"Washington County State's Attorney Charles Strong Jr. said he was pleased to see the court's decision but was unsure of what effect the decision will have in Maryland at this time.
Hagerstown Police Chief Arthur Smith echoed Strong's sentiment.
"I don't see any applicability in Maryland," he said. "D.C. had very specific regulations that the court ruled on, but Maryland's laws are very reasonable and people can own handguns under them."
Excuse me Mr Strong and Chief Smith, you may be right that we can own a handgun, but Maryland has some of the most restrictive laws in the country about obtaining a concealed carry permit. It was easier for me to obtain a concealed carry permit in NY when I lived there than it is here... Under the current MD law despite the fact that I had a NY CCW when I moved here, I could not get one in MD. What good is the ability to own a handgun when you can not carry it for self defense.
Full Version: Second Ruling Comments from Washington Co
Maryland needs to become a shall issue state instead of may issue state.
You can own a handgun in MD as long as it is on the list.
You can own a handgun in MD as long as it is on the list.
QUOTE (Udmas @ Jun 27 2008, 06:42 PM) 
Maryland needs to become a shall issue state instead of may issue state.
You can own a handgun in MD as long as it is on the list.
You can own a handgun in MD as long as it is on the list.
The problem is that MD is more of a no way in hell issue state than a may issue state....
Take a look at the minimum requirements to even think about applying...
QUOTE (Old Griz @ Jun 27 2008, 06:36 PM)
"Washington County State's Attorney Charles Strong Jr. said he was pleased to see the court's decision but was unsure of what effect the decision will have in Maryland at this time.
Hagerstown Police Chief Arthur Smith echoed Strong's sentiment.
"I don't see any applicability in Maryland," he said. "D.C. had very specific regulations that the court ruled on, but Maryland's laws are very reasonable and people can own handguns under them."
Excuse me Mr Strong and Chief Smith, you may be right that we can own a handgun, but Maryland has some of the most restrictive laws in the country about obtaining a concealed carry permit. It was easier for me to obtain a concealed carry permit in NY when I lived there than it is here... Under the current MD law despite the fact that I had a NY CCW when I moved here, I could not get one in MD. What good is the ability to own a handgun when you can not carry it for self defense.
Hagerstown Police Chief Arthur Smith echoed Strong's sentiment.
"I don't see any applicability in Maryland," he said. "D.C. had very specific regulations that the court ruled on, but Maryland's laws are very reasonable and people can own handguns under them."
Excuse me Mr Strong and Chief Smith, you may be right that we can own a handgun, but Maryland has some of the most restrictive laws in the country about obtaining a concealed carry permit. It was easier for me to obtain a concealed carry permit in NY when I lived there than it is here... Under the current MD law despite the fact that I had a NY CCW when I moved here, I could not get one in MD. What good is the ability to own a handgun when you can not carry it for self defense.
Very interesting..... I put this in the comment section on the Second Amendment article on home page of the HM and there was also another comment after mine...
Seems that this morning when you go to that article it states that no comments have been made to the article.... are we looking at some form of censorship here.
Very interesting, indeed.
How an officer of the court (Strong) can state that he doesn't see any effect on Maryland is absurd! Of course he did say "at this time" which could maen any number of things - typical politician.
The important thing about this decission is that it has setteled once and for all that the second amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right and not one bestowed on some element of the government (military personel). What is scary is some of the disenting opinions! One justice even going so far as to reference whether it's "in the best interest of the government." Is it in the best interest of the government to allow cretins to burn the U.S. flag as "freedom of speech?" Is it in the best interest of the government to allow someone known to be a murderer go free because the police and or prosecutors screwed up the case? I hope not but because our constitution bestows certain rights we accept these things because next time it could be us. Why is owning a firearm different?
Mr Strong is correct in that "at this time" the implecations are yet unknown. They may well be extensive but it will depend largely on the will of the people to demand restoration of denied rights. Standing laws will not be automatically changed in light of this decission. Such action has already been initiated in a number of jurisdictions.
We are a nation of individuals with individual rights. Of course those rights can be revoked when the granting of them impinges on the rights of others, but not "in the best interest of government."
One of my favorites is when some hollier than thou type spouts off about _________ (fill in firearm of choice) not being known to the framers and hence it shouldn't be included in the right to own. BS!!! Modern printing methods, radio, TV and the internet were equally unenvisioned but heaven help the man who suggests they aren't covered by the first ammendment!
Then of course there is the issue of politicians and civil servants (like the assoc. of chiefs of police) who frequently advocate strict gun control schemes. All of these people have sworn an oath to "uphold the constitution of the United States..." Any such person who espouses prohibiting gun ownership by otherwise lawful citizens from this day on should be immediately removed from office for violating his oath!
The important thing about this decission is that it has setteled once and for all that the second amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right and not one bestowed on some element of the government (military personel). What is scary is some of the disenting opinions! One justice even going so far as to reference whether it's "in the best interest of the government." Is it in the best interest of the government to allow cretins to burn the U.S. flag as "freedom of speech?" Is it in the best interest of the government to allow someone known to be a murderer go free because the police and or prosecutors screwed up the case? I hope not but because our constitution bestows certain rights we accept these things because next time it could be us. Why is owning a firearm different?
Mr Strong is correct in that "at this time" the implecations are yet unknown. They may well be extensive but it will depend largely on the will of the people to demand restoration of denied rights. Standing laws will not be automatically changed in light of this decission. Such action has already been initiated in a number of jurisdictions.
We are a nation of individuals with individual rights. Of course those rights can be revoked when the granting of them impinges on the rights of others, but not "in the best interest of government."
One of my favorites is when some hollier than thou type spouts off about _________ (fill in firearm of choice) not being known to the framers and hence it shouldn't be included in the right to own. BS!!! Modern printing methods, radio, TV and the internet were equally unenvisioned but heaven help the man who suggests they aren't covered by the first ammendment!
Then of course there is the issue of politicians and civil servants (like the assoc. of chiefs of police) who frequently advocate strict gun control schemes. All of these people have sworn an oath to "uphold the constitution of the United States..." Any such person who espouses prohibiting gun ownership by otherwise lawful citizens from this day on should be immediately removed from office for violating his oath!
Maryland's gun laws are blatantly unconstitutional.
It is illegal in Maryland to transport your own property ( a handgun ) to a friend's house simply to show it to him . Restricting your right to transport to four or five exceptions violates property rights .
Prohibiting private sales also violates one's right to dispose of his property freely and violates privacy rights .
Refusing to issue carry permits in almost all cases deprives citizens of their common law right of self-defense . It also violates the Second Amendment .
The Handgun Roster Board is a non-elected branch of government that regulates an area that is no business of government . The only difference between a handgun and a long gun is a hacksaw ; hence the Maryland Gun Ban and its Roster Board have no basis in fact or logic . The decisions on which guns can be sold have been " arbitrary and capricious " and thus are an abuse of the state's " police powers " .
The waiting period to buy a gun endangers persons who are in imminent danger , such as those who have obtained new restraining orders ; people who need a gun right away. To require a waiting period for a customer who owns guns already is useless and has no rational basis.
Background checks violate privacy rights . Who is to say your ex-wife doesn't work in the office conducting the check ?
Laws requiring locks in the home violate your right to freedom within your 'castle'.
Requiring two picture I.D.s to purchase a gun is harrassment and a blatant attempt to throw up a roadblock in front of buyers.
A certain police chief needs to be told that there is no such thing as " reasonable gun control " .
It is illegal in Maryland to transport your own property ( a handgun ) to a friend's house simply to show it to him . Restricting your right to transport to four or five exceptions violates property rights .
Prohibiting private sales also violates one's right to dispose of his property freely and violates privacy rights .
Refusing to issue carry permits in almost all cases deprives citizens of their common law right of self-defense . It also violates the Second Amendment .
The Handgun Roster Board is a non-elected branch of government that regulates an area that is no business of government . The only difference between a handgun and a long gun is a hacksaw ; hence the Maryland Gun Ban and its Roster Board have no basis in fact or logic . The decisions on which guns can be sold have been " arbitrary and capricious " and thus are an abuse of the state's " police powers " .
The waiting period to buy a gun endangers persons who are in imminent danger , such as those who have obtained new restraining orders ; people who need a gun right away. To require a waiting period for a customer who owns guns already is useless and has no rational basis.
Background checks violate privacy rights . Who is to say your ex-wife doesn't work in the office conducting the check ?
Laws requiring locks in the home violate your right to freedom within your 'castle'.
Requiring two picture I.D.s to purchase a gun is harrassment and a blatant attempt to throw up a roadblock in front of buyers.
A certain police chief needs to be told that there is no such thing as " reasonable gun control " .
QUOTE (PatrickHenry @ Jun 30 2008, 01:01 AM)
A certain police chief needs to be told that there is no such thing as " reasonable gun control " .
Good luck with that. From my reading of the decision all nine justices disagree with that statement.
Background checks aren't a violation of constitutional rights; and we ALREADY have background checks everywhere for legal purchases of handguns. I really don't understand why Maryland does not want any of it's citizens armed. I have also never fully understood why many on the police force do not truly understand the laws concerning protecting one's self, either. I am very glad that I lived in West Virginia when I got divorced.......................................
QUOTE (PatrickHenry @ Jun 30 2008, 01:01 AM)
1 Refusing to issue carry permits in almost all cases deprives citizens of their common law right of self-defense . It also violates the Second Amendment .
2 The waiting period to buy a gun endangers persons who are in imminent danger , such as those who have obtained new restraining orders ; people who need a gun right away. To require a waiting period for a customer who owns guns already is useless and has no rational basis.
3 Background checks violate privacy rights . Who is to say your ex-wife doesn't work in the office conducting the check ?
4 Requiring two picture I.D.s to purchase a gun is harrassment and a blatant attempt to throw up a roadblock in front of buyers.
2 The waiting period to buy a gun endangers persons who are in imminent danger , such as those who have obtained new restraining orders ; people who need a gun right away. To require a waiting period for a customer who owns guns already is useless and has no rational basis.
3 Background checks violate privacy rights . Who is to say your ex-wife doesn't work in the office conducting the check ?
4 Requiring two picture I.D.s to purchase a gun is harrassment and a blatant attempt to throw up a roadblock in front of buyers.
Let me start by stating that I am a Life Member of the NRA and very much pro Second Amendment, BUT I find fault with some of your statements...
Let me take them in the order I numbered them.
1. YES, it does deprive citizens of the right to defend themselves....
NO, it does not violate the Second Amendment even as the recent Supreme Court ruling states...
No where in the Second Amendment is there a clause that states that a state must issue a person a carry permit.... it does state that we have to right to own firearms.... The new Supreme Court ruling only states that owning firearms is an individual right and that DC can not ban anyone from owning a handgun IN THEIR HOMES... it also stated that individual states had the authority to pass reasonable laws concerning firearms... that includes concealed carry.
2. The waiting period has a very real rational basis.... it stops someone who get pissed off and wants to do severe harm to someone from getting a gun immediately... and don't tell me it has never happened....
I do believe that there might be a better way...
3. Background checks do not violate privacy rights.... if you have never done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
As for your ex wife working in the office that does them..... She would not be able to alter the results if she wanted too. Background checks are done through the FBI NCIS system for criminal information.
4. You have to be kidding.... two photos constitute harassment... then so does having to go the DMV to get your driver's license renewed....
What roadblock... you show up with the pictures and it is done....
With the exception of wanting all states to be "shall issue" for anyone who can pass the back ground check... the NRA has no problem with any of the other issues you mention above...
I'll try to answer some of the answers here.
1) I do not accept either the 9 justices or the NRA as the arbiter here. I stated the truth and arguments based on my running afoul of the Court or the NRA are an " appeal to authority ", a fallacy of logic .
2) Practical consequences such as an enraged nut being able to buy a gun do not change the fact that waiting periods are an " infringement " on the right to keep and BEAR arms, which brings us to the right to carry a gun as well as own it .
The Constitution is not invalidated every time a freedom is abused .
3) I said that imposing a waiting period on a person who already owns guns has no rational basis. I meant that such a person already has the means at issue so making him wait cannot have any good effect .
4) Waiting periods have disarmed some victims who were later killed . Waiting periods have not been shown to have saved any lives , not that this affects the Constitution's meaning anyway .
5) Gun rights are not the NRA's to give away. That organization sold out its members when it supported various 'gun control ' schemes . There are some good articles about the NRA leadership on the site, www.thegunzone.com including a review of the book, Ricochets . Take a look !
1) I do not accept either the 9 justices or the NRA as the arbiter here. I stated the truth and arguments based on my running afoul of the Court or the NRA are an " appeal to authority ", a fallacy of logic .
2) Practical consequences such as an enraged nut being able to buy a gun do not change the fact that waiting periods are an " infringement " on the right to keep and BEAR arms, which brings us to the right to carry a gun as well as own it .
The Constitution is not invalidated every time a freedom is abused .
3) I said that imposing a waiting period on a person who already owns guns has no rational basis. I meant that such a person already has the means at issue so making him wait cannot have any good effect .
4) Waiting periods have disarmed some victims who were later killed . Waiting periods have not been shown to have saved any lives , not that this affects the Constitution's meaning anyway .
5) Gun rights are not the NRA's to give away. That organization sold out its members when it supported various 'gun control ' schemes . There are some good articles about the NRA leadership on the site, www.thegunzone.com including a review of the book, Ricochets . Take a look !
So let me get this right PatrickHenry. You believe anybody should be able to stroll into a store, buy a gun, with no background check or ID required? 
QUOTE (PHISH @ Jun 30 2008, 02:14 PM)
So let me get this right PatrickHenry. You believe anybody should be able to stroll into a store, buy a gun, with no background check or ID required?
PHISH.... you forgot the fact that he claims he was also afoul of the court... " I stated the truth and arguments based on my running afoul of the Court"
Now that could mean a lot of things... but if you have a felony record or spousal abuse record you can not buy a handgun....
I am getting real curious about this guy....
I think domestic violence or spousal abuse is one of those recently added things (applied retroactively if I recall correctly) intended to make another class of people unable to own guns. The anti-gun crowd will use any excuse.
I in no way condone beating on your spouse. And no I’ve never been charged of it, so that’s not my reason for this comment. However, this is one of those charges that is often applied to a spouse who shoves his/her spouse away when they’re getting slapped, kicked, spit-on or whatever. Or a hubby getting wailed on by his wife grabs and holds her hands together till she calms down and it leaves a mark. Sometimes it is virtually nothing that results in such a charge. Cops charge both spouses routinely for pretty minor stuff like that as a CYA thing.
I do not think this charge in and of itself should result in forfeiting your right to own a gun. But lordy, of you say that in public, Sara Brady and her ilk label you as a brutish wife-beating slimeball who next wants to shoot his poor wifey.
I in no way condone beating on your spouse. And no I’ve never been charged of it, so that’s not my reason for this comment. However, this is one of those charges that is often applied to a spouse who shoves his/her spouse away when they’re getting slapped, kicked, spit-on or whatever. Or a hubby getting wailed on by his wife grabs and holds her hands together till she calms down and it leaves a mark. Sometimes it is virtually nothing that results in such a charge. Cops charge both spouses routinely for pretty minor stuff like that as a CYA thing.
I do not think this charge in and of itself should result in forfeiting your right to own a gun. But lordy, of you say that in public, Sara Brady and her ilk label you as a brutish wife-beating slimeball who next wants to shoot his poor wifey.
QUOTE (Snoopy @ Jun 30 2008, 04:39 PM)
I think domestic violence or spousal abuse is one of those recently added things (applied retroactively if I recall correctly) intended to make another class of people unable to own guns. The anti-gun crowd will use any excuse.
I don't consider myself part of the anti-gun crowd, but if you beat your wife, or anybody else, then you don't get a gun in my book.
QUOTE (Snoopy @ Jun 30 2008, 04:39 PM)
I in no way condone beating on your spouse. And no I’ve never been charged of it, so that’s not my reason for this comment. However, this is one of those charges that is often applied to a spouse who shoves his/her spouse away when they’re getting slapped, kicked, spit-on or whatever. Or a hubby getting wailed on by his wife grabs and holds her hands together till she calms down and it leaves a mark. Sometimes it is virtually nothing that results in such a charge.
Oh boy ! I made a misprint. What I meant to type was that if my arguments run afoul of the Supreme Court or the NRA, that doesn't make me wrong. I have no criminal record. My apologies .
The Lautenberg Amendment or Domestic Violence Protection Act was retroactive, in effect adding a lifetime penalty to any punishment originally agreed to in a plea bargain or decided by a jury.
Like all gun control, it is based on putting guns up out of reach of an adult, which obviously has never worked . Whether you think anyone ever convicted of a domestic violence misdemenor should ever be allowed to possess a gun or crossbow or bowie knife or can of gasoline won't change the futility of the law . It might be nice if people convicted of drunk driving , vandalism and assault were also deprived of their Second Amendment rights. It wouldn't be any more constitutional or effective, though .
BTW, I imagine it is possible for a wife beater to reform later in life. In that case, would it make sense to forbid him gun possession for life ? I think not. I'd even let a wife beater own fists and baseball bats again !
Even the law prohibiting all convicted felons from ever owning a gun is wrong. First of all, criminals will be able to get guns anyway, of course. Another problem is that it applies for life to tax cheats and other non-violent criminals who have served their time .
These issues require more thought than a simple knee-jerk response that you don't want wife-beaters owning guns or whatever.
The Lautenberg Amendment or Domestic Violence Protection Act was retroactive, in effect adding a lifetime penalty to any punishment originally agreed to in a plea bargain or decided by a jury.
Like all gun control, it is based on putting guns up out of reach of an adult, which obviously has never worked . Whether you think anyone ever convicted of a domestic violence misdemenor should ever be allowed to possess a gun or crossbow or bowie knife or can of gasoline won't change the futility of the law . It might be nice if people convicted of drunk driving , vandalism and assault were also deprived of their Second Amendment rights. It wouldn't be any more constitutional or effective, though .
BTW, I imagine it is possible for a wife beater to reform later in life. In that case, would it make sense to forbid him gun possession for life ? I think not. I'd even let a wife beater own fists and baseball bats again !
Even the law prohibiting all convicted felons from ever owning a gun is wrong. First of all, criminals will be able to get guns anyway, of course. Another problem is that it applies for life to tax cheats and other non-violent criminals who have served their time .
These issues require more thought than a simple knee-jerk response that you don't want wife-beaters owning guns or whatever.
QUOTE (PatrickHenry @ Jun 30 2008, 06:24 PM)
Oh boy ! I made a misprint. What I meant to type was that if my arguments run afoul of the Supreme Court or the NRA, that doesn't make me wrong. I have no criminal record. My apologies .
The Lautenberg Amendment or Domestic Violence Protection Act was retroactive, in effect adding a lifetime penalty to any punishment originally agreed to in a plea bargain or decided by a jury.
Like all gun control, it is based on putting guns up out of reach of an adult, which obviously has never worked . Whether you think anyone ever convicted of a domestic violence misdemenor should ever be allowed to possess a gun or crossbow or bowie knife or can of gasoline won't change the futility of the law . It might be nice if people convicted of drunk driving , vandalism and assault were also deprived of their Second Amendment rights. It wouldn't be any more constitutional or effective, though .
BTW, I imagine it is possible for a wife beater to reform later in life. In that case, would it make sense to forbid him gun possession for life ? I think not. I'd even let a wife beater own fists and baseball bats again !
Even the law prohibiting all convicted felons from ever owning a gun is wrong. First of all, criminals will be able to get guns anyway, of course. Another problem is that it applies for life to tax cheats and other non-violent criminals who have served their time .
These issues require more thought than a simple knee-jerk response that you don't want wife-beaters owning guns or whatever.
The Lautenberg Amendment or Domestic Violence Protection Act was retroactive, in effect adding a lifetime penalty to any punishment originally agreed to in a plea bargain or decided by a jury.
Like all gun control, it is based on putting guns up out of reach of an adult, which obviously has never worked . Whether you think anyone ever convicted of a domestic violence misdemenor should ever be allowed to possess a gun or crossbow or bowie knife or can of gasoline won't change the futility of the law . It might be nice if people convicted of drunk driving , vandalism and assault were also deprived of their Second Amendment rights. It wouldn't be any more constitutional or effective, though .
BTW, I imagine it is possible for a wife beater to reform later in life. In that case, would it make sense to forbid him gun possession for life ? I think not. I'd even let a wife beater own fists and baseball bats again !
Even the law prohibiting all convicted felons from ever owning a gun is wrong. First of all, criminals will be able to get guns anyway, of course. Another problem is that it applies for life to tax cheats and other non-violent criminals who have served their time .
These issues require more thought than a simple knee-jerk response that you don't want wife-beaters owning guns or whatever.
Pardon the double-post above . I was trying to use the edit feature-don't ask...
I forgot to clarify that I am against any infringements on our Bill of Rights and that includes running criminal background checks on honest Americans .
For those of you who apparently assume there is some practical value in purchase retrictions, consider when guns were really easily available-before 1968, when they were a mail order item . Compare the crime rate then to today's . If you are a slave to statistics, you are forced to conclude that the 1968 Gun Control Act caused crime to increase . Actually, it may well have .
Each time 'gun control' fails, its proponents prescibe more of the magic elixir. " Control Handguns ! Control long guns ! Close the gun show loophole ! Close the black powder antique loophole ! Strengthen laws in neighboring states !Ban deadly military-style assault weapons ! And sniper rifles ! Limit magazine capacity ! Ban anyone mentally ill from buying a gun ! Ban Saturday Night Specials ! Ban snubbies ! Ban pump shotguns ( Yes, this was part of the Berman assault weapon bill ) ! ", Get an international ban on private ownership through the U.N. ( actually attempted ) ! "
There is always one more loophole to be closed , one more type of gun or ammunition to get "horrified" about .
A prominent anti-gun congessman was quoted by the NRA as saying, " Gun control is people control ". At least that time an anti-gunner was honest .
Below is a list of good , fun , gun links. Enjoy !
http://web2.airmail.net/jcpatton/ Includes a long and clever list of tag lines.
http://www.glockfaq.com/targets.htm Free printable targets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No4SA6v6xjE Glock disassembly video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XDNvSXP8W0...feature=related Shotgun video .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKbWcPdTRBI Mossberg 500 disassembly video.
http://harris.dvc.org.uk/jeff/jeff2.html Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries archive.
http://www.thegunzone.com/ Home page to fabulous site, many articles.
http://www.guntalk.tv/gtv/library.php Watch video clips free.
http://www.usashooting.org/video.php Watch safety video free. More.
http://www.letargets.com/html/popups3/ice_qt.html Site offering police training targets .
http://negligentdischarge.com/ Gun safety site.
http://www.firearmscoalition.org/ Firearms political news and commentary.
http://www.jpfo.org/ Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
http://www.gunsmagazine.com/ Online edition with free video clips.
http://www.gunblast.com/QA.htm Online mag.
http://www.handgunsmag.com/ Online edition with video clip.
http://www.americanhandgunner.com/ Online edition with video clip.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html Reason Magazine .
http://www.nssf.org/ National Shooting Sports Federation.
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ Online edition.
http://www.shootingtimes.com/ Online edition.
www.downrange.tv Free video clips.
http://www.spw-duf.info/safety.html Gun Safety Article
http://www.dtipubs.com/ John Farnum’s latest book
http://www.spw-duf.info/index.html Home Page of training site.
http://www.midwesttraininggroup.net/tips.htm Master Tips
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P4XJTKzKEU 1911 Pistol Assembly Animation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUKpCmYKZ8M...feature=related YouTube pistol training video part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEoltYr6FJ0...feature=related Part 1 in above training series
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5S3yxJEloU...feature=related Part 2 in above series
http://www.corneredcat.com/Legal/myths.aspx Shooting, defense site .
I forgot to clarify that I am against any infringements on our Bill of Rights and that includes running criminal background checks on honest Americans .
For those of you who apparently assume there is some practical value in purchase retrictions, consider when guns were really easily available-before 1968, when they were a mail order item . Compare the crime rate then to today's . If you are a slave to statistics, you are forced to conclude that the 1968 Gun Control Act caused crime to increase . Actually, it may well have .
Each time 'gun control' fails, its proponents prescibe more of the magic elixir. " Control Handguns ! Control long guns ! Close the gun show loophole ! Close the black powder antique loophole ! Strengthen laws in neighboring states !Ban deadly military-style assault weapons ! And sniper rifles ! Limit magazine capacity ! Ban anyone mentally ill from buying a gun ! Ban Saturday Night Specials ! Ban snubbies ! Ban pump shotguns ( Yes, this was part of the Berman assault weapon bill ) ! ", Get an international ban on private ownership through the U.N. ( actually attempted ) ! "
There is always one more loophole to be closed , one more type of gun or ammunition to get "horrified" about .
A prominent anti-gun congessman was quoted by the NRA as saying, " Gun control is people control ". At least that time an anti-gunner was honest .
Below is a list of good , fun , gun links. Enjoy !
http://web2.airmail.net/jcpatton/ Includes a long and clever list of tag lines.
http://www.glockfaq.com/targets.htm Free printable targets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No4SA6v6xjE Glock disassembly video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XDNvSXP8W0...feature=related Shotgun video .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKbWcPdTRBI Mossberg 500 disassembly video.
http://harris.dvc.org.uk/jeff/jeff2.html Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries archive.
http://www.thegunzone.com/ Home page to fabulous site, many articles.
http://www.guntalk.tv/gtv/library.php Watch video clips free.
http://www.usashooting.org/video.php Watch safety video free. More.
http://www.letargets.com/html/popups3/ice_qt.html Site offering police training targets .
http://negligentdischarge.com/ Gun safety site.
http://www.firearmscoalition.org/ Firearms political news and commentary.
http://www.jpfo.org/ Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
http://www.gunsmagazine.com/ Online edition with free video clips.
http://www.gunblast.com/QA.htm Online mag.
http://www.handgunsmag.com/ Online edition with video clip.
http://www.americanhandgunner.com/ Online edition with video clip.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html Reason Magazine .
http://www.nssf.org/ National Shooting Sports Federation.
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ Online edition.
http://www.shootingtimes.com/ Online edition.
www.downrange.tv Free video clips.
http://www.spw-duf.info/safety.html Gun Safety Article
http://www.dtipubs.com/ John Farnum’s latest book
http://www.spw-duf.info/index.html Home Page of training site.
http://www.midwesttraininggroup.net/tips.htm Master Tips
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P4XJTKzKEU 1911 Pistol Assembly Animation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUKpCmYKZ8M...feature=related YouTube pistol training video part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEoltYr6FJ0...feature=related Part 1 in above training series
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5S3yxJEloU...feature=related Part 2 in above series
http://www.corneredcat.com/Legal/myths.aspx Shooting, defense site .
QUOTE (Idiot @ Jun 30 2008, 05:56 PM)
QUOTE (Snoopy @ Jun 30 2008, 04:39 PM)
I think domestic violence or spousal abuse is one of those recently added things (applied retroactively if I recall correctly) intended to make another class of people unable to own guns. The anti-gun crowd will use any excuse.
I don't consider myself part of the anti-gun crowd, but if you beat your wife, or anybody else, then you don't get a gun in my book.
Never been in a fight, Id? Imagine some cocky kid at 18 in a fight at the mall because some dude copped a feel on his girlfriend, and he wanted to show his manhood for defending her. Words are exchanged, he is dared to step outside, he gets in a fight. Bar him for life from owning a firearm, or ever hunting again? BS.
A guy comes home late with the smellof perfume on him, his wife has had a few and goes off on him, smacking the crap outta him, so he pushes her off him or restrains her by holding her wrists and leaves a mark. Bar him for life from owning a firearm, or ever hunting again? BS.
Everyone here look back at your life and ask yourself if you ever did anything that, if the cops were watching, could maybe have gotten you a charge of domestic violence or assault.
Or imagine a guy who loves to hunt is going thru a painful divorce. All a vengeful spouse would have to do is smack herself a few times, leave a welt, and Mr. Hunter is done for life. That's just not right.
QUOTE (PatrickHenry @ Jun 30 2008, 06:24 PM)
Even the law prohibiting all convicted felons from ever owning a gun is wrong. First of all, criminals will be able to get guns anyway, of course. Another problem is that it applies for life to tax cheats and other non-violent criminals who have served their time .
Seriously?
People who knowingly did something wrong are often times not afforded the luxuries of those who have faithfully abided by the laws set in place. Do you also believe convicted felons should have the right to vote? Nope, sorry, when you knowingly commit a crime, you run the risk of having certain rights taken from you, to including the risk of never owning a gun. QUOTE (Snoopy @ Jul 1 2008, 12:01 PM)
Imagine some cocky kid at 18 in a fight at the mall because some dude copped a feel on his girlfriend, and he wanted to show his manhood for defending her. Words are exchanged, he is dared to step outside, he gets in a fight. Bar him for life from owning a firearm, or ever hunting again? BS.
So you're saying that crimes committed at a young age should be looked upon lightly and therefore, certain rights should be afforded? I call BS. Kids are all the time punished for foolish things they do when they are young. Look at the kids who pulled the "pranks" at the high schools recently and it landed some teachers in the hospital. Their futures will be affected by it. Were you as forgiving then? Or only when it comes to the rights of young adults hunting?
Should a minor offense result in forfeiting the constitutional right of self-protection for life? That’s the question.
The “pranksters” should surely pay a penalty for their crimes, but the punishment should fit the crime.
My dad and mom have been married for over 50 years, 99+% of the time happily married. My dad has never run afoul of the law beyond a traffic ticket. But once, when married for only a couple years, he lost his temper and threw a jar of mustard at my mom (it missed). That’s it, the sum total of all, the only thing in over 50 years that could have ever been considered spouse abuse or domestic violence. Should a guy like my dad have his right to own a gun taken away forever?
The prankster or the kid who gets in a fight, or the spouse guilty of a minor type of spousal abuse be treated like a murderer or serial rapist? Should it mean they can never get a government job? Should it mean they forfeit the right to be secure in their homes and be subjected to searches of their home at any time for any reason? Should it mean they have no right to practice a religion they choose? Should it mean they have no right to own a computer or radio station?
C’mon, gimme a break.
The “pranksters” should surely pay a penalty for their crimes, but the punishment should fit the crime.
My dad and mom have been married for over 50 years, 99+% of the time happily married. My dad has never run afoul of the law beyond a traffic ticket. But once, when married for only a couple years, he lost his temper and threw a jar of mustard at my mom (it missed). That’s it, the sum total of all, the only thing in over 50 years that could have ever been considered spouse abuse or domestic violence. Should a guy like my dad have his right to own a gun taken away forever?
The prankster or the kid who gets in a fight, or the spouse guilty of a minor type of spousal abuse be treated like a murderer or serial rapist? Should it mean they can never get a government job? Should it mean they forfeit the right to be secure in their homes and be subjected to searches of their home at any time for any reason? Should it mean they have no right to practice a religion they choose? Should it mean they have no right to own a computer or radio station?
C’mon, gimme a break.
It probably shouldn't mean the person could have no right to own a computer or a radio station (???) but suppose that jar of mustard had hit your mother and wounded her seriously or killed her?
Where do you draw the line Snoopy? If someone has a violent past, then yes, their right to own a gun should be relinquished, mostly for the safety of others. I'm not talking about someone who one time threw a mustard jar at someone and missed. But again I'll ask the question, where do you draw the line?
I'm guessing your mother did not call the cops on your father, resulting in a criminal record. However, those that I speak of are often dealing with the law because they are repeatedly inflicting physical harm to others. THOSE are the people whose gun rights should be revoked. I really didn't think this was rocket science.
I'm guessing your mother did not call the cops on your father, resulting in a criminal record. However, those that I speak of are often dealing with the law because they are repeatedly inflicting physical harm to others. THOSE are the people whose gun rights should be revoked. I really didn't think this was rocket science.
QUOTE (PHISH @ Jul 1 2008, 03:08 PM)
...repeatedly inflicting physical harm to others.
That was not the example that was given (the 18 year old in a fight at the mall).
Someone with a violent past repeatedly inflicting physical harm to others is a different story...depending. For example, the circumstances and details always matter. For example, take someone like General Chuck Yeager (and probably lots of other famous flyboys and military men as well). He got into his share of barfights and such. He might even have met your criteria of repeatedly inflicting physical harm to others in those escapades. He became one of the greatest combat pilots and test pilots in US history. Carried a gun basically every day of his life, had awesome firepower at his fingertips daily. He also loved to hunt and did it in every spare moment. Should he have lost his gun rights? Very similar story with WWI war hero Alvin York -- maybe he should have had his right to own a gun taken away.
Today I heard the D.C. police chief saying as a result of the Supreme Court decision she expects domestic violence to go up. Freakin' amazing...
I don't think the crime rate increasing over 50 years has anything to do with not being able to own guns. If YOU knew statistics you'd know you can't directly link the two, too many lurking variables.
I do admire that you are pro guns through and through in all cases, similar to how some are anti abortion no matter what. I like that you stick to your guns. No pun intended.
I do admire that you are pro guns through and through in all cases, similar to how some are anti abortion no matter what. I like that you stick to your guns. No pun intended.
You guys seem to be ignoring some of the central fallacies of "gun control ". Chief among these are the assumption that evil people become good if they are told they can't have guns , that without access to a gun, one can't do much damage ( remember the New York night club murder of about 160 people with gasoline ), that guns corrupt their owners,
that handguns are misused more often than long guns because there is something inherently evil about handguns , that gun laws can do no harm because guns are do no good for anyone , that gun laws can prevent some criminals from obtaining guns , that criminals carrying guns long enough to rob a store will worry about being arrested for carrying without a permit , that the more guns there are in society-the more shootings there will be, that average people cannot be trusted to handle guns safely and responsibly, that normal people simply " go off " and will kill in a rage if a gun is handy , that gun laws must surely do some good , that violating gun buyers' privacy is all right but a national I.D. card for everyone is an abomination .
If you examine the above fallacies, you will begin to wonder if the anti-gunners are motivated by phobia , bigotry, emotion and Pavlovian conditioning from T.V. and Movies . The word an old gun shop owner I know uses is " brainwashed ".
Perhaps it is constitutional to deprive a non-violent convicted felon of his Second Amendment rights for life but is it reasonable ? I think not .
The Domestic Violence Protection Act was challenged all the way to the same Supreme Court we've been talking about . The FOP brought the case to seek an exemption just for police officers . They lost .
The words, " gun control " should always be in quotes because it is just a bunch of nonsense. It does not survive honest debate so its supporters censor and ridicule those who speak against it .
" Gun control " advocates have induced this country to waste billions of dollars, tie up police officers who should be fighting crime with paper shuffling and investigations of good citizens and disarm victims . They should be asked some tough questions .
Instead, the advocates of freedom and individual rights are asked the usual, " So you think everybody should be able have a gun !?? ", " You say I should just be able to walk in and buy a gun ??!! "
Answer : Yes ! This is America !
that handguns are misused more often than long guns because there is something inherently evil about handguns , that gun laws can do no harm because guns are do no good for anyone , that gun laws can prevent some criminals from obtaining guns , that criminals carrying guns long enough to rob a store will worry about being arrested for carrying without a permit , that the more guns there are in society-the more shootings there will be, that average people cannot be trusted to handle guns safely and responsibly, that normal people simply " go off " and will kill in a rage if a gun is handy , that gun laws must surely do some good , that violating gun buyers' privacy is all right but a national I.D. card for everyone is an abomination .
If you examine the above fallacies, you will begin to wonder if the anti-gunners are motivated by phobia , bigotry, emotion and Pavlovian conditioning from T.V. and Movies . The word an old gun shop owner I know uses is " brainwashed ".
Perhaps it is constitutional to deprive a non-violent convicted felon of his Second Amendment rights for life but is it reasonable ? I think not .
The Domestic Violence Protection Act was challenged all the way to the same Supreme Court we've been talking about . The FOP brought the case to seek an exemption just for police officers . They lost .
The words, " gun control " should always be in quotes because it is just a bunch of nonsense. It does not survive honest debate so its supporters censor and ridicule those who speak against it .
" Gun control " advocates have induced this country to waste billions of dollars, tie up police officers who should be fighting crime with paper shuffling and investigations of good citizens and disarm victims . They should be asked some tough questions .
Instead, the advocates of freedom and individual rights are asked the usual, " So you think everybody should be able have a gun !?? ", " You say I should just be able to walk in and buy a gun ??!! "
Answer : Yes ! This is America !
It's now your right under the constitution to own a gun. Any laws limiting that will be litigated.
Look at the guy in Texas. Shot and killed 2 men allegedly trying to rob his neighbors house. They didn't try to break into his house but his neighbors and he not going to be charged with anything.
Welcome to the wild wild west.
Look at the guy in Texas. Shot and killed 2 men allegedly trying to rob his neighbors house. They didn't try to break into his house but his neighbors and he not going to be charged with anything.
Welcome to the wild wild west.
QUOTE (hagjohn @ Jul 2 2008, 12:02 PM)
It's now your right under the constitution to own a gun. Any laws limiting that will be litigated.
Look at the guy in Texas. Shot and killed 2 men allegedly trying to rob his neighbors house. They didn't try to break into his house but his neighbors and he not going to be charged with anything.
Welcome to the wild wild west.
Look at the guy in Texas. Shot and killed 2 men allegedly trying to rob his neighbors house. They didn't try to break into his house but his neighbors and he not going to be charged with anything.
Welcome to the wild wild west.
As usual the antigunner has to try a fear factor remark but without all the facts....
The 2 people did not allegedly rob his neighbor... THEY ROBBED THE NEIGHBOR.. no allegedly about it...
Under Texas law the man has the right to use deadly force to protect not only his property, but the property of his neighbor... which is what he did.
An undercover police officer who arrived as the shooting occurred stated that both men where on the shooters property and advancing toward him, then turned as he fired...
The autopsy has not proved that either man was shot in the back as the wounds were so extensive from the shotgun blast in the torso that they could not tell...
So an undercover officer goes to the grand jury and tells what he sees.... it coincides with what is in the Texas law statutes concerning protection of property and the Grand Jury finds no cause to indict. As they should have....
I don't agree the man should have left his house and shot them. Personally, I would have stayed inside, or at the most gone outside (armed and ready) and tried to get the plate number of the vehicle used to get away. HOWEVER, if either of the perps were to advance on me on my property... they would have been shot.
NO WILD WEST...... a man defending his neighbor's property as defined in Texas law.... you don't like that law, don't move to Texas and rob someone.
It has been proven over and over that communities that are armed have less violent crime and robberies than unarmed communities....
Seems that criminals don't like the fact that they might be breaking into a home or trying to rob someone who might have a gun... could ruin their whole life...
Criminals tend to be cowards who prey on the weak..... you want to hate guns and what they stand for in the hands of a law abiding citizen, then you better hope someone like that is around if you ever get robbed...
I remember back in the 60's when people were calling police officers pigs and that was the kind remark... there was a bumper sticker that said
"If you hate cops, next time your robbed call a hippie"
Well maybe we need a new one today...
"If you hate gun owners, next time your in trouble call a liberal"
OH and BTW, IT WAS ALWAYS OUR RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO OWN A GUN.
All the Supreme Court did was confirm it... they did not add it.
QUOTE (PatrickHenry @ Jul 1 2008, 10:00 PM)
" So you think everybody should be able have a gun !?? ", " You say I should just be able to walk in and buy a gun ??!! "
Answer : Yes ! This is America !
Answer : Yes ! This is America !
*Sigh* It's statements like this where I must come to the realization that I must bow out of the conversation. Obviously I am no longer discussing the merits of gun control with a reasonable person who brings sound judgement to the table. I'm arguing with Yosemite Sam instead. How do you reasonably discuss gun control with someone who believes everyone should own a gun from Dylan Kliebold and Timothy McVeigh, to the ex-convict paranoid schinozophrenic down the street threatening your children.
Just ran across this:
While Second Amendment supporters are celebrating today’s Supreme Court’s decision finding DC’s handgun control laws unconstitutional, it will still not allow law abiding citizens living in the nation’s capital to buy a handgun in Maryland.
According to the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog, despite the decision, transporting firearms across state lines still breaks federal law. So to obtain a firearm legally, a DC resident must first drive to Maryland, go through the required background check and waiting period — then could only legally take possession of the firearm when it was shipped back to a federally licensed store in DC, which do not currently exist!
So, it will be sometime before the effects of the Supreme Court decision will enable DC citizens to lawfully exercise their Second Amendment rights to protect their life, liberty and property with a firearm.
here: http://unfreestate.com/2008/06/26/court-ru...-in-md/#more-61
While Second Amendment supporters are celebrating today’s Supreme Court’s decision finding DC’s handgun control laws unconstitutional, it will still not allow law abiding citizens living in the nation’s capital to buy a handgun in Maryland.
According to the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog, despite the decision, transporting firearms across state lines still breaks federal law. So to obtain a firearm legally, a DC resident must first drive to Maryland, go through the required background check and waiting period — then could only legally take possession of the firearm when it was shipped back to a federally licensed store in DC, which do not currently exist!
So, it will be sometime before the effects of the Supreme Court decision will enable DC citizens to lawfully exercise their Second Amendment rights to protect their life, liberty and property with a firearm.
here: http://unfreestate.com/2008/06/26/court-ru...-in-md/#more-61
QUOTE (PHISH @ Jul 2 2008, 01:42 PM)
QUOTE (PatrickHenry @ Jul 1 2008, 10:00 PM)
" So you think everybody should be able have a gun !?? ", " You say I should just be able to walk in and buy a gun ??!! "
Answer : Yes ! This is America !
Answer : Yes ! This is America !
*Sigh* It's statements like this where I must come to the realization that I must bow out of the conversation. Obviously I am no longer discussing the merits of gun control with a reasonable person who brings sound judgement to the table. I'm arguing with Yosemite Sam instead. How do you reasonably discuss gun control with someone who believes everyone should own a gun from Dylan Kliebold and Timothy McVeigh, to the ex-convict paranoid schinozophrenic down the street threatening your children.
Yeh, it's kind of like arguing with an anti-gun person that thinks if we outlaw guns they will all just disappear in a couple months.
I just can't figure out how they think over 200 million firearms are going to be confiscated.
We can't round up 12 million illegals and deport them, but we can round up 200 million firearms and destroy them.
QUOTE (Udmas @ Jul 2 2008, 05:16 PM)
Yeh, it's kind of like arguing with an anti-gun person that thinks if we outlaw guns they will all just disappear in a couple months.
I just can't figure out how they think over 200 million firearms are going to be confiscated.
We can't round up 12 million illegals and deport them, but we can round up 200 million firearms and destroy them.
I just can't figure out how they think over 200 million firearms are going to be confiscated.
We can't round up 12 million illegals and deport them, but we can round up 200 million firearms and destroy them.
AHH, but you miss the big point in this arguement....
They want to confiscate our guns, BUT they don't want to take away the rights of the illegals and deport them
The mysteries of the liberal mind are truly astounding
It's funny that the subject of immigration should come up. PH kinda reminds me of the one-trick-pony Lee from about a year ago.
The rhetoric on both sides is getting to be a little absurd. It's amazing that this issue comes up just 4 months before a presidential election. Scalia even went out of his way in the majority opinion to say that this ruling won't effect other laws on the books. Nothing has changed. All the SC did was uphold a lower court ruling. They could have refused the case and accomplished the same thing. But then we wouldn't have all the hoopla.
The rhetoric on both sides is getting to be a little absurd. It's amazing that this issue comes up just 4 months before a presidential election. Scalia even went out of his way in the majority opinion to say that this ruling won't effect other laws on the books. Nothing has changed. All the SC did was uphold a lower court ruling. They could have refused the case and accomplished the same thing. But then we wouldn't have all the hoopla.
Lee, that was his name, I was trying to think of it earlier, PH hasn't posted in any other topics just like Lee.
Another subject where opinions won't change. You can't argue with people about this. I don't even want to discuss it anymore. No one mentioned those things you listed in the beginning of your post, and I don't agree with any of them PH. I don't agree with or use any of that anti gun rhetoric, yet I feel comfortable saying that not everyone should be able to go to the store and buy as many guns as they want. I don't think at 15 year old should be able to go to the store and buy some guns, I don't think criminals should be able to legally buy guns, nor certain mentally ill people. None of our laws should be stopping you from owning a gun, so what's the problem. Though I don't know if you actually want to discuss. I get that a lot it seems. I mentioned something about your statistic comment, care to respond, or was I correct?
QUOTE (Udmas @ Jul 2 2008, 05:16 PM)
Yeh, it's kind of like arguing with an anti-gun person that thinks if we outlaw guns they will all just disappear in a couple months.
I never, EVER made the comment on this forum that all guns should be outlawed and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
How many folks know that right now in WV the average, law-abiding citizen can open carry a handgun in public with no special permit required?
And this week a few of 'em showed up at a city council meeting with guns on their belts, chief of police right there, and it was all quite legal. I love it!
And this week a few of 'em showed up at a city council meeting with guns on their belts, chief of police right there, and it was all quite legal. I love it!
QUOTE (PHISH @ Jul 3 2008, 08:53 AM)
QUOTE (Udmas @ Jul 2 2008, 05:16 PM)
Yeh, it's kind of like arguing with an anti-gun person that thinks if we outlaw guns they will all just disappear in a couple months.
I never, EVER made the comment on this forum that all guns should be outlawed and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
I never, EVER made the comment on this forum that PHISH said, all guns should be outlawed and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
Response to "Idiot " :
The court ruling may indeed affect other gun laws . It may enable challenges to any number of local laws banning handgun ownership or ownership of any gun deemed to be an " assault weapon " or a "Saturday Night Special" .
I'd like to see if Maryland can continue to bar almost everyone from carrying a gun , now that the right to "bear" arms is established .
I wonder how government will get away with putting restrictions on a right as if it were just a privilege .
This could get interesting . Remember when John McCain's McCain-Feingold Act was upheld even though it infringes on freedom of speech ?
The court ruling may indeed affect other gun laws . It may enable challenges to any number of local laws banning handgun ownership or ownership of any gun deemed to be an " assault weapon " or a "Saturday Night Special" .
I'd like to see if Maryland can continue to bar almost everyone from carrying a gun , now that the right to "bear" arms is established .
I wonder how government will get away with putting restrictions on a right as if it were just a privilege .
This could get interesting . Remember when John McCain's McCain-Feingold Act was upheld even though it infringes on freedom of speech ?
Ithlilian -
Easy does it ! I didn't say that the statistics were directly linked to gun laws. The point is that laws that make it more difficult for the good people to arm themselves may give the criminals a freer hand.
That appears to be the case in England .
Yes, there are many other factors at work in crime. Dr. David Grossman's books and site, www.killology.com blame video games, movies and T.V. and , oh yes, guns for crime . Well, nobody's perfect ....
Easy does it ! I didn't say that the statistics were directly linked to gun laws. The point is that laws that make it more difficult for the good people to arm themselves may give the criminals a freer hand.
That appears to be the case in England .
Yes, there are many other factors at work in crime. Dr. David Grossman's books and site, www.killology.com blame video games, movies and T.V. and , oh yes, guns for crime . Well, nobody's perfect ....
QUOTE (PatrickHenry @ Jul 9 2008, 01:31 AM)
I'd like to see if Maryland can continue to bar almost everyone from carrying a gun , now that the right to "bear" arms is established .
I wonder how government will get away with putting restrictions on a right as if it were just a privilege .
I wonder how government will get away with putting restrictions on a right as if it were just a privilege .
The ruling won't have any affect on Maryland's laws that make it extremely difficult to carry a concealed weapon. Basically all the court ruling did was told DC and the rest of the nation that a government could not prevent a person from owning/keeping a gun in a personal residence.
It's just like the drinking age topic, if teenagers want to drink they will find a way to obtain alcohol. If criminals want guns then can get them, regardless of laws.
This is what you said:
For those of you who apparently assume there is some practical value in purchase retrictions, consider when guns were really easily available-before 1968, when they were a mail order item . Compare the crime rate then to today's . If you are a slave to statistics, you are forced to conclude that the 1968 Gun Control Act caused crime to increase .
That sounds like "say[ing] that the statistics were directly linked to gun laws."
But yes, it does bother me when people take every statistic they hear as truth. For example, the news that said those who keep food diaries lose more weight than people who don't keep diaries. No two people are alike, and you can't constantly monitor them. You know they didn't perform an experiment with two groups of people with the same diet, same exact exercise, and the only difference being a diary. They are implying causality instead of noticing correlation. Too many lurking variables. I call BS. Another example, "people that eat breakfast in the morning (like Special K) weigh less", is what a commercial said. That isn't even saying they performed an experiment, it's not telling you anything! But people hear it and say ooo special k will help me lose weight. Not so, it's just an observation. It's like saying people with blonde hair weigh less. They looked at 100 people of age 25 and noticed that the ones with blonde hair weighed less. Does that mean blond hair causes weight loss, F*&^ no! UGH!
This is what you said:
For those of you who apparently assume there is some practical value in purchase retrictions, consider when guns were really easily available-before 1968, when they were a mail order item . Compare the crime rate then to today's . If you are a slave to statistics, you are forced to conclude that the 1968 Gun Control Act caused crime to increase .
That sounds like "say[ing] that the statistics were directly linked to gun laws."
But yes, it does bother me when people take every statistic they hear as truth. For example, the news that said those who keep food diaries lose more weight than people who don't keep diaries. No two people are alike, and you can't constantly monitor them. You know they didn't perform an experiment with two groups of people with the same diet, same exact exercise, and the only difference being a diary. They are implying causality instead of noticing correlation. Too many lurking variables. I call BS. Another example, "people that eat breakfast in the morning (like Special K) weigh less", is what a commercial said. That isn't even saying they performed an experiment, it's not telling you anything! But people hear it and say ooo special k will help me lose weight. Not so, it's just an observation. It's like saying people with blonde hair weigh less. They looked at 100 people of age 25 and noticed that the ones with blonde hair weighed less. Does that mean blond hair causes weight loss, F*&^ no! UGH!
QUOTE (Ithlilian @ Jul 9 2008, 04:06 PM)
Another example, "people that eat breakfast in the morning (like Special K) weigh less", is what a commercial said. That isn't even saying they performed an experiment, it's not telling you anything! But people hear it and say ooo special k will help me lose weight. Not so, it's just an observation.
Actually, they don't say "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" for nothin. There's actually truth behind it. When you eat breakfast in the morning, it kick starts your metabolism. If you go without it, your body thinks you're fasting so it conserves calories/fat, preventing you from burning many calories. So when Special K advertises that people who eat breakfast actually weigh less, that's probably accurate. However, I'm sure they're using that little fact to further sell their product, when really it doesn't matter which cereal you choose. Sorry for the hijack, just thought I'd include that little tidbit of info.
QUOTE (PHISH @ Jul 10 2008, 11:54 AM)
QUOTE (Ithlilian @ Jul 9 2008, 04:06 PM)
Another example, "people that eat breakfast in the morning (like Special K) weigh less", is what a commercial said. That isn't even saying they performed an experiment, it's not telling you anything! But people hear it and say ooo special k will help me lose weight. Not so, it's just an observation.
Actually, they don't say "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" for nothin. There's actually truth behind it. When you eat breakfast in the morning, it kick starts your metabolism. If you go without it, your body thinks you're fasting so it conserves calories/fat, preventing you from burning many calories. So when Special K advertises that people who eat breakfast actually weigh less, that's probably accurate. However, I'm sure they're using that little fact to further sell their product, when really it doesn't matter which cereal you choose. Sorry for the hijack, just thought I'd include that little tidbit of info.
Yeah - but I get what Ith is trying to say... People who eat Special K for breakfast (I think the commercial states for 2 weeks... "give us 2 weeks, we'll take off the weight") must then also eat a sensible lunch & dinner & more than likely throw in some excercise... You can't eat Special K for 2 weeks, go to McD's for lunch, pig out on a 5 course meal for dinner, and eat a pint or two of ice cream to round out your day and think you're gonna take off the weight. It's kinda like the small, small print that they hope no one reads...
Here's a question for Mr. Patrick Henry: if you eat breakfast, are you less likely to go into an hypoglycemic rage and shoot someone? 
QUOTE (PHISH @ Jul 10 2008, 11:54 AM)
QUOTE (Ithlilian @ Jul 9 2008, 04:06 PM)
Another example, "people that eat breakfast in the morning (like Special K) weigh less", is what a commercial said. That isn't even saying they performed an experiment, it's not telling you anything! But people hear it and say ooo special k will help me lose weight. Not so, it's just an observation.
Actually, they don't say "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" for nothin. There's actually truth behind it. When you eat breakfast in the morning, it kick starts your metabolism. If you go without it, your body thinks you're fasting so it conserves calories/fat, preventing you from burning many calories. So when Special K advertises that people who eat breakfast actually weigh less, that's probably accurate. However, I'm sure they're using that little fact to further sell their product, when really it doesn't matter which cereal you choose. Sorry for the hijack, just thought I'd include that little tidbit of info.
I don't like it. I get that it ups your metabolism in the morning, but not all people who don't eat breakfast are fat. And some people who have eaten breakfast their entire lives ARE fat. Also, what kind of breakfasts are we talking about? Cereal commercials like to call a "complete" bfast as a waffle, orange juice, milk, cereal, toast, and a muffin. That's craziness. People that eat bacon and eggs every morning surely don't weight less. I don't like the statement regardless of if it increases metabolism or not.
Obviously there are other factors involved like some that you and Pandora's Box mentioned: WHAT you eat for breakfast, HOW MUCH you eat, etc. No, you're not going to lose weight if you eat a bowl of sugar-packed cookie cereal with a side of bacon. However, if you eat a sensible breakfast (low sugar cereal, fruit, low fat cottage cheese, etc.) and then eat sensibly the rest of the day, you are more likely to lose weight than someone who skips breakfast and eats the same meal at lunch. Of course there are other factors: metabolism, exercise, activity level, etc. However, I'm just stating the facts maam, when all other variables are equal. If you want more info, check out this link: http://www.wellbridge.com/wellbridge/cambr...esigns.php?ID=9
I think there is merit in eating less, more often, so I believe you, statistics just make me angry
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.