Do you feel the need to be unarmed and defensless while camping?

Status
Not open for further replies.

zigsrig

Adventurer
This is a pretty difficult discussion to have intelligently over the internet, as we are all pretty aware....

..i guess if I had a contribution to make, i would probably sum it up with my own life experience. The short, 2 liner version of that would be that I came out of college a hard core left wing supporter, and very anti gun, for all the reasons people are. In between college and the military I did a near decade long stint at a major metropolitan police department where carry of concealed firearms was a luxury reserved for the politically connected. Nothing has made me more pro RKBA than my time on the street.

-Any able bodied adult of sound mind should be able to possess and carry a weapon without unreasonable barrier. Open carry should be permitted in rural areas.

-Background checks are completely reasonable and should not be opposed by anyone. There is no reason you should not have to submit to a background check to obtain your firearm. The rub comes in when purchases and background checks are kept on file by the government. As katrina/No showed us, the government will take armed men and go door to door with those records and seize your arms. This is unacceptable and should be opposed.

-We need to evaluate what we are doing in our mental health treatment system. Kids are seriously under disciplined, under parented, over medicated, and heavily neglected across the economic and racial spectrum.(some, not all....) We need to seriously look at the kinds of medication getting pushed out by big pharma. With very few exceptions, almost all of our "mas cas" incidents not tied to a particular religion, can be put squarely in the lap of a psychotropic drug. Where is the cut off for this? I dont presume to have the answers. The concern here, obviously, is that "anyone who sees a psychologist" will be prohibited, which isnt the answer.

-We need to have SERIOUS reform to our legal system. This "court room immunity" needs to go away. What judges and lawyers do in courtrooms, if people paid attention, would be grounds to riot. I cannot begin to tell you the number of cases I worked where the prosecutor, in an effort to keep a "winning record" would offer the defense "I'll drop the aggravated/weapon related charge if you'll plea to the property crime" Armed robberies became theft. Home invasions became burglary or theft. Violent felonies became misdemeanors at the snap of a finger. We have seriously dangerous people walking the streets free today because we refuse to dramatically punish violent crimes.

-some right wing Gun nuts need to calm the hell down. The stuff I see on the interwebs does nothing to help the cause.

-some on the left need to calm the hell down. The demagoguery and false narrative surrounding some of the reporting is dishonest at best.

-we need to start having a real conversation about the problem of violence in our country, and it aint about the guns. Its about society. Like it or not, convenient to your sensibilities or not, the truth is this: the vast majority of all crimes -especially violent ones- are committed by racial minorities in economically depressed urban environments. Period. If we want to see things in this country change, we need to get serious about engaging our communities and turning lives around at a cultural level. I dont pretend to have the answers for that. That is a complex problem I dont see a solution to because of how entrenched in politics we have become, and how politicized every facet of that issue has been made. But banning john-q-public from possessing a legal firearm because a criminal illegally used an illegally obtained weapon is like cutting your neighbors balls off in hopes of preventing a pregnancy of your own. Its lunacy of the highest order.

-The media is outright responsible for the narrative going on right now. I'm really tired of seeing what they have done with their reporting of some of these incidents, and these protests are out of control. In short, if a cop has done wrong, then they need to stand before a jury of their peers and face the music. But just because a cop used force against someone that is unarmed doesnt make it unreasonable, despite what the media wants to parlay for ratings. I have seen examples of both in this last year that have been sensationalized in the media. The problem I have is how disingenuous the narrative is.

The hardest part about all of this is having a conversation that resembles sensible discourse. That is almost impossible given how entrenched people have become, on both sides, largely around what they see politicized. Youve got people on the left that want to horribly distort the history of this country and what these rights mean for the citizen with their incredibly warped view of the concept of the bill of rights. Combine that with extreme naivety, and you have a recipe for victimization. Youve got people on the right saying that "by gaw-damnit, ISS MAH RAAAGHT TUH HAS UH DA GAWN JAVELIN MISSILE LAUNCHER!." Its ridiculous. Sensible regulation does not equate to infringement.

In my opinion, any citizen should be permitted the arms allowed to their locals police force. Im tired of hearing police refer to citizens as "civilians". Police forget that they too, are civilians.

That's my $.02
THIS ^^
 
J

JWP58

Guest
I can tell you this much. A resolution that benefits everyone will not be found on the far fringes. Those strongly entrenched in their extreme positions - will lose. The middle ground, where compromise thrives, is where the reasonable and effective solution will be found. As the old saying goes, when you reach to grab across the whole table, you risk losing the entire arm.
Another old saying is, "give an inch, and they'll take a mile". This can be said for the likes of gun control advocates like Diane Feinstein.

Firearm owners have compromised in Chicago, California, NY, and other liberal run areas. It has resulted in keeping firearms out of responsible citizens hand's, and in the hands of criminals. Firearm owners have compromised in many ways...see 4473 requirements. And they have been taken advantage of see gun confiscation in New Orleans post Katrina for what a 4473 is really for.

Bottom line, there is no "sensible gun legislation" that is going to do anything but make people "feel" safer or "feel" better...it will do absolutely nothing to impact criminals using firearms in the commission of a crimes.
 

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
Another old saying is, "give an inch, and they'll take a mile". This can be said for the likes of gun control advocates like Diane Feinstein.

Firearm owners have compromised in Chicago, California, NY, and other liberal run areas. It has resulted in keeping firearms out of responsible citizens hand's
Touche on the "give an inch" cliche.

For what it's worth, both of my friends in Chicago were able to obtain handguns, CCW permits and plenty of instruction without any strife or stress. Not saying those laws are ideal, but they do not prohibit qualified persons from owning and carrying guns.
 

Longrange308

Adventurer
BTW.. Diane Feinstein actually has a CCW permit for the state of California. She is the typical elitist where she is good enough to have a means to protect herself, but she feels nobody else is. She is vehemently anti-gun for the masses that she serves, but not for herself and her peer elitists. This is a big part of the problem as well, the hypocrisy in politics, but alas, this is something that will not be changing anytime soon.

KiwiKurt pretty much summed everything up better than I could ever express it in this medium. Regardless of the tool, its a violence problem we have in this world, and that is at a primal level. The book Lord of the Flies, by William Golding hits the nail on the head. Man is innately evil, we work hard at not being savages. Many people put in various situations will either succumb to violence or become violent enough to survive. Society has changed much of this, but it is still a part of us, much like the most obedient and lovable dog will still kill something. Its innate.
 

KiwiKurt

Explorer
Both sides of the political spectrum engage in hypocracy, but i find the left's hypocracy on the topics of guns especially ironic. Her story is by no means rare or unique.

"The laws, subject, be-eth for thee. Not for me."

The topic of the american ruling class/royalty could be a couple of threads by itself...
 
Last edited:

Dalko43

Explorer
Both sides of the political spectrum engage in hypocracy, but i find the left's hypocracy on the topics of guns especially ironic. Her story is by no means rare or unique.

"The laws, subject, be-eth for thee. Not for me."

The topic of the american ruling class/royalty could be a couple of threads by itself...
Not that your point doesn't have some validity, but I find myself more shocked with the false narratives being put out by both sides than I do with any sort of hypocrisy.

People on the far right like to pretend that there is a distinction between "civilian" firearms and "military" firearms; with a few technical caveats for the trigger sear on some of the semi-auto rifles, there is no difference at all.

People on the left like to pretend that firearm murders are a rising epidemic that will soon engulf in this country in chaos; the reality is gun murders have been on a steady decline since at least the 1990's, despite the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

There are plenty of other false narratives being thrown around by both sides. I'm all for background checks, even for private sales; I believe we need to look at mental screening procedures; I think illegal weapons and criminals who use them need to be taken off the street.

But I protest any measure that will inhibit a law-abiding citizen's right to own a firearm. In NY, we have a year long wait, hundreds of $ for processing fees for pistol permits and you can't buy a semi-auto rifle unless it has been made "SAFE." A retired state trooper can own any type of semi-auto rifle that he wants, but not me, because I guess I'm not "qualified" despite my time in service....he is a citizen and so am I...my right to self-defense is no less important than the trooper's.
 

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
I'm all for background checks, even for private sales; I believe we need to look at mental screening procedures; I think illegal weapons and criminals who use them need to be taken off the street.
I'll just use this as an example of context and how projection factors into these discussions. If you make that statement above within the context of someone couched as "pro gun," then you get a pass. If I say it, under the auspices of being "anti-gun," then I'm vying for the banishment of guns with little restrictions one by one. The reality is, that statement above is more of the common ground both sides like to pretend they don't share, or are afraid to cop to.

I'm probably not too unlike Kiwikurt. Within the scope of this discussion, I genuinely do not feel a need to defend myself with a deadly weapon. My opinion could very well change. If the day comes when I decide I need a gun, if I have to jump through endless hoops to do so...who cares. I won't. I've had to jump through plenty of hoops in my life for all sorts of nonsense. What's a few more?
 

KiwiKurt

Explorer
There is a watershed of difference between an ar15 and a belt fed machine gun, javelin missile system, mortar tube, mk19 auto grenade launcher, dillon m134 gatling gun etc etc etc....those are military weapons.

There is nothing unreasonable about someone owning an individual rifle of any length. Every policeman in america has one -usually fully automatic- in their patrol car. Its just not unreasonable.

Your comments regarding SAFE i agree with it. I stand by what i said earlier. If the police can own it, every day citizens should be able to.
 

KiwiKurt

Explorer
I'll just use this as an example of context and how projection factors into these discussions. If you make that statement above within the context of someone couched as "pro gun," then you get a pass. If I say it, under the auspices of being "anti-gun," then I'm vying for the banishment of guns with little restrictions one by one. The reality is, that statement above is more of the common ground both sides like to pretend they don't share, or are afraid to cop to.

I'm probably not too unlike Kiwikurt. Within the scope of this discussion, I genuinely do not feel a need to defend myself with a deadly weapon. My opinion could very well change. If the day comes when I decide I need a gun, if I have to jump through endless hoops to do so...who cares. I won't. I've had to jump through plenty of hoops in my life for all sorts of nonsense. What's a few more?
The problem is its the only right we make people jump through hoops to exercise. I mean, imagine if we made people jump through the same hoops to post an opinion on their blog?

Personally, i like the way north carolina does it. You go to the sheriffs office, sit down with the clerk, background check and iirc, finger prints, and when you get approved, they give you a purchase permit. You take that to your gun store, who does an insta-check to make sure nothing new has popped up, and you cash and carry.

That, imo, is reasonable and handles concerns on both sides of the spectrum.
 
Last edited:

plainjaneFJC

Goofball
There is a watershed of difference between an ar15 and a belt fed machine gun, javelin missile system, mortar tube, mk19 auto grenade launcher, dillon m134 gatling gun etc etc etc....those are military weapons.

There is nothing unreasonable about someone owning an individual rifle of any length. Every policeman in america has one -usually fully automatic- in their patrol car. Its just not unreasonable.

Your comments regarding SAFE i agree with it. I stand by what i said earlier. If the police can own it, every day citizens should be able to.
I'd really like a m134...if the ammo was free!
 

Kevin108

Explorer
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
In fact, the presence of a firearm in any given situation will tend to escalate things and make matters worse.
That is simply not true. Most law-abiding gun owners do everything they can to de-escalate any sensitive situation. Additionally, in the vast majority of cases, a victim simply presenting a firearm ends things. The attacker either surrenders or flees and no one is injured.

Use of a firearm is a last resort. But to me it's better to have one and not need it than need it and not have it. I don't plan on getting in a wreck, but I still wear my seatbelt. For most, carrying a gun is something you do for the same sort of reason.

Now let's say the same thing, but not with the word gun: are you so insecure about the condition of your tires that you carry a plug kit everywhere you drive?

Sounds silly, right? You carry plugs to be prepared to deal with a puncture. Carrying plugs will never make you go looking to stick things through your tire.

That level of calm, casual preparedness is the mindset of most gun owners.

If you, Mr. Loco, carried a gun for a day, would you become some paranoid, irrational person? Not likely. But why do you expect that of others?
 
Last edited:

calicamper

Expedition Leader
Another old saying is, "give an inch, and they'll take a mile". This can be said for the likes of gun control advocates like Diane Feinstein.

Firearm owners have compromised in Chicago, California, NY, and other liberal run areas. It has resulted in keeping firearms out of responsible citizens hand's, and in the hands of criminals. Firearm owners have compromised in many ways...see 4473 requirements. And they have been taken advantage of see gun confiscation in New Orleans post Katrina for what a 4473 is really for.

Bottom line, there is no "sensible gun legislation" that is going to do anything but make people "feel" safer or "feel" better...it will do absolutely nothing to impact criminals using firearms in the commission of a crimes.
I'm in CA nothing prevents me from getting a firearm anymore than the next guy. Your watching too much media propaganda.
 

KiwiKurt

Explorer
The problem in ca are the restrictions placed on you for the type of firearms you are allowed to possess (capacity, detachable magazine, flash hider, approved roster, etc etc etc etc so on so forth) and the fact in many counties in ca its nigh impossible to get a permit to carry it.
 

LocoCoyote

World Citizen
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
That is simply not true. Most law-abiding gun owners do everything they can to de-escalate any sensitive situation. Additionally, in the vast majority of cases, a victim simply presenting a firearm ends things. The attacker either surrenders or flees and no one is injured.

Use of a firearm is a last resort. But to me it's better to have one and not need it than need it and not have it. I don't plan on getting in a wreck, but I still wear my seatbelt. For most, carrying a gun is something you do for the same sort of reason.

Now let's say the same thing, but not with the word gun: are you so insecure about the condition of your tires that you carry a plug kit everywhere you drive?

Sounds silly, right? You carry plugs to be prepared to deal with a puncture. Carrying plugs will never make you go looking to stick things through your tire.

That level of calm, casual preparedness is the mindset of most gun owners.

If you, Mr. Loco, carried a gun for a day, would you become some paranoid, irrational person? Not likely. But why do you expect that of others?
Hardly my own facts...consider this scenario:

You are confronted by some attacker...bigger than you and acting aggressively .... He states his intention to kick your butt. You, being the good armed citizen you are, display your gun and tell him that is a bad idea. Guy charges you anyway...so what do you do? Shoot him?

And that is how a situation gets escalated.

Same scenario except there is no talk....he just jumps you. You are getting thrashed, so you reach for your gun....

Escalation

Police arrive after you put your attacker down....you are still hyped up from the fight. Police see the gun in your hand....situation is now escalated as you pose a clear danger to the officers.


And we could go on and on with the examples. The presence of a weapon in any situation will tend to escalate that situation. Certainly it could go the other way, but I expect that is the exception and not the rule.

As far as a causal, calm mindset....maybe initially....but most people don't act calm and rational when under stress. Overreaction is common and staying calm when the body is flooded with adrenalin is difficult even for trained professionals.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Kevin108

Explorer
Your what-if scenarios are unsupported by the actual data and only serve to further diminish your spurious concepts about gun owners.

Point is, packing a gun is more hazardous than most threats it might solve.
We're here on forum discussing vehicle-based activity. Vehicles kill more people than guns. How many people are you trying to take keys from?

Only a fool would comfortable with strangers carrying gun around them.
Only a fool would think he doesn't come into contact daily with multiple people carrying guns, concealed or otherwise.

I pointed out that taking a life and feeling no remorse is a symptom of both sociopathic (best case) and psychopathic (worst case) behavior.
Many of us are of the Malcom Reynolds mindset regarding self-defense: if someone tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back.

I hope to never be in a situation where I need to use my firearm. Should that ever occur, it would not be as a result of my instigation. As such, I doubt I might feel remorse for defending myself.

I have a wife and family who depend on me and who think my life matters. Should I ever have the misfortune of crossing paths with someone who disagrees about the value of my continued existence and seeks to terminate my consciousness, I will vigorously dispute that point of contention to the best of my equipment. Such is my duty to myself and my loved ones.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top