It makes you no less of a hypocrite than me, a gun owner who believes in the Second Amendment and ownership of so-called "assault weapons", in saying I think there should be regulation and some people should not be allowed to owner or possess guns. You being someone familiar with and required to possess guns for work purposes and having views that call for controls of civilian ownership is not hypocrisy. The only thing I would point out with your post is that you are holding a "fully automatic" weapon and that is not available to the general public. You are holding it, presumably based on your previous posts, as part of Department of Defense operations. I want to mention this because some people think that someone can run out and buy a "machine gun" easily. They cannot. Federal and state law have very, very strict laws about this class (Class III) of weapons.

Why the celebrities are hypocrites is because they are very publicly and very politically demanding something be done to end gun violence yet what they do very publicly and with tremendous recompense, is portray, depict, perpetuate, and glamorize very violent acts committed with the very guns they demand be legislated up to and including outright bans. As I continually say, it's not about the guns. It's about behavior. It's about societal views, norms, mores, and attitudes. I don't think it is remotely possible to end gun violence without considering the kind of violence these celebrities make their millions on.

__________________

I read James Fenimore Cooper, and the pioneers there had weapons... naturally, hostile environment, one needs to shoot first, ask questions later...
now days, we pretend to be a civilized society, the light of free world in the darkness of the tyranny, blah, blah, blah... and yet, when Katrina struck, the looting started... any otherwise peaceful gathering can turn into something violent real fast, i think even the latest camping outside the Wall Street was not immune to that...

in such a violent environment any disruption to normal daily grind may prove fatal - someone losing his otherwise normal mind and going bazookas... even mental health control will not help in identifying a perfect normal dude going biserk - i think, there was a movie (a movie, i know... but we don't read anymore, we watch), about some regular dude going crazy and killing people, i think either Douglas senior, or junior was in that movie... I need to do a search about that one...

my point is, it is very dangerous to have weapons distributed in the society that is not really stable - look at the fiscal cliff, and the debt ceiling, and the whole other plethora of things that are wrong here... V.Lenin said once that he can build a government that even a last maid can operate (кухарка)... sometimes it feels that he had succeeded here, in the States...

The movie you are thinking of is "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas.

We probably won't agree on this but the very things you listed are why civilian ownership of guns is necessary. Katrina brought out the most vicious and opportunistic parasites who would slit a throat for some loot. Without a means of defense, many more people would have been victimized. Those who were armed were far less likely to be victims. If something like the "Fiscal Cliff" causes civil unrest and riots, be sure that there will be the same kind of vicious opportunistic jackals preying upon defenseless people. Again, these events are not about guns and the risk they pose so much as a testament to what some people will do to other human beings and why those human beings need the option to defend themselves.

Katrina proved also that law enforcement is incapable of protecting everyone in the best of circumstances much less in a critical incident or disaster scenario. Hell, the cops in New Orleans were as dangerous as the criminals but that is a different story. As the great sayings goes, "I carry a .45 because a cop is too heavy" and "When seconds count, a cop is only minutes away".

__________________

Bravo! Excellent remarks...It's times like NOW that we should remain armed.

Yeah, I think some of the opportunist during Katrina may have even been the "good" guys...so I hear! Seems there are times when you might not be able to tell the good guys from the bad. Sucks.

__________________
2002 4.4 Sport
134k miles and counting

that is my point - even the best guy/good guy can turn bad... even if his intentions are good, he still can render harm, just by being incompetent in the area of law enforcement... a guy could be genius in computer programming, or can put an engine together with his eyes closed... but he is not competent in law enforcement - and the mentality, shoot first, ask questions later might work, if the results were not lethal... I would not have problems, if everyone had a non-lethal weapon... the problme with lethal weapons is that the culprit does not have a CHANCE to stand trial, as guaranteed by the same Constitution... the judgement, the trial, the verdict, the execution are all carried out at once. If s/he is incapacitated for a period of time, than there is a chance for a fair trial.


i've read a story long time ago, and will grossly paraphrase it:
say there is a woman playing with her big mastiff in a park, and the dog is really nice... it so happened that a wild tribeman is in the park, and his tribe never seen any dogs in their lives... he sees a woman being attacked by huge animal and he shoots the animal dead with a dart in an attempt to save to woman... Best intentions... good guy... armed... worst results... not to say that a cop can't be incompetent...

If the tribesman was armed with a less-than-lethal weapon, then the whole thing would have been less stressful... I am not comparing life of a dog to a life of a human - human life bears much more value...
What happened to all values that we hold dear? We are crying over spilt blood and want to spill more to prevent the bloodshed... strange logic...

Thank you. I think I make a lot of sense.

New Orleans was reputed to have the most corrupt police department in the country. There is plenty of video to who NOPD's "finest" helping themselves to goods and the worst was those officers who murdered civilians and tried to cover it up but they got caught and convicted.

I am in a job where I am sworn to uphold the law and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I mention this because I think it bears on my point of view, for better or worse. I believe in the law and uphold it. I agree that in an ideal society everyone is afforded due process and no one has lethal weapons, and everyone makes the right decisions but that is simply not reality. I think your premise is flawed in assuming that the bad guys, or culprits, care about the same things you want us to care about. Specifically, you want people acting in self defense to give the culprit the chance to stand trial and face due process of law instead of being shot and killed in the street. I have to say that is far too generous a view given that same culprit and other culprits like him don't give a rats behind about his victims, or due process. What you propose is that law abiding citizens would refrain from self-defense and instead submit themselves to the whims of criminals who have no regard for laws much less the rights of their victims. A harsh view? Yes but that is the world we live in. Every single minute of every single day, criminals take from victims in any way they can even if that means with force and violence. They enter our homes and businesses and are willing to use deadly force to get their way.

Now you might ask "what if the citizen makes a mistake". Well, that can happen and does rarely and there is recourse for that. Invalid or imperfect self-defense can result in a manslaughter conviction. On the other hand, if the citizen is not allowed any sort of self-defense the result for him could be death.

The idea of less than lethal options is a nice ideal but not realistic and subjects those who rely on them to a false sense of security. We all know how ineffective pepper spray can be and tasers are not foolproof either. I submit that a citizen who uses pepper spray unsuccessfully is at substantially greater risk of death or great bodily injury. The reality is that some situations require lethal force. If the criminal is armed, is larger or stronger than the victim, or several other factors, the only effective response is lethal force. Don't bring pepper spray to a gunfight. I truly believe an assailant is intending to cause death or great bodily harm to me or my loved ones, I will respond with lethal force, not to kill but to stop the threat. I say lethal force because the force that the assailant is to apply is also lethal.

__________________

i already unsubscribed from this thread once, but then got sucked in again... I think i will leave once more... JCL, some folks watch too much Rambo movies and think that a gun can resolve everything... same mentality carries on overboard when the gun seems to be a solution to resolve the lost GF, lost opportunity... If a poet resolves his life problems by writing tragedies, or, when he is in a good mood, writing comedies (I am oversimplifying this), a person who thinks that GOOD can be done by super-violence, will do BAD using the same tools... the tools of choice - weapons...

The mankind has written history for last few millenia - and this has been always the same, a well armed civilian population is a clear threat to the authorities, and to itself... that is why many warlords would disarm the population...

Besides, if the weapons can do good, why are we so worried about the Iran's test of a missile? after all, they say that the bad guys are us, and they are the good guys... lol... everything is in the eye of a beholder...

I'm not here for TNR, logic doesn't work in that debate, IMO.

Here is my philosophy. There are lots of good people who have strongly held beliefs on the gun issue, on each side. Call it 25% each way. They aren't likely to change their minds. That's their right. Then there are the 50% of the population who are in the middle. They are the ones who will eventually change the laws.

Might take a long time. But it will be worth it, if it happens. Because the past 20 years don't constitute a good run, in terms of acceptable collateral damage. Again, IMO.

__________________
2007 X3 3.0si, 6 MT, Premium, White

Retired:
2008 535i, 6 MT, M Sport, Premium, Space Grey
2003 X5 3.0 Steptronic, Premium, Titanium Silver
2002 325xi 5 MT, Steel Grey
2004 Z4 3.0 Premium, Sport, SMG, Maldives Blue

nothing will change until the sh!t hits home... look at the Sandy issue with the outgoing congress - the Republican Governor and the Republican Congressmen revolted against their own speaker when the Sandy relief vote did not come to the floor for the ENTITLEMENTS to their constituents!!! for god sake, the republicans always kept saying, that folks need to be insured (insurance, is another form of socilaism, when the risk of few is born by many)... until it hit THEIR home...

Same goes with abortions - life is precious, and any pregnancy must be seen to the birth of a baby... until his own daughter is pregnant from some biker who is long gone... them an abortion is in order... it is so easy to regulate other people's lives...

As a matter of fact, with the abortions - every baby deserve to be born, so the rights of an unborn child are PROTECTED... the moment the baby is born, the same people deny the welfare benefits to the baby - where are the parents who brought the kid into the life, lets make them pay for the baby...

this land is full of paradoxes... but i am flying off on a tangent here...