[loknload]

Since this thread is still going strong and since the board is running a bit slow. :eek: I thought I'd start Part Five a little early to help speed things up ;) Gee and I thought the Energizer Bunny was bad :eek:
Carry On :D

Oh, Part Four is back HERE (http://www.familyfriendsfirearms.com/cgi-bin/fff/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=000223&counterhit=yes)

[Kalvan]

The business of having troops on guard duty with empty rifles is nothing new. They were doing it in the 70's when I was in the regular army. What I've heard about the NG's at the airports is that they have ammo, but if anything happens they have to "phone home" for permission to load and do something with it.

[HiPower]

WyldOne, ya gotta remember that an awful lot of these National Guard folks don't get much in the way of training. Nowhere near as much as our front line troops in the Army.

Picture this scenario...

An 18 year old guy who is still in the throes of puberty has a major breakup with his girlfriend. The next day, he gets his call to duty at the local airport.

While there (its been 18 hours now since the breakup), his old girlfriend comes through the line with her new boyfriend.

Oh, did I forget to mention that the 18 year old is also a gang member? And he now has a fully automatic (I hate that term!) rifle with a fully loaded 20 round magazine in it, not to mention having a really bad attitude about the whole situation. A key point here is that the military (and the Guard) are cross sections of society. Yes, they have their own gang problems. Just ask someone who has been on an aircraft carrier.

That is why they don't get issued ammunition unless they are not in a position where they can hurt someone.

The call home for permission to fire is standard military operating procedure when you aren't in a combat situation. And sometimes when you are.

All the Guardsmen at the airport are is showpieces. Done to make the general public feel that our elected representatives have done something to have earned the princely sums we pay them. And I must say, it works. In your own words, it scared the crap oughta you that they were there.

If TSHTF at an airport they wouldn't be much use for a couple of reasons:

1. They aren't trained as police, they are trained to kill people and blow stuff up. They are well equipped to do so. They are trained to do so. They aren't trained to deal with terrorists, hostage situations, bombs in a suitcase etc.

2. They don't have freedom of thought to use what training they do have. They gotta call someone to get permission to return fire if its not aimed specifically at them. They will have permission to defend themselves, not much more.

3. They aren't correctly armed for the task they have been given, either mentally or physically, which puts them at a disadvantage if they end up fighting someone with the right tools for the job. To most of them, its just an extra paycheck.

[ 10-13-2001: Message edited by: HiPower ]

[WyldOne]

this is so....bizarre....gang members in the armed forces? just what we need, better armed gangs.


Originally posted by HiPower:
<STRONG>an awful lot of these National Guard folks don't get much in the way of training. </STRONG>

why not? what's the point in having a national guard at all if they aren't trained, and if they can't use their training to benefit anyone?

as for the scenario....pardon the glaring stereotype but....isn't that why they shave their heads and have super-mean drill sergeants? so that they're "tough" (whatever that means) enough not to be bothered w/ personal issues?



<STRONG>That is why they don't get issued ammunition unless they are not in a position where they can hurt someone.</STRONG>

but...isn't the general nature of the armed forces....a "position where they can hurt someone"? and what good would it be to give someone ammunition if they couldn't use it to hurt/defend/etc someone? this seems very backward to me.



<STRONG>If TSHTF at an airport they wouldn't be much use </STRONG>

i know the answer to this but i HAVE to say it....if they wouldn't be much use, why are they there in the first place? (and for the record, it doesn't take a whole lot to scare me. remember, a gun show is a terrifying thought :))


<STRONG>1. They aren't trained as police, they are trained to kill people and blow stuff up. They are well equipped to do so. They are trained to do so. They aren't trained to deal with terrorists, hostage situations, bombs in a suitcase etc.</STRONG>

how is someone well equipped to kill people and blow things up if they have guns without ammunition? and if they have to ask permission before firing their gun? and i thought they weren't very well trained.....

(and why don't you like the term "automatic"?)

[Eric of Indiana]

Denise, the National Guard is trained for their mission in a combat zone. Most of them are trained as truck drivers, airmobile medics, supply specialists, artillery units, etc. There are a few infantry units, but for the most part they are in a support role. The Indiana NG troops that are providing "security" at the airports were given 3 days of training on FAA rules and regulations, but that's it.

as for the scenario....pardon the glaring stereotype but....isn't that why they shave their heads and have super-mean drill sergeants? so that they're "tough" (whatever that means) enough not to be bothered w/ personal issues?
They are soldiers, part time ones at that, not supermen.


but...isn't the general nature of the armed forces....a "position where they can hurt someone"? and what good would it be to give someone ammunition if they couldn't use it to hurt/defend/etc someone? this seems very backward to me.
I think that the "position to hurt someone" phrase was in reference to civilians. In combat, they do get real ammo.

i know the answer to this but i HAVE to say it....if they wouldn't be much use, why are they there in the first place? (and for the record, it doesn't take a whole lot to scare me. remember, a gun show is a terrifying thought )

They are a feel-good measure, similar to putting an alarm company window sticker on your house even though you don't have an alarm.

Eric

[HiPower]

Eric of Indiana did a real good job of answering. The National Guard are trained in combat, and are trained well for that role. The police are trained in police work, and are trained well for that role.

Cops who have no prior military experience if put in a military combat role would be massacred (guess where lots of ex military ends up). Soldiers who are put in a police role will give you a real high body count. One of the Marine Corps unoficial motto's is "When it absolutely, positiviley has to be destroyed overnight". This is one of the reasons the Posse Comitatus act came into being around 1900 or so. The military services DO have within them their own police forces, and these guys DO get lots of police training (I was one). They are obviously better suited for this role than combat troops. Unfortunately, these guys are small in number in each service, and they are needed where they are.


As to why they are in the airports at all, allow me to quote myself...


All the Guardsmen at the airport are is showpieces. Done to make the general public feel that our elected representatives have done something to have earned the princely sums we pay them. And I must say, it works. In your own words, it scared the crap oughta you that they were there.



YES --- GANGS HAVE INFECTED THE MILITARY TOO! I retired from the Navy in '95. One of the last incidents I remember in San Diego before that was a gang related stabbing...on base...in the Enlisted Club. The average joe in the service has no background check to speak of unless he needs a security clearance of some sort. The higher the clearance, the more intense the background check.

Within the last 6 months here in Ca. a Navy officer was arrested on assault charges in connection with his initiation into the Hells Angels. You can do a search for the story here (http://www.fresnobee.com)

I don't hate the term automatic. It is the correct term. I hate the term fully automatic. Any gun is either automatic (be it semi, fully etc.) or it is not.

(p.s. I really think you would have fun at a gun show at the right time, with the right company.)

:D :D :D

[Grayfox]

WyldOne, you need to understand that the National Guard is much more of a national joke. Yes, there are some dedicated serious military folks in the Guard. However, the vast majority of Guardsmen have little or no real interest in the military. They join primarily for one of two reasons. First the educational benifits that come with military service. They could get these just as well from a normal tour of service in the regular military, however these folks aren't interested in real military life and only want what they need from service.
Second, its an extra paycheck from a part time job that lets them play make believe for two days a month and two weeks each summer. To them, its just fun and games. They do not take the job seriously.

Here's a perfect example of this thinking. We have a guy where I work who is a long time member of the Army Reserve having risen to the rank of Staff Sergeant. For years he has bragged about the extra money for doing nothing and his two week paid vaction from work every summer. Right now he is in a state of shock and extremely PO'd because his unit has been put on notice that they may be deployed to Germany to replace front line troops who may be sent to war. In his own words "I didn't sign up for this s***!"
This is what you're dealing with.

Also, the concept of them being unarmed is nothing new. While serving in the regular Army at Ft. Hood, Tx, my unit took a two month turn on Civil Disturbance duty. In the event of a natural disaster, riot or other civil disturbance in the area around Ft. Hood, we regular army troops would be deployed under the direction of the State National Guard to help keep the peace just as regular guard units would. In effect, we would be transfered temporarily to the National Guard to serve in their capacity as there was no regular guard unit in the area. Anyhow, we recieved intensive and daily training in such things as riot control, public confrontation and emergency services because the Army knew that our regular military training was inadaquate for dealing with police duties. We did this every day for the two month period we had this assignment. In the course of this we learned two very important things. 1. The real National Guard never recieved this training because they didn't have the time or man power to do so, and 2. We would NOT be issued ammunition for our weapons. Ammo would only be issued in the event of a full blown social collapse and only on the order of the local civilian authority. Why? Because the government did not want the headaches or political consequences of having military troops fire on civilians. Remember the Kent State fiasco?

Well, I seem to have gotten a little long winded here. :rolleyes:
Anyway, this just goes to prove the point that the National Guard working in security assignments around the country is nothing more than a show. I am truely afraid that if something were to happen that these Guardsmen would screw up royally. Quite possably at the cost of innocent lives.


Edited cause I can't seem to spell today. :rolleyes:

[ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: Grayfox ]

[HiPower]

Grayfox, I'd bet WyldOne has never heard of Kent State. :D

[WyldOne]

wow. that's a lot to take in and a LOT more lies to destroy. :(

anyway, two things you SOOO do not want to get me started on, are seattle '99 and kent state. i grew up in cleveland heights, and two of my best friends on this planet went to kent state for their bachelors. (in fact i'm gonna see one of 'em for thanksgiving :D). yeah um...yeah you don't wanna get me goin there ;)

[kamakaze]

:rolleyes:

[WyldOne]

:p

[Gusgus]

Originally posted by HiPower:
<STRONG>
Picture this scenario...

An 18 year old guy who is still in the throes of puberty has a major breakup with his girlfriend. The next day, he gets his call to duty at the local airport.

While there (its been 18 hours now since the breakup), his old girlfriend comes through the line with her new boyfriend.

Oh, did I forget to mention that the 18 year old is also a gang member? And he now has a fully automatic (I hate that term!) rifle with a fully loaded 20 round magazine in it, not to mention having a really bad attitude about the whole situation.</STRONG>


I just posted a thread (http://www.familyfriendsfirearms.com/cgi-bin/fff/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=22&t=000280&counterhit=yes) in L&P, but it seems to fit this thread two. On Friday, an Army Reservist stationed at Fort Dix, NJ, was relieved of duty after a psychiatric exam. As he was cleaning out his locker, he retrieved a personal .38 revolver and shot two fellow Reservists. He then stole a military police vehicle, and drove off the base where he ambushed two local LEOs. One of the shot officers returned fire, and killed the man.

Just something to think about when you see that barely trained teenager weekend warrior walking around in public with his M-16.

[ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: Gusgus ]

[WyldOne]

holy crap. how often does that happen? (is it the exception or the rule?)

and on a completely different note, are there guns for leftys?

[Col. Mustard]

Originally posted by WyldOne:
<STRONG>
and on a completely different note, are there guns for leftys?</STRONG>

I know of no handguns specifically for leftys (being a lefty myself, this is of some interest to me), but some semi-auto pistols offer ambidextrous controls, such as a safety on either side of the gun, and/or a magazine release that can be turned around. Some manufacturers offer bolt action rifles with a left-handed bolt.

[HiPower]

This is definitely the exception. We have more than 1 million people on active duty, plus lots in the reserves and the Guard. It probably happens less often than it does in civilian life.

No matter what, incidents of this type are very rare. Remeber, crime of all types is down on the order of 50% or so over the last decade.

What is up is network coverage of violent crime - to the tune of 500% in the same time period. 2 reasons for this, (1) IT SELLS, (2) it fits in with the extreme anti-gun bias of all the major networks.

[Tony from Finland]

Yes, there are firearms specifically for lefties. (Didn't an American manufacturer make a "mirrored" version of the 1911A1 at some point? - Although personally, as a lefty, I like the slide release where it is in the normal "right-handed" configuration... But now I'm going off-topic.) However, since only about 10% or so (don't know the exact number) of the general population are left-handed, making firearms specifically for left-handed people is usually not a good idea, so these are pretty rare (like the 1911 I mentioned). (Exception to the rule would be bolt-action rifles made for lefties.) However, several firearms are designed so that they can be used just as well with the left hand as with the right. Did you have any particular weapon or type of weapon in mind?

[Col. Mustard]

I guess I missed the mirrored 1911. I'm going to speculate that it was/is pretty pricey.

I agree about the slide release (and, for that matter, the decocking lever on my SIG) I like them "right" where they are; maybe a lifetime of adapting right-handed tools to left-handed use made it a natural, but I quickly learned to push the appropriate buttons with my left hand/thumb.

The number I heard is 15% of the general population is left-handed; a sufficient number, I think, to make available at least a limited number of either ambidextrous handguns, or lefty bolt-actions.

[Gunslinger]

I think it was Randell that made the left handed 1911. But I would not swear to that.

[HiPower]

WyldOne...go here...CALIFORNIA DREAMIN' (https://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2056)

The picture is of a Ca. National Guardsman in the L.A. airport. His M-16 has no magazine in it. He now has a $1000 club!! Boy, I feel ssssooooo safe!!!

:D

and in case the link goes away:

KeepAndBearArms.com -- If you ever wondered if California was really La-La Land, really the ultimate PC state, wonder no more. California Governor Gray Davis is so "politically correct" he apparently doesn't believe in arming the very people he sends in harm's way to defend the citizens of his state. (State Governors oversee the National Guard in each state.)


No Magazines in the National Guard's Guns at Orange County's Airport:



If you look at the photo below from last Saturday's Los Angeles Times (click for enlargement), first brought to our attention by Citizens Of America creative director Jim Houck, you can see that the guardsman is holding a rifle with no ammunition magazine. At most, this rifle has one cartridge in the chamber, but that is extremely doubtful.

The message this photo sends to terrorists and copy-cat lunatics:

This California airport is NOT protected by armed Guardsmen.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1) What happens if the guardsman actually needs to use his firearm to defend the people he is there to defend? Is he supposed to use it as a club?

2) Is the entire staff of the L.A. Times so ignorant about guns that they didn't realize they were exposing an obvious flaw in Governor Davis' "protective measures" at the airport? Didn't anybody on the Times' staff realize the message the Times was sending when they printed this picture?

3) What is the real reason the National Guardsmen at this airport are carrying empty guns?

4) Who were all of the people involved in making the decision to assure that these guardsmen were carrying what amount to expensive clubs? Are they guilty of dereliction of duty? If so, if something happens at the airport that requires an armed response and results in loss of life due to the Guardsmen's inability to respond with armed force, can those responsible for emasculating the Guardsmen be held legally and criminally liable?

5) Does anybody actually think a terrorist wouldn't see an empty gun with a single glance? If a terrorist immediately sees that a gun is empty, is he supposed to be afraid, perhaps because the guy holding it is wearing a military outfit and hold a fancy club?

NOTE: If this information was emailed to you, we include the following link to the enlarged picture showing a neutered "guardsman" in order to let you draw your own conclusions: http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/images/unarmed_Nat_Guard.jpg.

ACTION: If you would like to call the L.A. Times and urge them to address the issue of unarmed "guards" "guarding" the airport, here is the number to their newsdesk: (213) 237-5000. You can also contact Gov. Davis:

Governor Gray Davis
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633
governor@governor.ca.gov

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: HiPower ]

[Col. Mustard]

That's classic California.

Gov. Gray: "I've got a great idea! We'll put high-profile National Guardsmen, in full battle regalia, at all the airports. That'll show those terrorists that WE MEAN BUSINESS! But - and keep this under your hats - their guns won't be loaded, so they won't hurt anybody. Nobody will ever notice that the thingie where you stick the big can of bullets is empty."

Governor's lackey: "Great idea, Governor! I'm sure the LA Times will do their part to promote your swell plan."

[jsr5]

Another what if, now there are dozens of high powered rifles inside the nations airports, but, the guys carrying them are unable to use them because as anyone can see they are unloaded. So the terrorist that want to kill americans don't have to sneak their AK's into the airport to kill people all they have to sneak in with is a coupe loaded M-16 mags and a box cutter. Cut the throat of a gaurdsman, cut the rifle sling (can be done very quickly) load up and spray the terminal, where lots of people are crowded together with little potential cover. And there isn't anyone immediatley present to stop them cause this area of the airport was being "gaurded" by the Nat'l gaurd, and everybody knows they aren't really armed.

They'd be better off with ax handles if they aren't going to be properly armed. From past experience if they do have ammo it's most likely only 3 rounds. And theyve been told the first two go into the air.

well I'm done with my little rant :mad:

[Kalvan]

I'm inclined to believe that it was a General in the Natural Guard that ordered that they not have ammo. I doubt Davis has a clue. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the NG didn't have his finger on the trigger though!

[VictorLouis]

Yes, the southpaw 1911 is the Randall http://www.randall45.com/ :)

I have been very uneasy about the whole Guard at airports idea since its inception.(I was in the Army Reserve) I'm glad to see that they are unarmed. :rolleyes:

[WyldOne]

okay i'm trying again.

are there any states where guns are completely illegal? and, could someone (who has the means, time, energy, etc) buy guns in one state w/ lax laws and bring them to another state that has stricter purchasing laws? or is that logic just messed up (did that make sense?)

[HiPower]

There aren't any states where its illegal to buy a gun. Remember that little thing called the second ammendment? There was a 5th Circuit Appeals court decision yesterday affirming this as an individual right.

It is illegal to go to a neighbor state to buy from a dealer though. Your state of residence is the only one where you may legally take possesion through a dealer. You can buy it out of state, but it has to be shipped to a dealer in your state, and you pick it up there.

:D

[Greg L]

It is illegal to go to a neighbor state to buy from a dealer though. Your state of residence is the only one where you may legally take possesion through a dealer. You can buy it out of state, but it has to be shipped to a dealer in your state, and you pick it up there.

Uh nope (of course living in the state that you do I can see where you come up with those assumptions :) ) only for handguns. With a handgun you have to either purchase it through your dealer or have it shipped to him and pick it up there (with all the paperwork). I know that here you can go to any bordering state and pick up any long guns (rifles & shotguns) at a dealer there (filling out their paperwork). This is assuming that the states have agreements with each other allowing this. There is a shop 20 miles from my house that has lots of surplus rifles which I usually buy 1-2/year from him. His shop is however in OH so the only thing that I have to do differently to go there is to leave my carry pistol at home (OH doesn't have a CCW law yet). The paperwork and the phone call is the same.

This is only for purchases from a dealer w/ a private party sale YMMV.

Greg

[HiPower]

Thanks for straightening me out Greg. You are right, that's the way CA. is.

[WyldOne]

Originally posted by HiPower:
<STRONG>There aren't any states where its illegal to buy a gun. Remember that little thing called the second ammendment?</STRONG>

sorry. :) i should have clarified. the reason that i asked that question was, because after reading about california. while you and i may understand what this newfangled-notion :rolleyes: called the "Bill of Rights" is....it REALLY doesn't sound like our elected officials have heard of it. so i was just wondering if anyone had done away with it yet.

but thanks :)

[HiPower]

Not done away with (entirely) yet. There is currently a drive (petition) underway to get Ashcroft in his capacity as Attorney General to sue our Governor (Gray(out) Davis so as to force him to uphold the constitution as he is sworn to do. Davis has publicly stated he believes there is no individual right to own a gun. This weeks 5th circuit court decision undoubtedly is now causing him a bit of heartburn. Its not binding on Ca. cause we are in the 9th circuit, but he must see the handwriting on the wall. Be glad you aren't in the 9th circuit!

the petition may be seen at keepandbeararms.com

:D

[WyldOne]

ok i'm not really ready for this yet...but when i am ready, how would i go about finding out where & when the firearms safety, self defense, etc courses are? and are they expensive?

[Eric of Indiana]

Denise, Here's the pages for Mass. There was Refuse To Be a Victim course today, so it'll probably be a while before that one is offered again.
Refuse To Be a Victim (http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?url=http://www.nrahq.org/safety/rtbav/schedule.asp)
NRA Basic Pistol (http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?url=http://www.nrahq.org/shooting/women/)
The cost varies by the instructor, but is rarely more than $50. I believe that all materials and equipment are provided, but I'm not positive.
Eric

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Eric of Indiana ]

[WyldOne]

thank you :)

[Baba Louie]

WyldOne,

Are you a city or a suburb dweller? I don't know Boston from beans, so here's the reason I ask. If you're a suburban dweller, you might consider going to a sporting goods store and looking at a BB gun.

Yeah, I know, but you gotta crawl before you walk and some here would like to see you running with the big dogs, but...one step at a time.

If you could get either a BB Rifle by Daisy or an airpistol (stick to BB's not the .177 pellets) you can set up a cardboard box in your yard (assuming you have one), stuff said box full of crumpled up newspapers, tape a target to it, and after carefully reading the INSTRUCTION MANUAL and donning some sort of safety eyeglasses, you could practice with an innocent little old American Daisy Red Ryder BB gun (or the like).

No loud sounds, no forceful recoil, practice getting the sites on target, safe handling, storage, etc.

I suppose you could do the same with a super-soaker water-squirt-gun as BB guns CAN BE DANGEROUS.

Ah heck, I forgot you live in MA. BB guns are probably against the law there.

Nevermind.

Adios Amigos

[WyldOne]

BL, when people talk about boston's "inner city", they're referring to Jamaica Plain, Dorchester, and Roxbury (for the most part). i live in Jamaica Plain, although i'm trying to move (long, messed-up, tangled, twisted story though). except where i'll probably (hopefully) end up moving to would be closer to cambridge--one of the most (or, THE most) liberal cities in the country. :) and, i don't have a yard...either way, it's definitely not a suburb

the suggestion of a super-soaker sounds cool, but it's almost november and i don't feel like getting hypothermia, ya know? ;)

i think that, this week (with the exception of thursday), i'm going to spend every night in the downtown public library. immerse myself with information of gun history, the politics of the gun control debate, facts, figures, and "what happens when you do this" kinda stuff. and if i go slow enough, i won't get overwhelmed again. i think. i also have some other things to take care of, but that's the plan as of now...

[Baba Louie]

WyldOne,

Ahhhhh. A real City Library. The architectural edifices that pass for libraries here in Las Vegas are interesting buildings, but the selection of reading and reference material leaves a bit to be desired (IMO). Even the library at UNLV leaves me cold.

When I was a little baba louie my maternal grandmother (we kids called her Nanu) worked at the library in Independence MO, down on the square. I practically grew up there. Books, maps, dictionaries, encyclopedias and more books. This was after she moved into town from Sibley MO, where William Clark built "Fort Osage" (I think it was in 1807). Her farm was down the road from the fort. Cannons, old muskets and rifles and front loading pistols, sabers, indian artifacts, etc. (I digress, my apologies)

A week of evenings at a real Library sounds like heaven. So many things to...to... do, become, learn about, questions and answers and quiet. Solitude with a stack of books. A quest for knowledge and information.

In the ninth grade, I told Nanu that I wanted to become an architect. She handed me "The Fountainhead". The following week, I returned it with a smile. I knew two things; Ayn Rand & Frank Lloyd Wright changed me forever, set me on a different path. She showed me the section on Wright and other architects and handed me "Atlas Shrugged".

WyldOne, my father taught me the history of the United States thru his collection of firearms starting at about age eight. He built a flintlock (he was a machinist and gunsmith) rifle and pistol. We looked up examples at Nanu's library with her help. As we worked down in the basement on the stock(s) Dad told me about the Revolutionary War. We went to the aforementioned Fort Osage and found lead balls (re-enactments).

He had an old flintlock "Cap and Ball" conversion rifle; an old, rusty pre Civil War piece of junk and told me stories of 1812 and Dolly Madison and the Bristish burning the Executive Mansion. Then he talked about slaves and the states and how Lincoln was assassinated. He built a small .41 caliber cap'n'ball deringer based on the one Boothe used. (My other grandparents lived in Silver Spring Maryland and worked for the Fed. Gov't, so I got to see Arlington (home of Robt E Lee) Fort McHenry, Ford's Theatre and Gettysburg too)

We had 2 old trap-door Springfields, a Remington Rolling Block, a Spencer Carbine, several Winchester repeating rifles and I knew about the Indians and Custer. He just knew a little more. I didn't know that the Sioux had Winchesters and Custer only had Trap-Door Springfields till Dad explained that.

He had a .30-40 Krag and told me about Roosevelt and the Spanish American War.

With his Springfield '03's, Lee-Enfield MkIII, German Mausers, a Luger and an old .45 revolver, he told me about Sgt. York and Capt. Eddie Rickenbacker and Lt. Frank Luke and the Red Baron. Obviously, WWI.

Hey, I KNEW about WWII as I watched "Combat" on TV every week. But we had an M-1 Garand and a .45 Colt 1911 and my uncle had brought home an Arisaka.

The point is that each time he'd tell me something about a war, I'd go to the library and with Nanu's help look up the subject matter. It usually started with guns, but you know how it is, you get sidetracked onto another thing related to the first and the first thing you know you're learning about politics and womens suffrage and taxes and prohibition and the states rights...

And then, in 1968, both Kennedy and King were assassinated. I learned about Gun Control.

Ya better be careful. The Library can mess up your head (in a good way). But so can your Dad and Nanu, if you're lucky.

Adios Amigos (and good hunting) ;)(I mean reading) :D

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Baba Louie:
<STRONG>WyldOne, my father taught me the history of the United States thru his collection of firearms starting at about age eight.</STRONG>

Awwww yes, guns as a learning tool for the young. :)
A few years ago I was dating a young lady who had a son of ten. The two of them came to my house for dinner one night. My walls were and are covered with guns of every description but mostly older examples of semi-modern firearms. With it being his first time in my house he was, like all boys that age, fasinated and began asking questions faster than I could answer.
After getting him calmed down we began with the Brown Bess and a lecture on the War of Independence. From there we progressed to a St. Louis Hawkins and discussed mountain men, the Lousiana Purchase and subsequent Lewis and Clark expedition to explore our new land. Tales of the Gold Rush of 1849 followed as he fondled an 1849 Colt Pocket model and we discussed the developement of the percussion cap and the improvement that made in the evolution of guns. We then looked at other cap and ball revolvers and talked of the War of Northern Agression and even the fact that Sam Colt was a pioneer in adopting interchangable parts and the assembly process that helped start us into the industrial age. (By now his mother was playing on the Internet having since given up on eating dinner any time soon.) We looked at more guns that took us through western expansion, through the wars we have had to fight for our own and others independence and freedom and on into the modern era.
The discussion had taken us through over two hundred years of American history complete with visual aids that had him clinging to every word in spite of it lasting over two hours and never left the living room.
A month later his mother told me his teacher had commented that he was now her most attentive student in history class and seemd to especially knowledgable on the subject. ;)

I may have spoiled it some what with the mother though a few weeks later when the boy and his sister were fighting over a baseball cap. I sat them down and told them of a man in our history that worked for the greatest president our nation had ever had. They agreed to share the ball cap and the problem was resolved after I told them all about this man with the thick framed glasses, big nose and funny accent that went all over the world helping countries resolve their differences. His mother said she thought the teacher was a little surprised when he argued that Richard Milhouse Nixon was the greatest president to ever live. ;)

[Cindy]

OK, I haven't been reading/posting for a while, but IMHO, if you think of buying a gun, think about a .22 rifle.
BB guns can be just as dangerous as "real" guns, so go for the real thing.

I have been contemplating the same thing for my son...should I buy him a bb gun first? I don't think so, as a bb gun can be dangerous in itself, plus I think it's easy to become complacent as far as gun safety.

I think it would be a good idea to go to a sporting goods store and take a basic self defense/gun safety class, then consider getting a .22 rifle. I just got one at KMart. It's easy to shoot and it's kinda fun. It is extremely accurate and there is virtually no recoil.

In other words, it's not as scary as a shotgun or larger caliber rifle or handgun, but one still considers it to be a "real" gun, so one will be less likely to be careless in handling it. It's fairly inexpensive too...about $120.

In my personal safety (firearms) class, there was a lady ther who was terrified of guns, but she took the class to overcome her fear. When we got to the day where we went to the shooting range, I watched her fire every gun there, even when she was visibly terrified. I really admired her. Regardless of whether she ever purchased a gun, she overcame her fear, which is more than I can say for myself. I mean, will I *ever* take a skydiving class???? I doubt it!!! I own several guns, but they do not scare me. However, I do no tlike heights or airplanes, and I seriously doubt that I will ever jump out of an airplane! :eek:

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Cindy ]

[WyldOne]

Originally posted by Gunslinger:
<STRONG>began asking questions faster than I could answer.</STRONG>

well now that sounds kinda familiar ;) :D

i was talking with one of my um....non-lefty (? how else would i say it?) friends, one of the three people i communicate with who shoots a gun ('cept he lives in ny state though and our friendship is extremely rocky). we were talking about something or other gun-related, and before long he says, "wow you're learning :)" that was weird, but definitely in a good way

i learned about US history through social studies books in school, and my parents' opinions. and if you've ever read "Lies My Teacher Told Me" (a must-read IMHO), i have a LONG way to go. it's like i should practically start all over again in first grade, and do it right this time. there is a huge amount of information for me to absorb, question, and analyze. and it will take a huge amount of resolve to overcome this fear. so it's easy to get overwhelmed and give up.

it's weird how one little thought in the middle of the night can literally change your life.

(um....but how are bb guns as dangerous as real guns?)

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: WyldOne ]

[mrsMTN]

BB guns fire a projectile. Even though it is a small pellet fired at much less velocity, it is still a projectile.

[Gunslinger]

I think the point Cindy is making is that all guns, like many other products, have the potential to be dangerous is used irresponsibly.
Some shooters, especially children just learning, may have a tendency to become complacent in their handling of a BB gun. They may worry less about their back stop knowing that the BB will not penetrate say the wall of the family home and take a shot they other wise wouldn't. Knowing that the BB will not penetrate heavy clothing they worry less about pointing it at someone wearing thick clothing on a winter day. A beginning shooter, again especially a child, has more respect for soemthing that goes Bang! than they do for something that does not. Humans, being creatures of habit, tend to repeat what we learn and practice. Bearing that in mind in that regard it may be best to start them on a .22 instead of a BB gun.
Also a .22 can grow with the shooter and will always have a place in their collection. If you ask most of us will tell you we do have a .22 and can not imagine living without one.

[HiPower]

WyldOne, just as an informational exercise when you are in the library why don't you do a bias check?

I know what the libraries here are like, so I can imagine what the one in Boston is like. Don't be too surprised if the information you are looking for is very difficult to find.

I had to wait 3 weeks for a copy of Elmer Keith's Sixguns (a definitive classic - printed in the '30's). Turned out that the library system here didn't have on and had to borrow it from another system.

Good luck though...and in case I haven't mentioned it...even though we may disagree...I'm proud to know you!

:D

[WyldOne]

i've actually been concerned/reluctant about going to the boston public library. 'cause it's...boston. on one hand, they have absolutely tons of stuff about everything. but on the other hand, what if most of the "ton" is not written from a pro-gun standpoint? i found a book that i was supposed to have read in college (oops ;)) called The Politics of Gun Control. by Spitzer, i think. so i've started reading it just to see what his conclusion is and how he arrives at it (the richest part for me is not necessarily the end result, but the reasoning behind it. guess i'm a nerd :)); he claims to have joined the NRA and HCI in order to get a view of both sides. but last night before i went to bed, i read the reviews on the back of the book, and i have a feeling he comes down in favor of gun control. so i'm not sure.

i can come up with a million reasons why i shouldn't go to the library (but that's nothing compared to my lil' drive up to vermont and all the excuses i came up with... ;)). but i just have to go. don't worry, with my big mouth i'm sure i'll fill everyone in on every last detail. :D

[HiPower]

WyldOne, you might try reading (and I'm sure that lots will disagree on this one) "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob. He's a police Lieutenant up in Vermont and is also very well known firearms instructor.

The book covers what is likely to happen afterwards in the event you do shoot someone, and goes into the frame of mind necessary to survive both the event and the aftermath. Very few of us think about what happens next until its too late. Its not pretty.

:D

p.s. please do let us know what you find at the library. Whichever way it goes it will be interesting.

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: HiPower ]

[Sleepy]

Thread getting too long to load :D Please feel free to start part six is it? :D Great questions and great answers :)