2nd Amendment Rights

As a Democratic competitive shooter and hunter, I would ask Mr. Carter's view on the 2nd Amendment and gun control in general. Frequently I attend competitive shooting matches in the tri-state area with semi-automatic rifles (traditionally called high-power matches by shooting enthusiasts). Will Mr. Carter protect my right to carry firearms, own and shoot semi-automatic weapons (dubbed assault rifles by the uninformed), and carry concealed? This is a very important topic; so important in fact that the Supreme Court will rule on it in the next month or so. I feel the right to keep and bear arms is not negotiable and is as important as the first or fourth amendments. Often times political candidates say they support hunting and sportsmen afield as a way of deflecting the their actual views on gun control. What do you think?

James Rivers - Watauga County North Carolina

Comments

Wolves.

Amen, Branden. Let the natural predators take care of the deer over-population the way nature intended.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

nature

Humans are just as natural facet of the environment as wolves. We are here, we aren't going away, and folks need to realize that. Hunters do a much better job of controlling deer populations than do wolves. Besides if wolves ate all the deer then hunters wouldn't buy hunting licenses and all wildlife would lose out. It is already happening in some places out west where out of control wolf populations are decimating wolf and deer herds. And guess what happens when wolves eat themselves out of deer and elk - they attack humans and starve to death. The population crashes and then you have an environment severely out of balance.

James Rivers

James Rivers

I asked you first. :)

First of all, it's silly to ask someone to prove a negative. I'm asking you for evidence of a wolf attack on a human. That should be easy enough. There should be a newspaper article or something. C'mon, James Rivers. You've got to be better at this than that.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

Research

Linda,

I am not into doing research for others. If you don't take my word for it then it is up to you to prove it wrong. Just to show you are wrong (again), here is a newspaper article from the Anchorage Times. There are several more documented in North America. Now that it is no longer a negative, prove it wrong (or will you go in the direction that you went on the meat eating issue - not wanting to discuss) Wolves might not be the cute cuddlies you wish them to be:

Wolves attack joggers' dogs on Fort Rich
'They were not afraid of us,' woman says

By JAMES HALPIN
jhalpin@adn.com

Published: December 22nd, 2007 12:08 AM
Last Modified: December 22nd, 2007 06:01 AM

Neither the three women nor their dogs heard the pack of wolves creeping up behind them as they jogged on Artillery Road in the frigid morning air.

Camas Barkemeyer, 26, her dogs Buddy, a 3-year-old American bulldog, and Ginger, a 6-year-old husky, were among that group on Fort Richardson a little after 10 a.m. Thursday. One minute it was peaceful. Then she glanced back and saw the pack of about eight wolves spanning the road, only a few feet behind.

A melee ensued, accompanied by screaming, snarling, blood and pepper spray.

"The thought went through my head: 'What dog? What dog am I going to let go?' " Barkemeyer said. "It was the most terrifying thing I've ever been through."

The increasingly emboldened Elmendorf wolf pack is blamed for killing one dog and wounding another in Eagle River this week as Anchorage saw its seventh wolf attack in the past month, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

The wolves, possibly led by a hungry pack leader in search of easy meals, seem to have taken to attacking dogs during the day, even when groups of people are present, Anchorage-area wildlife biologist Rick Sinnott said.

"That's definitely a bit of escalation on the wolves' part," Sinnott said.

"We're a little more concerned about these instances because the wolves are kind of upping the ante a bit. If they keep it up, we will have to do something lethal."

This bout of wolf encounters began around 6 p.m. Dec. 13 in the Powder Ridge subdivision of Eagle River, when Mike Krause, 39, was walking his 75-pound yellow Labrador retriever, Brit.

He was on pavement, in an unfinished but lit area of the subdivision, when a lone gray wolf rushed out from the tree line and attacked the dog, his wife, Val, said.

Krause rushed the wolf, yelling and waving, and scared it back a bit, she said. But the wolf didn't leave, and Krause took Brit to a nearby porch.

ADVERTISEMENT

"(The wolf) wasn't scared; he just kind of looked at him and backed off," she said. "He had them trapped on the porch for a while."

Eventually the wolf left, leaving Brit with a saliva-soaked neck but no puncture wounds, Val Krause said.

For nearly a week no attacks were reported.

Then Wednesday, at least one wolf returned to Beverly and Jack Bronner's home in the same subdivision. About 8 p.m., their 20-pound miniature schnauzer, Punky, wanted to go outside, and they put her out in the yard on a lead.

The night was cold, about 5 below, and they didn't want to leave Punky out for long, Beverly Bronner said. Only minutes after the dog went out, Jack went to get her.

"He opened the door and she was gone," Beverly said. "The leash was out there and she was gone."

They hadn't heard a sound.

Thursday morning, Jack Bronner and Sinnott tried to find the dog, but only found some blood spatter in the grass and a matted down area, presumably where the wolf was lying in wait, Beverly Bronner said in a telephone interview Friday.

Then, the same morning, Barkemeyer's group had its run-in.

After her bulldog, Buddy, began fighting one wolf, Barkemeyer sprayed a can of pepper spray at it, causing it to back away. But the rest of the pack didn't.

She arced the can, spraying a "rainbow" of pepper spray so the wolves would back down, she said. It worked, temporarily. But the wolves continued to move in every time the women stopped screaming.

They were able to keep the wolves at bay, through relentless yelling, as they made their way back to the exit three-quarters of a mile away, Barkemeyer said.

The wolves finally left them at the gate, where they were out of breath and arm-heavy from yelling and pulling the dogs along, Barkemeyer said.

No one had a chance to notice during the scrape, but Buddy had gotten scratched across his chest and shoulders. He also had bite wounds on his butt and more delicate spots, which needed to be stitched up, she said.

"They were not afraid of us," she said. "Something needs to be done."

That sentiment, echoed by Beverly Bronner, seems to be gaining support.

Wolves attack chained-up dogs fairly regularly in Alaska, Sinnott said. Often, the animals are hungry -- especially in years with little snowfall to slow down moose and make them easier prey.

But for generally people-shy wolves to attack dogs in front of humans is more unusual -- and worrisome, he said.

"They weren't focused on the people at all, they were after the dogs," he said. "But a person could get hurt just in the melee."

Military and railroad employees are using pyrotechnics, rubber bullets, buck shot and pepper spray to try to scare the wolves and teach them to fear people, Sinnott said.

Fish and Game is also encouraging people to legally trap the wolves, he said.

Anchorage has about 25 or 30 wolves in up to five packs, but the Elmendorf pack, which ranges from the Air Force base to the Palmer Hay Flats, is the only one suspected of attacking dogs during recent months, Sinnott said.

A hunter reported shooting and killing a large black wolf -- like one known to be in the Elmendorf pack -- on the Palmer Hay Flats on Thursday, Sinnott said. But the animal's hide had not yet been sealed and he could not confirm if it actually was a part of the problem pack.

This is the second string of wolf attacks in Anchorage within a month. On Nov. 28, a dog being walked behind the Alaska Railroad track near Eklutna was killed when the pack attacked.

A woman and her dog walking on a lighted loop of the Beach Lake trail system in Chugiak Dec. 4 were also confronted by several wolves, though the dog was uninjured in that encounter.

The next day, a woman walking her dog on Artillery Road heard her pet give a quick yelp as it vanished. The dog's head and collar were found the next morning about 50 yards off the road.

Another confrontation took place Dec. 8, when a woman walking two dogs on a gravel road northwest of Elmendorf's flight line saw several wolves that followed her for about 15 minutes, though they didn't attack.

Wildlife officials recommend keeping dogs on a leash or under close voice control, and carrying pepper spray for backcountry travel.

For Barkemeyer, that won't be necessary. She isn't heading back out anytime soon.

"I run back there all the time, and I don't want to think about how many times I've been watched," she said.

James Rivers

James Rivers

Well, aside from the fact it's Alaska,

where critters generally behave different than the lower 48, maybe these attacks on dogs are a result of the wolves reading this article that you posted downthread:

Take the top ten greatest hazards to children by "Careful Parents" an organization devoted to keeping kids safe. (http://marshallbrain.com/cp/) They are in rank order:

Top 10
Tylenol
Alligators
Pot on the stove
Cigarette butts
Honey
Dogs
Rip currents
Windows
Balloons
Mercury

Of course, that would require the wolves to not only have access to a computer, but an Internet connection as well. Have any been spotted outside of cafes with wifi capability, possibly clutching fang-scored, drool-dripping laptop in their jaws?

If the wolves start chasing balloons, breaking windows, attacking beehives or running rampant through drugstores in search of the Tylenol display, we'll know for certain it's all about protecting the children.

Gators come in at #2? Holy crap.

No wonder all the old folks go to Florida. If one state's worth of wild animals can beat all but one cause of death in the 49 other states, there's pretty heavy selection pressure against running around and playing in the water.

--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

--
Garner, NC

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

proof

Linda,

As you can see, I have provided proof on the wolf thing. No answer? Funny how a liberal doesn't seem to want to answer when they have been proven wrong (again). Maybe you should quit while you are behind by only two (wolves and the meat eating thing). Now, I challenge you to prove otherwise that my research and comments are somehow in error. Thank you and have a fine day my dear Linda. LOL!!!!!!!

James Rivers

James Rivers

How to deal with trespassers

So, you told the ATV riders to get the hell off your property, and told the hippies to stop bogartin', right?

Gas, grass, or ass—nobody camps for free!

--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

--
Garner, NC

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

Gas grass or @#$

Well, not in those terms. The ATV riders (see above)will know the deal as I catch up to them. The hippies are as free to walk on my property as anyone else as long as they don't start a forest fire and burn the place down. As for the &*@ part, um, I guess one or two of those hippie chicks were kind of good looking in a weird sort of way. Well, hell, now that you mention it, there was this one hippie girl who was downright hot now that I think back to it. Maybe Linda can set me up........ Ok, now I am starting to get off subject.

Advice for you? NC is a fantastic state - that's why so many are moving in. Depends on what you like to do. If you are an outdoor freak then I would recommend the coast or mountains. If you like an eclectic, young professional crowd then Raleigh or Charlotte would have just about everything you are looking for. Also, our gun laws aren't all that bad at this point. There are several shooting clubs and ranges dotted throughout the state. Get involved in one of those for both personal enjoyment and as a means of connecting to the community. You would be surprised at the information you can get on a myriad of subjects through fellow gun owners (places to live, things to do, places to fix your car). They are sort of like a ready made friend. Good luck.

James Rivers

James Rivers

Shooting clubs

Actually I've been thinking about that. For an (oddball type of) gun rights guy, I'm a terrible shot.

I had planned to get out of my armchair 2nd Amendment phase while still in Indiana, but things didn't turn out that way...

--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

--
Garner, NC

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

Semi Automatic weapons

Brunette,

Wow, 20 years ago this question would not have come up in Western North Carolina. With all the folks moving in from other locations, it must be hard for them to get used to the concept of individualism that locals enjoy. Anyway, not at all hard to explain the semi-automatic concept as I thought I already had. I'll be happy to do so again. Competitive shooting - a multitude of shooting events around our great nation utilize semi-automatic rifles and have done so for the past, oh, say 100 years. High Power competitions are extremely popular as they have always been with thousands of shooters competing on any given weekend. Shooters typically use M14 or AR-15 semi automatic weapons at ranges from 200-600 meters (the AK series are typically not used as they are not accurate enough). In Camp Perry Ohio, the national shooting championships are held each year to determine best shots in the nation in both military and civilian classes. Again, semi-automatics are used in many of the events at Camp Perry including high-power matches. As a side note, the military and civilian shooters use military ranges under military instruction in many areas ( I shot high power at Camp Pendelton with the Marines on many occasions as the Base Commander thought it important to give civilians a place to shoot in overcrowded San Diego). Continuing, the use of semi-automatics (dubbed assault rifles by the uninformed) have taken place in sport and competitive shooting for decades. Many of the shooters in these events go on to law enforcement and police oriented careers where a solid foundation of shooting is of great benefit. Hunting. Semi-automatic rifles are carried afield each year by the tens of thousands by hunters and sportsmen. Some on this site try and insinuate that an unfair advantage is somehow given to the hunter if he/she uses a semi-automatic. Not sure how they came by this as they seem not to be hunters. The truth is very little advantage is garnered by the hunter. Game does not typically stand by while a hunter simply blasts away. Follow up shots are few in number (you should hit it the first time) and often animals are on the move. A pump action rifle is as fast as a semi automatic and we tend to hear nothing concerning those weapons. Why is that? Some hunters choose semi-automatics because they fit well while others prefer them to other available arms. In may case I sometimes carry afield a Winchester Model 8 semi-automatic rifle. Production of the Model 8 started in 1908 with my particular rifle being produced in 1926. Frank Hammer, incidently, used a Model 8 to end the careers (permanently) of Bonnie and Clyde. So you see, semi-automatic rifles are not some new phenomenon, but rather old systems with a large following.

So there, you have two stated purposes of the semi-automatic rifle. There are more. Take home protection for instance. Several semi-automatic weapons are ideal for home defense. Take the WWII issue M1 Carbine. It is short, compact, easy to operate by those smaller in stature (women and young people), and very reliable. If I were going to arm my wife with a semi-automatic other than the AR-15 she already has access to, then it would have to be the M1 Carbine. The last, and most important purpose for owning and operating a semi-automatic firearms is simply because someone wants to and has an inherent right to. Just as you want to practice your freedom of speech, freedom of privacy, or any other inalienable rights routinely enjoyed by Americans, the 2nd Amendment is no exception. It is so important in fact that the Supreme Court is ready to rule on it in June. A balance of power is immeasurable in importance for a nation. This balance of power exists between the government and the people. Any tipping of power towards the government end of things doesn't bode well for the people. Semi automatic weapons are simply part of this balance. With Mr. Carter being a candidate to represent me in Washington, I feel an answer on his stance on the 2nd Amendment is in order. There are other Democratic politicians who have stepped up to the plate and done the right thing concerning the 2nd Amendment, and I expect Mr. Carter to or he won't get my vote.

Is this detailed enough for you Brunette? Now how about explaining your end of the issue at hand. Thank you

James Rivers

James Rivers

James Rivers

James Rivers

Like I said

The 2nd Amendment doesn't have anything to do with hunting.

That simple enough for you, James Rivers, James Rivers, James Rivers?

Mr. Rivers

I grew up shooting quit a bit, although I preferred free-hand, iron sights - thought it took more skill. Also, I had family/friends that collected guns of all sorts. So, I can understand that there are a FEW people who could/should be able to responsibly own these firearms. But, what about the rest, what about the leakage onto the gunshow scene where they are picked up by criminals or those who should not have them? So, I've had an idea for some time. I wonder if you support it.

  1. Any weapon is legal in any state, so long as that weapon is legally used for an open hunting season of at least two weeks. So, shotguns, pistols, rifles used for hunting - always legal.
  2. All other weapons are illegal to own unless:
  3. The owner has a Special Weapons Permit; and,
  4. The owner has an approved weapons safe and trigger locks for use during transport; and,
  5. The owner takes full civil liability for any crimes committed with said weapons that cause physical, mental, or property damage; and,
  6. The owner is exempt from full civil liability if the weapons were stolen from inside the weapons safe and/or trigger-locks were in place during theft occurring while in transit; and,
  7. The owner agrees to allow unscheduled inspections of the premises where the weapons will be located; and,
  8. The owner agrees to pay a $5000/weapon fine for each piece that is not stored in the appropriate manner.
  9. The owner agrees not to sell any of said weapons except to licensed gun dealers.

So, gun enthusiasts get to keep their weapons, while gun nuts do not.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Few people equals elitism

-Robert P.,

I shoot iron peep sights at high-power matches. I still use iron sights while hunting, although I will switch to a scope when my eyes get to bad to focus on the sights. I would ask who you think the FEW peoople are. Isn't that an elitist slant? With that being said maybe you or your friends with a lot of guns shouldn't own guns. Or knives, or baseball bats or samauri swords simply because someone THINKS you shouldn't. The "leakage" onto the gun show scene has never been a significant source of guns for criminals. That is a made up fallacy by the spin oriented media and Brady Campaign. Less than 1% of all crimes by gun are committed by so-called assault weapons. I have attended gun shows all my life, and street thugs would stand out like a sore thumb. Criminals typically obtain their weapons by stealing them or buying them from folks who steal them, not at gun shows.

1. Why the two weeks? What difference does that make? Some pistols are not legally allowed for hunting as they are not powerful enough. Why ban those weapons as they make great home defense or target guns? So you are saying that a semi-automatic rifle that is used for hunting is ok to possess anytime, anywhere? That doesn't make much sense as gun ownership and hunting don't have as much to do with each other as do guns and the right to keep and bear arms.
2. All other weapons should be legal to own: see above
3. How do you regulate a God Given, inalienable right? Do you fill out a Special Speech Permit to talk in front of a crowd. Or a journalist permit to post here?
4. Why lock your weapon during transport? How does one defend him/herself with non-functioning weapons? Do criminals have to abide by this one also?
5. So we pay for the action of criminals? wow! That's kind of scary. Why wouldn't the person who caused physical or property damage have to pay for it? Mental damage? So your friend or child that borrows your car and kills another in a drunk driving accident means youshould be held accountable?
6. Your exempt from civil libility if you place "The Club" or on your steering wheel and it is stolen. Maybe they steal one of your knives and kill your wife with it. Should you be held responsible for that?
7. This is interesting. Would you submit to cameras being placed in your home to ensure you don't abuse your kids, beat your wife or commit the act of sodomy. You seem to operate on the basis of guilty until proven innocent and total waiver of 4th Amendment rights. Heck, would you advocate placing a device in your car that will electronically send police computers a signal when you speed resulting in a speeding ticket being mailed to you?
8. You agree to pay 5000 for not installing a club on your automobile. You agree to pay 5000 dollars for any potential weapon not stored according to what someone else thinks? Uh huh, that's what I thought.
9. You cannot give any of your treasured possessions to sons, daughters, wives or others of your choosing. You instead ask Big Brother if you may do so. Don't give cars, chain saws, land or anything else away as someone might do something bad with it. Operating on this principle is silly and downright ludicrous!!!!!

I have a few ideas of my own:

A. Any weapon is legal in any state as per the 2nd Amendment (what part of "shall not be infringed upon" don't you understand?

B. Punish criminals, not law abiding gun owners
C. Misdiagnosis by doctor kills far more folks in the US than do guns. Lets send all those doctors away for emotional and physical damage.
D. Do away with a libility based society and take responsibility for actions.
E. Less government intrusion into the lives of Americans. Less rules and lawmaking and more personal responsibility.
F. Public gun ranges as recreational centers for young people
G. Continuation of a proud and respectable tradition of gun ownership.

Believe it or not, some of us Democrats actually think for ourselves and are not our brother's keeper!!!!!!

James Rivers

James Rivers

You have a more liberal reading of the 2nd amendment

Than do I or most Americans. All your arguments are facetious. Doctors are punished if they commit malpractice, but they have a strong lobby and the punishments are usually not enforced. Cars aren't created for the sole purpose of hurting other things and are almost NEVER stolen with the intent of hurting other humans. I would permit, and by law have no choice but to permit, a visit by police and a social worker if a neighbor reported that I was being abusive to my wife/children. I never said anything about having a 24/7 camera in place, just random visits. Facetious.

Free speech often does require a license and it doesn't kill people, if it threatens to kill people it is against the law and you can be jailed for it. If it instills and promotes hate, it is against the law and you can be jailed for it.

On one hand you say "Do away with a [libility] based society and take responsibility for actions." but then if you leave your automatic weapon lying on the front seat of your truck, and someone steals it and sprays a middle school, killing a bunch of innocent people, you don't want to be held accountable for your irresponsible gun practices.

You'll never win. All weapons will never be legal, and they shouldn't be. Whether you like it or not, guns do kill people, just in the hands of other people. Guns will be regulated, the question is whether we regulate certain types of guns COMPLETELY OUT OF EXISTENCE. That is what the people who are polar-opposites of you want. No guns. Period. I'm saying there is a middle ground where people who want guns could have them, but they would have to step up and take some responsibility. You want to live in a fantasy land where each person is a law unto themselves. Fine, go to Afghanistan or Sub-Saharan Africa where those social mores are still practiced.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

liberal reading

The 2nd Amendment is not meant to be interpreted this way or that. The framers made the language pretty clear. What me must remember, and Scalia supports this point, is the Constitution is in place so WE don't change. Not the other way around. If we were to change the meaning of our base document to suit prevailing attitudes, we would be in serious trouble!!!

Which of my arguments are facetious? I contend that your arguments are both a fallacy and not grounded in common sense or logic!!!! Doctors are most certainly not punished for committing malpractice. The thousands upon thousands of misdiagnoses resulting in death do not wind up with punishment of the doctor. That is a fallacy.

You say cars aren't created for the sole purpose of causing hurt. Guns are not created for the sole purpose of hurt either. As I have explained, rather thouroughly by this point, is that weapons are used for many, many uses other than killing (preventing crime, hunting, collecting, sport shooting, etc..) But cars kill far more folks than guns yet folks like you don't seem to eager to ban them!!

I never said ANYTHING about a neighbor reporting you to police. I drew a parallel (you must have missed it) between advocation of preventative firearms regulations and preventative regulations designed to limit your ability to break laws or cause harm to others. In other words, if you wish to see limitations on my basic right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then why would I be wrong on imposing my own special set of limitation on you? Many folks abuse their kids each year. Many folks engage in the illegal act of sodomy each year. We have to stop this insidious behavior by folks like you. Can't you see how beneficial it would be to mandatorily have a camera installed in your home? I think it is a great idea. And maybe a device installed in your car someday that will send a police computer a message when you speed. By your inclination for controlling others, you would probably be happy to receive the speeding ticket in the mail. Right?

My first Amendment protections need a license. Where and when? You are right, speech designed to harm others can land you in jail - AFTER IT HAS OCCURRED. Your wishes to ban firearms occur BEFORE the illegal act occurs. Apples and oranges. If you set a pre-condition on firearms then why not Freedom of speech or press? The simple threat of you using illegal word should be enough to ban the use of Word- perfect or pens and pencils. Right? Do you see what road we can merrily go down by your flawed logic? Punish criminals, not law abiding gun owners.

Leaving my automatic weapon (you have to have a class III license for a fully automatic weapon my friend) should NEVER make me liable if a thief commits a crime by stealing it and then commits another crime by misusing it. If you leave the keys in your car and someone steals it and kills someone in a drunk driving accident then it is you who must pay? Not making a lot of sense here.

It is you who will never win. As you can see, many other like- minded Democrats are starting to fire back (no pun intended). Whether you like it or not people kill people in a multitude of ways. First man born of man killed man. He did it with a rock. A few Muslim extremists killed nearly 3000 with a few box cutters. Timothy McVeigh did it with some fertilizer squirted with Diesel.

As for you rant on Afghanistan or Sub-Saharan Africa. Afghanistan beat a large Soviet Army. How did a rag tag bunch of camel herders do that? They did it because they were armed. Contrast this with your mistaken choice of sub Saharan Africa. The folks in Darfur for instance were disarmed long ago. The only people with guns there are government sponsored militias who rampage and pilfer at will. They are able to do this because the common citizens have no access to, yep you guess it, guns!!!! Kind of hard to lop someone's arm off when they are pointing a gun at you!!! With globalization comes a special benefit to gun owners and activists. The advent of mass communication (blogs, internet, etc.) it greatly stifling the efforts of a biased media to reflect flawed values (like the ones you espouse). If you have noticed the gun effort is gaining great momentum. The Supreme Court is scheduled to give a ruling on the 2nd Amendment. Nearly all states have concealed carry laws (shall issue laws which prevent corrupt judges and sheriff's from denying a citizen the right to carry based on nefarious reasons). Many states have recently passed "Castle Doctrines" which basically says you don't have to retreat from someone entering your house OR property. Several states are looking into passing laws which will allow now helpless college students to carry concealed on campus (Utah allows it already). So, no, we are not by any stretch losing. We are gaining. We will continue to gain. If Mr. Carter aligns himself with the pro second amendment crowd in convincing fashion then he might have a shot (no pun intended again)

James Rivers

James Rivers

Not facetious, just stupid.

You're arguments may not be facetious, but they are certainly lacking in something. Like common sense. Nearly everything you state is either flat-out wrong or horribly twisted by some weird Nixonian logic.

As for winning, if you were going to win then tanks and RPGs would be legal. You'll never win, it's just a matter of degrees. I'll win because I understand that and will be happy with a happy medium. You're a "true believer" and people like you never win, they just cause havoc.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

6 liner

Robert P,

Hey dude, lighten up. I make a dedicated effort to explain my views. You are not doing the same thing. You draw reference to perceived personal deficiencies (I have many of those for sure, but common sense hasn't ever been a problem). If you would like to explain what my arguments are lacking in then you have a blank screen and opportunity. You indicated in an earlier post the tendency for new posters not to last long. From your six line reply I say it is you who is slipping Robert P. Could it be, just maybe, that the 2nd Amendment and unrestrictive gun ownership has more merits than people assume? Robert, the liberal news media NEVER gives a decent accounting of guns in any situation. After years of this media bashing with no ability to fight back, the liberal generated myth surrounding guns began to grow. Now that we have an outlet to educate folks to the OTHER SIDE OF THE PICTURE, posts like mine are becoming more common. Perhaps supposed open minded people should practice being open minded on the gun issue.

Take the book by researcher Robert Lott "More Guns, Less Crime". In this book Mr. Lott breaks down many of the myths associated with guns in society. Take the 2.5 million uses of guns to prevent crime or injury in the United States each year for instance. Lott explains how the vast majority of positive uses of guns are not reported by the media. You seem a little frustrated right now Robert. Take a deep breath and realize life is a grand thing. If you choose to have guns in your life, then great. If not, great. Just don't hamper my rights. That's not asking much. I will be a "true believer" and believe you will do this!!!!!! What are your opinions on the Patriot Act and abortion?

James Rivers

James Rivers

One more thing

I just noticed you called me stupid. That's not very nice now is it? Would candidate Carter call me stupid for expressing my views? Will candidate Carter support my 2nd Amendment rights? If he doesn't support my constitutional rights would you call him stupid or just accept him as a status quo Democrat? Add stupid to the ever growing list I am forced to endure on this increasingly hostile blog. If you didn't agree with Rosa Parks would you have called her stupid, or worse............? Think about how you categorize and stereotype us gun owners. How you classify and mold our views hints at racism, discrimination, bigotry and non-tolerance.

James Rivers

James Rivers

Don't call me stupid!

--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

--
Garner, NC

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

I consider myself fairly well-informed,

semi-automatic weapons (dubbed assault rifles by the uninformed)

and there is a huge difference between an AK-47 and a semi-automatic shotgun, which is why the "assault rifle" designation is used by law enforcement and others.

What makes an assualt weapon?

They are merely weapons that were developed from fully automatic models. Meaning they had the equivalent appearance to weapons banned by the 1934 Machine Gun Act. The shotgun I grew up with met the definition of an assault weapon, despite being specifically used for hunting and had a plug. The reason, it had a capacity of more than 7 shots and a detachable magazine. The gun was plugged, so I couldn't get more than three shells in there, as is the law for bird hunting, but it was still illegal for the manufacturer to sell new models. I could see mine, since it was pre-ban and could continue to use it.

A rifle was designated as an assault rifle is it had two of the following features.

Large capacity ammunition magazines
Folding or telescoping stock
Conspicuous pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

At first it looks like a great idea, until you actually find more out about it. For instance, a bayonet mount? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Grenade launcher? Rifle grenades are already highly regulated by the Destrutive Devices Act. This bill did nothing.

How about pistols?

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Excellent you have a heavy pistol that is the semi-auto version of an automatic firearm.

and for shotguns?

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine

This was one of the worst laws ever created.

This thread is not about weapons,

unless they're needed to stalk Roy Carter. From another thread:

James Rivers

I would ask what kind of car Mr. Carter drives and how long he has driven it for. Does Mr. Carter own any full size SUVs or Pickup Trucks?

Stalking?

Robert P.,

Stalking. I joined this website to become informed. I would like to make an informed decision on the day I exercise one of my most cherished consititional rights - the right to vote. I have encountered nothing but hostility from fellow Dems on this site for simply asking a question. My views on guns are under attack and now I am a stalker!! I will answer these posts as I get to them, but get real. Try not to be so reactionary when someone asks a pertinent question or two. If asking two questions is stalking then I wonder what else sets you off!!!

I drive a Nissan Sentra in an effort to conserve gas and do my part to save the environment. I then ask Roy Carter if he drives an SUV or full size vehicle in response to his purported view environmental issues. Is this wrong ? I vote for people who do, not people who expect me to do without doing themselves. I simply want to know Mr. Carter's views on Guns and a little something on what he drives so I can be sure he is not a hypocrite.

James Rivers

James Rivers

You need to understand.

You might be knew to this, but we aren't. We see a lot of people who show up and post inflammatory "questions" during their first hour/day and then are never seen again. Or, they create multiple accounts and do the same.

Since I posted this you have come back and interacted with quite a few people. Good. However, the way you started is akin to walking into a local bar televising the NCSU-Miami football game in Raleigh and shouting, "I think that NC State sucks and I wonder if any of you would care to correct me?"

Your probably going to get pummeled. Whereas if you walk into your local pub where everyone knows you and shout out the same thing you would get a much different response.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Inflammatory questions

Robert P.

Now let me see if I have this correct. My questions concerning my 2nd Amendment rights are inflammatory? How is that? I just re-read my initial post that started all of this, and it does not seem inflammatory in the least. In reading people's responses to my posts is where I see inflammation!!! I am still here posting and have posted under this account. Who else is here posting pro-gun statements besides possibly one other?

The way I started is not as YOU SEE IT. Do you think some Democrats, especially those living and growing up in rural environments, own, operate and maintain guns? I know a lot of fellow Democrats that go to the local shooting club with me. As for getting pummeled, I am not seeing that. I see a lot of hollow emotion and very, very little fact. If this makes me inadequate somehow then I am guilty I guess.

I simply wanted to know Mr. Carter's views as they pertain to my initial post. Nothing more nothing less. If folks want to engage then fine. I am no stranger these days to defending my 2nd Amendment rights. It seems as if more folks than ever are in my business. Time to become engaged on all fronts is what I say. I am doing that right now. You too seem to feel strongly on certain subjects. Great. I harbor no ill will toward you or anyone else as long as my rights are not eroded in any fashion. I look forward to further discourse.

James Rivers

James Rivers

Member for 1.5 hours, two comments and/or posts.

Both questioning Roy Carter. If you haven't been around for awhile then you might not be familiar with the term "concern troll".

As I said, which you might not have taken from my above comment, you came back to discuss the issue. Good enough.

I hope that in a time when the planet is about to fall apart, and you talk about energy efficiency, that you'll focus on other issues that have greater impact on humanity.

God, gays, and guns are just a way of driving us apart.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

The 1.5 hour member

robert P.

It seems as if you are the 1.5 hour member. You are not replying to the various posts submitted on this thread anymore. As with most liberals of your caliber, you try and fade away without being noticed as your emotional retorts and biases have been refuted time and time again. This tends to make you uncomfortable (as it very well should), and you in turn seek out those who give you support. Funny how ONE gun owner can put a bunch like you on the run while simultaneously exposing your flawed logic, racist tendencies, and generally poor thinking process. You came on strong at the beginning (when you had a little back up) and were beaten back post after post. You, Linda, and others, finding little solace in having to think for once, simply quit. I find that a bit odd and very astounding.

Perhaphs you should take a look at your general belief system and do a little revamping!!! LOL!! If Democrats would embrace guns (and other God given, Constitutional Rights) the party might get somewhere. Instead, old style hardliners like you continue the same tired old rhetoric that worked when there weren't things like the internet, blogs, and text that can now easily expose the many flaws and inconsistencies you so verily espouse. Wake up Robert P. It's a new world out there.

James Rivers

James Rivers

Mr Rivers is a stalker?

How creepy.

It's a shame. I know there are a lot of hunters out there who don't enjoy having their image tarnished by someone who's on a human stalk.

Forgot one

Oh I forgot one. I am creepy also. Just keep adding to your list Brunette. Not sure how you came by this; I guess by listening to others. Do you always react when someone says something about another? If it was said that I was a ten foot tall martian from Mars who loved salty Margaritas would you believe it? Have some independent thought for Christ's sake.

James Rivers

James Rivers

Maybe you forgot a couple more Mr Rivers?

Mr Rivers! I notice that you put on a excellent discourse in defending the 2nd amendment here. However! If you are true defender of the 2nd, you know dang well that the purpose of the 2nd is to keep the King or any Tyrant honest and has nothing to do with hunting or wildlife and any other Blues Brothers excuses about owning weapons.

Do you agree? And finally! Are you a NRA member or a member of the Gunowners of America? If you are NRA member, than you should be shot with a 50 cal sniper rifle on sight for being a traitor with that bunch of rich white establishment racist bastards.

2nd Amendment

Maxey,

You are correct in that the 2nd Amendment correlates more to a balance of power than to hunting. If you read my reply to Robert P., above, you will see that my very first comment is indicative of exactly what you just said. Here it is again: "That doesn't make much sense as gun ownership and hunting don't have as much to do with each other as do guns and the right to keep and bear arms." I couldn't agree more with you. Many politicians these days attempt to circumvent the gun issue by saying they support hunters rights. What exactly are hunters rights? What does this have to do with gun ownership? I wonder if Mr. Carter is of this mindset. If he is then I doubt you would vote for him based on what you say above, correct? When I hear a politician indicate my 2nd Amendment rights revolve around hunting, I immediately become suspicious. As you say, the 2nd Amendment is in place to keep the tyrant at bay.

I am a "seasonal" NRA and GOA member. By seasonal I mean that I buy year long memberships instead of lifetime memberships. This allows me to wield power over these organizations in case they fail to support in some way my 2nd Amendment Rights. I am a member of the NRA through the end of the year and may not renew if they court McCain at the upcoming NRA convention. McCain, as you probably know, is not a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendemnt. At one point in his career he voted for some anti-gun legislation which, in effect, makes him suspect in my book. I am currently not a member of GOA, however I might join soon as they are on to McCain (they give him an F rating).

As for being shot with a .50 cal. Wow. Kind of strong rhetoric for the anti-gun crowd isn't it? LOL!!! So I am not entitled to exercise my 1st Amendment rights of speech and assembly? And you are? The 5 million or so other NRA/GOA members should also be shot? Quite a statement. I didn't know that many people were wrong to believe in the constitution. I wonder if Mr. Carter thinks I should be shot, that I am a traitor for holding membership in a particular club or organization, and that gun owners are wrong (there are at best guess 80 million gun owners nationwide). If that is the case he will have a hard time in Northwestern N.C., I can assure you!!!

By the way, I am not rich nor a racist bastard. Do you research and you will see many gun laws themselves were concieved of due to racism. It is kind of hard to enslave a race if they are pointing guns at you!!!! Don't fool yourself into thinking the prohibition on concealed carry in many southern states was the result of crime control. It was people control. White slave owners and later KKK did not want to run the chance of messing with an armed black man. So what did they do? They disarmed the blacks. Those laws have perpetuated themselves through the years, and organizations like GOA and NRA realize this. And they are racist? Lets look at some large cities in the United States. Take Washington, DC, New York, and Chicago. Those cities have severe restrictions on carrying weapons. Who are the residents of those big cities? Yes, blacks. Now why is it that rural white America are trusted to carry guns (with crime rates approaching those of Japan and England) and the good black citizens of the inner city aren't? Stinks of racism to me. Keeping the black man down Maxey. Do you believe in that? As a gun owner, I believe and trust in blacks just as much as whites to own and carry weapons. Do you?

This is interesting. In less than 24 hours I have been called creepy, a traitor (who should be shot), a stalker, white, racist and finally a bastard. I didn't realize you folks were so racist, stereotypical and generally hateful yourselves. I have done nothing but ask a couple of questions of Mr. Carter and have been met with some pretty serious sounding hostility. I have not called, or insinuated in the least, any of these things to anyone on this site (even though they advocate abridging my God Given, inalienable rights!). I am secure in my beliefs, and will fight for them. I don't carry this fight on with one line, emotional filled quips or with hateful words. If you don't agree then at least come up with the why or hows.

One thing I don't understand about our party. Give the weapons thing up!!!! It is a losing issue!! Why not court the gun owners, win elections, and do those things that make our party important? It seems that some of us have at least some common held values and beliefs. One person on this post likes watching deer in his/her yard. Great. I do to. I hunt those deer, but love seeing them. It seems that this is one issue(s) that should not divide a party. Simply allowing law abiding gun owners to do their thing isn't that crazy of a concept.

James Rivers

James Rivers

I think I got James in my sight! Oh there he is!

By the way, I am not rich nor a racist bastard* Sgt York James

Never said that Dude about your personally! I see you are playing the Guilt collectism association political correct game. Shame on you for using establishment liberal control freak Orwellian gabage terms here.

Listen Sgt York! You appear to be not up to date on the NRA past History. The NRA was form after the civil war by Union Army Commanders and given a Federal Charter as a agent of the Federal Government. It's so-called purpose was to suggest or advise to Congress and the States about the educational knowledge of the 2 nd and to prepose laws to protect it or the selective laws for certain groups who could not attain the right to bare arms if they didn't reach certain educational training testing. These selective groups were the former slaves who were deny the right to bear arms by the States with the full support of the NRA as a federal agent. That's right! The NRA was the first classic example of fascism in the USA as a so-called private state association.

GOA was not form until the late 1970's and had nothing to do with racism in the last century.

As a gun owner, I believe and trust in blacks just as much as whites to own and carry weapons. Do you?* Sgt York

Of course I do sgt york! Hell! I want all races armed to the teeth to repel any Nazi or Communist that thinks they can tell me when to flush my toliet with the force of law. And stop telling me about you running scare of my 50 cal sniper rifle in the Wal-Mart parking lot. I belong to the 101 st Golden Chips state milita of Northern Montana, so don't screw with me and my loyal troops. We are also loyal members of the local Lions club on Thursday nights at Ted Turner Bison steak house at High Canyon Montana. You should attend our meeting at the Lions club. We are holding a lottery on a used M-1 Abrams battle tank next week that we aquired from Homeland Security to fight terrorism in Montana.

ps....And stop bugging Coach Carter! I am his tight end on the weekends on his Arena football team [Danial Boone Longrifles]in Wilkes county.

Another balance of power quote

Here is another balance of power quote used in a post to Brunette that supports your assertion of keeping tryants at bay: "This balance of power exists between the government and the people. Any tipping of power towards the government end of things doesn't bode well for the people. Semi automatic weapons are simply part of this balance."

Thanks. By the way, i am out of the area for a couple of weeks and may not be able to check in. I will reply when I get back.

James Rivers

James Rivers

The problem with this argument

is that by the same reasoning, individual ownership of nuclear weapons would lend an even greater "tip" to this 'balance of power.'

It also assumes that any one individual is entitled to assert his own law in opposition to the government, and blow away those pesky agents that want to talk to him about taxes or the children in the basement or the recent demolition of a government building.

Heaven knows the Founding Fathers never contemplated the existence of the freakin' NRA, the lunacy of its leadership and the twisting of the meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment that we see today.

obligations

The 2nd Amendment in itself entitles one to assert laws in opposition to governments. That was why it was formed in the first place!!!! If a government gets out of balance somehow and needs to be brought back into line, it is the 2nd Amendment which allows it to occur. Furthermore, a criminal who is shot while engaged in some activity designed to hurt me, my family, or a third party is not asserting one's own law in opposition to the govt. In fact, it is one's moral obligation to end the life of said criminal so he/she is unable to do further damage!!!! With your reasoning the civilians who assisted the police in killing Charles Lee Whitman asserted their own law in opposition to the govt?

How is the leadership of the NRA loony? Protecting my 2nd Amendment rights is a pretty serious matter. The Animal Liberation Front, PETA, or Earth First are pretty loony. ALF is actually on the terrorist watch list as they advocate killing people if necessary to liberate animals. Do you think the leaders of ALF, PETA and Earth First are loony also?

The intent of the 2nd Amendment is the same as it was over 200 years ago. Nothing new, nothing different.

James Rivers

James Rivers

You're in the deep end with shallow waders now

The 2nd Amendment in itself entitles one to assert laws in opposition to governments

Wrongo- Ask Randy Weaver. I was about to suggest you ask David Koresh but then I remembered that he isn't available.

By the way, self-defense against a threat to your person or property by a criminal or critter is provided for by our laws already. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

I don't see what the 2nd Amendment has to do with ALF, PETA or Earth First. Maybe you can explain that.

Eh?

Admittedly, my views are closer to James's than yours on the 2nd Amendment (even if I think he's tone deaf on how to win respect for gun rights among liberals and progressives), but I hope I can persuade you that Weaver and Koresh aren't any better examples of implementation of government gun regulation prerogatives than David Hicks or José Padilla are for pre-trial detention policies.

(Or, for those with longer memories, think of Abner Louima, Amadou Diallo, and the NYPD's "rules of engagement" with uncharged suspects at various stages of detention by the police.)

More succinctly, you being right about the scope of the 2nd Amendment wouldn't have made the federal government's handling of Waco or Ruby Ridge less wrong.

I think that more, uh, "liberal" laws regarding gun ownership and carrying might hive off a lot of supporters from the reactionary wackjob Right. As a social policy, I think it's smart to isolate gun-happy sociopaths, not drive responsible gun owners and enthusiasts into alliance with them.

--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

--
Garner, NC

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

Amazing how a legit question, even if on a controversial subject

can slide so quickly into the realm of personal attacks and snide remarks.

Given that humans are carnivores...and that we require protein to survive...man has been killing and eating animals for thousands of years. Those who eat meat but are appalled by the thought of hunting and killing an animal surely know hamburger or bacon doesn't grow on trees. If you are a meat eater and have never tasted a venison ham wrapped in foil with onions and apples and left to cook slowly all day buried in the coals of a morning campfire, you've missed a real treat. Although I no longer hunt, I'd like to retain the right to do so...and not be told I can't own a firearm because someone is afraid I'll use it irresponsibly. I do own a bolt action rifle. I've never considered owning a semi-automatic rifle for large game hunting. It's unnecessary.

While I can't quote sources for others to read, repeating rifles were developed for the purpose of killing other people, not for hunting. Semi-automatic and machine guns are simply an extension of technology to more efficiently kill other humans.

Anyone who kills to eat doesn't need a semi-automatic weapon. Period. OTOH law-abiding folks who enjoy shooting and improving their marksmanship on paper targets shouldn't be kept from doing so with military style semi-automatics. Like it or not, it's a skill that translates to survival in wartime...and our world isn't getting any more peaceful. Civilians with good marksmanship skills have been crucial to our success in wartime (remember Sgt. York?).

Just to be clear, my opinion is that anyone who doesn't eat what they kill (unless it's pests like barn rats) is beyond contempt. Anyone who kills another living creature just to be amused is not someone I want to associate with.

Finally, there's lots that can be said about guns and criminals and self-protection. Most folks are pretty polarized on the subject. For me it boils down to this: If criminals who commit a crime using a firearm or threat of use of a firearm, were locked away immediately and forever, without any chance for parole, ever, it would help. That isn't going to happen. Criminals will get and use a gun no matter what the law says...because a gun makes a criminal powerful...especially if the criminal knows his victim doesn't possess like weaponry.

So...I come down on the side of law abiding citizens being able to carry a gun for protection...with proper training and a permit...and for homeowners to lawfully be able to possess a firearm on their property without a permit.

Just my opinion.

Stan Bozarth

I'm just curious

Mr. Rivers, after reading most of your posts here and I think it's very interesting reading BTW, two questions, if you will... If you want answers to your questions from Mr. Carter, why don't you contact him directly? He does have a website with contact info. Also, you say you wouldn't vote for McCain because he once voted for some kind of gun legislation. In your view, is there any kind of gun control legislation that you would support?

Progressive Democrats of North Carolina

Contact info

I tried contacting him and can find nothing on his website which will allow me to contact him. I saw him answer someone on this website so I thought he might answer me. I will probably end up attending one of his rallies and just ask him directly.

I would most certainly support some gun legislation. Legislation designed to place criminals who use guns in either jail or the electric chair and legislation that eases restrictions on the carry of weapons anywhere in the state by law abiding citizens. Vermont has no restrictions on carrying weapons. You can strap on a handgun and walk about as you please. No problems there.

James Rivers

James Rivers

Vermont is a great state

Yup.

A state which both elects an unashamed socialist (Bernie Senders) to the House of Representatives, and then the Senate, and which doesn't have any gun laws seems to me to have an usually strong grasp on the proper role of government.

Incidentally, it's also beautiful. My wife and I went on a road trip to northern New England a few years ago, right before leaf-peeper season. We had a great time.

--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

--
Garner, NC

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

gun in Vermont

You never addressed Vermon't gun laws, or absence of them.

James Rivers

James Rivers

Pages