles, just don’t pretend you would be any match or deterrent for a well organized, rapid response capable military. So while the Allied death toll is approaching 3500 men, the Iraqis are at least 250,000 deaths.
So should we all keep some shoulder fired SAMs and RPGs in the garage? You know, just in case Canada attacks or there is a home invasion.
…why is it that the Swiss manage such wonderful communal relations and fantastic crime statistics in a nation positively awash in guns.
They also have universal health care for the entire population, should we draw another correlation between low crime rates and medical care?
You are horrified by 12 year olds with assault rifles while I’ve seen Swiss girls of that age poking holes in targets at three hundred yards with such tools…
The Swiss train everyone in how to use firearms. The same training Americans get when they join the military. Coincidently, all able bodied Swiss men are in the militia and are constantly training how to use their weapons. Although I didn’t bring it up, yes, I am appalled that 12 yr olds have been conscripted and given assault rifles.