NRA Sends Spy Into Anti-Gun Groups

Post Reply New Topic

Part of the mythology of the American Wild West (even if it
occurred in the north-central part of the country) was the
attempt by Jesse James and his gang to hold up two banks
in a Minnesota town. (Northfield, if I remember rightly.)

James and his gang were cast as "villains" in the history of
the Wild West mainly because these pro-slavery Missouri boys
fought as guerrillas for the Confederacy under "Bloody Bill" Anderson.

Well, the Northfield raid would take the James gang farther away from
their base of support than any of their previous robberies. By attacking
two banks, they divided their forces and sacrificed their superiority at
the point of action (mistakes Bloody Bill would not have let them make).

The result was predictable: the James boys were delayed, the locals
found arms and ammo, and the resulting firefight broke the back of
the James gang (although Jesse and Frank James escaped
with their lives, they got no loot and lost most of their men).

No, just as long as you can resist the urge to stab someone with that screwdriver.

The 2nd Amendment:

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.

The 2nd Amendment was this country's forefather's attempt to insure that a tyrannical government would never gain a foothold in America. The Supreme court recently officially acknowledged that the bolded part does indeed refer to an individual right, something that has been in debate for years. For clarity's sake I sometimes wish that said forefather's hadn't put the bit about the militia in, as it just seems to confuse people.

As to why it's important to many aside from it being a constitutional right for us, many people such as myself derive tremendous satisfaction from the shooting sports, and in some rural areas the rifle is as vital a farm tool as the hoe and spade. There is also the issue of self reliance, and being able to handle a potentially violent situation without being dependent on the police or another agency with a response time. People who know and enjoy firearms find that people who want to restrict or eliminate them tend to be very ignorant about them, and tend to be looking for a scapegoat to blame for crime rather than trying to solve the real problems. I had some better arguments up in the original thread about the Greyhound bus murder, but that thread seems to have been deleted. It's too bad, because it had some posts on it that were very indicative of both the ignorance of the anti-gun position, as well the vitriol that they bring to any discussion of the subject (I've received hate mail from someone on this site because of my views).

I do think that this is confusing "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."

I still find it confusing that owning a gun can be a right but not having a driver licence. If they made up a list of rights today, they might have added in a few other items.

As originally conceived, the 2nd Amendment was the final guarantor of the constitution, with an armed society able to fight off any attempts by the government or outside forces to impose tyranny. In modern times, the threat of invasion seems to have lessened, but if you listen to the left-wing rhetoric on Bush, they at least seem to think government tyranny is imminent. It sort of makes their stance on guns ironic, but irony is often lost on the left.

A more pressing concern for me personally is the rise of urban crime and the inability of the police to prevent crime. Put simply, when it comes to the protection of myself and my family, I choose to put my trust in myself rather than a disinterested public servant. The exact needs have changed, but the utility of the 2nd Amendment is still valid.

As to drivers licenses not being a right, you don't have the right to convenient transportation. Self defense is an inalienable right, freedom from having to take the bus is not. Also, driving a car is far more complicated and dangerous than operating a gun. We pay a far higher cost in lives for our transportation convenience than we ever have for our right to bear arms.

I'm not really sure. It depends on the view of member, primarily. I do hunt, and I collect guns out of some interest. My view is this: A firearm is a piece of metal, simple as that. It takes a human to load it, point it at whatever and pull the trigger. The only thing it does on its own is rust. That being said, I would like to say this, if I did not own a gun, I might not be here today. Back in 2002, I was living in rural Alabama. At night I heard a thud from my house. I woke up to investigate and saw an intruder in my home rifling through my desk in the living room. When I put a light on him, he advanced towards me with a knife. Two shots later, he was dead, and I was on the phone with the local police department. 1 hour later they arrived. Everything was cleaned up, and they took the gun used in the shooting as evidence. One week later, I was notified that the DA had ruled the shooting was justified and I was allowed to retrieve my gun from the Sheriff's office.

In the end, a firearm is a weapon. As such it is often maligned for its purpose, but, like any weapon, it is how it is used by a person that determines whether the act is 'good' or 'bad.'

How does it feel to have killed a man? Any remorse?

That's an incredibly insensitive and stupid question...

I don't think so. I think it's a fair question.

Why would he feel remorse? He did what he had to to get himself out of a bad situation. Someone invaded his home, and placed his life in danger. Doesn't sound like Subalternnavert had a whole lot of choice, get stabbed or pull the trigger. I'm sure he sleeps just fine these days. J.R is right though, it is sort of an insensitive question, like asking someone with a prosthetic limb where they lost the real one. You really ought to get to know someone a little before asking that kind of question, it's considered polite.

Alright.

Originally the people who drew up the 2nd amendment were facing oppession of the British government on them. They were not given representation that they deemed adequate, felt exploited by colonialism. They could be pressed into military service as well. That revolution of 1776 resulted in many people who were still loyal to the British Crown in leaving the new American claimed territories to lands promised them in still under British claim in the north (now Canada). Britain was busy fighting European wars at the time. Of they had refused to leave there would the struggle could have been longer.

How important is owning a firearm in protecting your country from foreign or domestic enemies of the government?

Also what type of training is given in NRA courses in regards to safety and determining when it is necessary to use a firearm against another person?

not sure I'm exactly following you, but I'll take a shot. Foreign invaders are pretty unlikely on US soil at this point, so I'm not too worried about them. If at some future time the US was involved in a conflict where the possibility of invasion existed, I believe that our armed populace would provide a deterrent to anyone thinking of occupying the country. Trying to move invading troops on US soil would make the insurgency in Iraq look like a cakewalk, the sheer number of skilled users of firearms in the population would make moving in anything unarmored suicidal. As to domestic threats, civil unrest is the only one I really put any stock in worrying about. The LA riots were a great example of a city turned into a warzone, and also a great example of armed civilians holding their own when the police abandoned them. Go on Youtube and search "La Riots Korean Shopkeepers" and you'll find videos of Koreans defending their shop from the rooftops with firearms. Guess who's shop's didn't get looted? Here in Seattle, I'd be more concerned with the aftermath of a natural disaster when services were down, and the police busy elsewhere. Fortunately, I'm more than prepared for that situation.



I've never actually taken an NRA course, most of what they do is hunter safety. They do certify instructors for some states that require safety courses to get a concealed carry permit, but I didn't need to take one to get my permit. Gun safety is pretty universal though, all guns are always loaded, never point a gun at anything you do not wish to destroy, be sure of your target and what is beyond it. Follow those three and you're pretty good to go.

As to using a gun on another person, the law varies state to state, but in general you must be in immediate fear of death or serious injury, or the death or serious injury of another person to even draw the gun, let alone shoot. Some states allow you to act with impunity with in your own home, if someone breaks in you may shoot them on sight with no legal repercussions. That is referred to as a "make my day" law. Other states require you to retreat is possible and only shoot if cornered, which I think is ridiculous and far too insulating for the criminal. As a general rule of thumb, if you are being attacked with a deadly weapon, you are allowed to use a deadly weapon in response.

Last edited by Dox47 on 08 Aug 2008, 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That sounds fair.

Rule Three?


Do you mean Castle Doctrine?

Castle Doctrine is another name for it, but they are also colloquially referred to as "make my day laws". Colorado and Texas are the two states that come to mind that have Castle Doctrine on the books, but I believe other states have it as well. I of course think it should be universal, since it shields homeowners from being sued by burglars injured during a break in, among other things.