1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A Sniper's View On The Maryland Sniper

Discussion in 'The OT' started by John Corn, Oct 12, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Rifleman, I only brought up those two examples of weapons the NRA has supported which my NRA friends (I am not a member of the NRA and have never claimed or wanted to be) feel are ridiculous and a waste of their membership dollars. And thanks for clearly illustrating what I stated earlier. These guys are hunters who joined an organization which dealt with hunting issues. They now feel their organization has been hijacked, and guys like you have the attitude that they are welcome to go someplace else. I had the same experience with the Republican Party. Along about 1980 it was hijacked by radical religious conservatives and I was kicked out of the "big tent." I now vote Democrat most of the time. To bad radicals can't start their own organization sometimes instead of high-jacking other people's.
     
  2. Ryan

    Ryan Icon

    622
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    Cnn is reporting: "Law enforcement sources said Franklin [Home Depot shooting] worked for the FBI as an intelligence operations specialist."

    See. What did I tell you? Random shootings in the DC area put more than the local population at risk.
     
  3. Ryan

    Ryan Icon

    622
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
  4. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    I know. If guns were outlawed, blah, blah blah!

    A. A large percentage of guns used in crimes are unmodified and at least initially purchased legally.

    B. Most criminals, just like the rest of us, have trouble programming their VCR. It's unlikely that the thug that jacks the local 7/11 is willing or capable of becoming an expert amateur gunsmith for $75 from the cash register, a carton of smokes and a 12/pak of Coors.

    C. It's possible, but also unlikely that a large cadre of rogue gunsmiths will evolve to serve this market. And if they do, they should be much easier to track down and bust then a homeless crackhead.

    D. Being able to identify slugs would at least eliminate all the legal weapons out there.

    E. If your car is stolen or you sell it and don't officially transfer title, you still may be at least partially liable for any damage that the new "owner" incurs. Why does this apply to what is intended as harmless transportation and not to machines whose main purpose is to explode flesh?

    The NRA is famous for touting "responsible gun ownership". But where is the responibility? They don't wish to take responsibiity when they purchase the weapons by registering them. And they don't wish to take responsibility when they subsequently sell them to whomever they wish or if they leave them somewhere where they may be easily stolen. The only responsibility they stress is the responsibility to never hold a gun owner responsible for anything.

    Registering weapons in a fair, reasonable and effective manner will not prevent law-abiding citizens from hunting, or protecting their property, or defending themselves and their families. Nor even prevent them from organizing a defense from the unlikely scenario of a government run amok. Certainly "rebels, freedom-fighters and terrorists", whatever you want to call them, have little trouble obtaining and using lethal weapons.

    To paraphrase:
    "Guns don't kill people, people who possess guns kill people!"
     
  5. Steve Mehs

    Steve Mehs Hall Of Fame

    11,499
    2
    Mar 21, 2002
    The responibility lies on the owner. Proper training, education, educating kids, keeping away from kids and the key RESPECT. A gun is a very powerful weapon that needs to be treated with respect and common sense.

    On my Uncle's truck, he replaced his 'My president is Charlton Heston' bumper sticker that was popular during the later Clinton years with this little beauty that I printed out, and will put on my own SUV when I get one.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    All you radical NRA members better watch out. If YOUR President (funny, I thought he was president of the whole country) gets everything he wants from Congress your right to arm bears could be in great danger. Only the Democrats stand tall for individual rights and freedoms. W endangers those personal rights and freedoms like Gore (or Clinton) never did.
     
  7. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Talk is cheap! The responsibility here is optional and strictly voluntary. What enforcment mechanism requires legal gun owners to use respect and common sense in the operation of their weapons? The pledge you take when you join the NRA?

    Most gun owners are responsible gun owners and generally follow your guidelines. For these individuals, virtually nothing would change should they be required to register their weapons in a central database. They would still be able to acquire and possess as many legal firearms as their small penises dictate.;) Perhaps a little more paperwork and/or a wait of a few days but I can think of no legitimate use of a gun that requires instant, unrestricted acquisition.

    In order to operate a motor vehicle, you must first take classes, then practice under supervision, then take a written and road test. In order to operate a firearm, you need a fake ID and a wad of cash. What's wrong with this picture?

    Yes, one of the precepts of the Second Amendment was to prevent the government from disarming the populace. But registration is an entirely different concept from disarming. Check Webster's. The government knows where most churches are and they are registered with at least the IRS, mostly as non-profits. Does this infringe on freedom of religion? Also, the right to "keep and bear arms" in the SA is set in the context of "a well regulated militia". Of course this first portion of the SA is rarely refered to by the NRA or its advocates. Why? Well, a militia whose leaders don't know who has what weapons available for the militia could hardly be considered "well regulated" now, could it. A main thrust of the SA, besides the disarming thing, was that in a frontier nation with porous borders, a small army and enemies on all sides, local militias might be necessary to repel aggression until the federal army could arrive. In order for these militias to be "well regulated", it would be absolutely necessary for the controlling civil authorities to be aware of who, and what weapons, would be available to the militia.

    I'm not out to take everyone's gun away, or their Z-28 for that matter. I'm just suggesting that we'd all be better off if they were registered so responsibility can be placed when they are misused.
     
  8. Steve Mehs

    Steve Mehs Hall Of Fame

    11,499
    2
    Mar 21, 2002
    Please tell me how Clinton, Gore and the 2 NY senators stand tall to protect the right to bear arms. And how Bush is going to take them away. Do you mean by going to war with Iraq.


    If they screw up once (ie kill) throw them in jail where they belong.

    No you don't, in order to operate a car all you need is a car, to operate a gun all you need is a gun.
     
  9. Ray_Clum

    Ray_Clum Hall Of Fame

    1,131
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    A long time ago I read the best quote on this topic:

    (Paraphrasing since my memory isn't the greatest)

    "Today, we have become the safest country in the world. All guns are registered and ownership of guns is controlled by the government." - Adolf Hitler, 1936
     
  10. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    I don't know about you, but if my president continues to keep arms out of the hands of bears, I will feel much safer. They have a big enough size advantage, without being armed to the hilt. We have found common ground at at last. :D
     
  11. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Haven't you guys noticed the voluminous documents that Bush has gotten approved, even though nobody had a chance to read them first, because we are "at war." Along with the ability to disarm bears W has the power to do about anything else he wants, including disarming gun nuts.
     
  12. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002

    I don't purchase a lot of guns, but what significant differences are there now from when your "gang of four" so terribily eroded your rights? Can you name me a single instance where someone was refused purchase of a gun for other then legitimate reasons? Your family and friends? Acquaintances? Rumor or anecdote even? My perception is just the opposite. More often the story is of those who should be restricted from gun purchases(felons, mental patients, etc.) are allowed to legally purchase various weapons they would otherwise be restricted from obtaining.

    And if Bush decides for whatever reason that unrestricted gun ownership is not in his best interests, he will act against gun owners fast enough to make your head spin.

    OK, let's assume this "beltway sniper" purchased his gun legally which is certainly a very real possibility. Or even illegally! If slugs for guns were scanned into a central database as the US Army does now, we'd at least know if this was a "legal" weapon or an "illegal" or modified weapon. As it stands, this guy has "screwed up" eleven times. What do we know about him? Well, he MIGHT be driving a light colored Chevy van, but it could be a Ford! There might or might not be a ladder rack on top. And the right, no the left, taillight may be burnt out. We know virtually nothing about the weapon he's using save for the caliber of the bullets. Whether this gun was purchased legally or not could be a very important clue. If legal, who purchased it might be even more important. But no, that's obviously a slippery slope to Hitlerian confiscation of all firearms.

    Get a grip you guys! This is NOT Nazi Germany, at least not yet. As Bogy points out, Congress is almost daily handing over dictatorial powers to Geroge II, and he is doing the rest by Executive Order. Your rights as a citizen to "bear arms" won't mean much if you can be held indefinately without charge or trial at the whim of George and John. This is a far more heinous assault on our Constitution and bears much more relationship and relevance to Nazi tactics then any gun registration ever could. Where is your indignation on this issue?
     
  13. Karl Foster

    Karl Foster Hall Of Fame

    1,849
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    How did this go from a story about a sick individual shooting people to name calling? There is only ONE person responible for this shooting spree - the individual shooter, not the president, or anyone else! That may sound simplistic, but to me it is black and white. We are all responsible for our own actions, not the government, or anyone else. There is no way to prevent someone like this from committing a crime like this. He will get a weapon from somewhere. The shooter, and only the shooter, is responsible for this terrible series of incidents.
     
  14. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    The shooter is responsible for what he is doing, but does that mean that we ignore what is happening, and assume it will never happen again? That there is no reason to take action to ensure a recurrence of such events? Then all the hullabaloo of the past year has been nonsense. We can just go merrily on our way, assuming nothing like that will ever again take place. No need to ban box cutters from commercial aircraft. If there is no way to stop one sick individual from a killing spree then there is certainly no way to stop a well planned attack by terrorists, and no need to take measures to stop same. Lets just hand out firearms to everyone, dismiss the police forces as unwanted and unneeded busybodies, do the same with the Armed Forces, and let ad hoc militias and individuals take care of America. Under God of course.
     
  15. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Yesterday, with the timid acquiescence of Congress, a pre-emptive strike against a sovereign nation has been authorized. What is the purpose given? That Iraq MAY possess, or have in development, certain weapons that we find objectionable for Iraq to possess. Weapons by the way that the USA holds the solid worldwide monopoly on. Weapons that Iraq has never used, or even threatened to use, against US or our allies. When Iraq DID employ these weapons in a limited manner, it did so with our tacit blessing, using aircraft we had supplied as delivery systems. Such use was condoned, justified and downplayed by US government and media. Now, with our panties in a bunch, we're going to get Iraq regardless of objections of those with lots more to lose.

    Why doesn't this paradigm apply to potentially dangerous individuals possessing guns in this country. Where is the indignation and preemption we claim as legitimate rationale for Iraq? Certainly with or without gun control, this sniper may have obtained the weapon he is using. Could it possibly been more difficult to obtain with sane registration procedures? Or should we throw up our hands and conclude it impossible to stop or even retard proliferation of these weapons to dangerous individuals?

    No, gun violence will not be significantly reduced in this country by increased registration and scrutiny of gun purchasers at least not for the foreseeable future. But neither will it in any way infringe on the rights of any qualified gun owner to purchase and use their weapons in any legal manner. Frankly, if they can be traced back to the owners, I could care less if insecure people want to waste their money on assault rifles, bazookas, grenade launchers and Howitzers. But when they are used injudiciously, I'd like to know whose door the ATF should be knocking at.
     
  16. Rifleman

    Rifleman New Member

    7
    0
    Oct 4, 2002
    Jonstad:
    Nice rant, ya ought to talk to your shrink about increasing your dosage of Xanax and Valium. You're wrapped a little too tight.

    1. You condone Saddams use of chemical weapons on the Kurds?
    2. The US condoned/justified/etc the useage? Care to enlighten us on this one.
    3. I follow aviation matters. AFAIK Iraq has only Russian made tactical aircraft. Enlighten us!

    And the last part of your rant you admit that registration will be ineffective. It sounds as if you just want to punish legitimate gun owners.

    Ever considered worrying about the true American criminal class? It does exist: 85% of crime is commited by 5% of the population. And by your last sentence, I'd say you ought to talk to your shrink about paranoia issues.
     
  17. Dennis

    Dennis AllStar

    56
    0
    Jun 30, 2002
    You know what I think is amazing. A guy posts that he lives within a mile of one of the shootings and there are no questions,about wheter he saw anything, much less an expression of concern or an inquiry about his safety or that of his loved ones.

    Instead there are bumper stickers with Charlton Heston's name false quotes from Hitler, and stereotypical right vs. left political rhetoric.
     
  18. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Dennis, by the time Geronimo made his post we were well into the pro/anti gun debate, and unfortunately it was passed over. I would certainly like to hear what Geronimo has to say on this situation, and hope that he, and everyone else, is safe. I think we all hope that whoever is behind this lunacy is soon stopped.
     
  19. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    1. I'm at a loss as to how you could interpret my statement as condoning the use of chemical weapons by anyone. Perhaps you're the one who needs to take a pill. Use of chemical or biological weapons violates nearly every internationally recognized treaty on the conduct of war. Of course the US regularly violates these treatys, or conveniently neglects to sign them.

    2. Any muted criticism coming from official US sources and/or media was of the crocodile tears, PR variety with a heavy dose of "War is a bitch". My statement was that the US administration at the time tacitly condoned Iraq's actions and imposed no sanctions because of it, but continued our generous support for Saddam in his war against Iran, the "evil enemy du jour". We really couldn't have cared less who Iraq gassed, Kurds or Iranians, if it helped defeat the Ayatollah. We simply didn't want to be directly associated with it. Recently the NY Times quoted "one veteran of the US program to support Saddam" as saying "It was just another way of killing people, whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference." FYI, it is still a topic of debate WHO actually used these weapons, the Iraqis or Iranians. Stratigically and tactically, it made little sense for Iraq to deploy these weapons at this time and place and Iran was suspected to also possess thse weapons.

    3. I stand corrected. I misinterpreted a report I had heard earlier. However, the "elite" of Iraq's air force consisted of over "100 Mirage F-1s, about 100 Gazelle, Super-Frelon, and Alouette helicopters, and a variety of air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles, including Exocets" purchased from France. Their Russian aircraft were secondary and in ill repair by this time. US support consisted of mostly strategic and tactical intelligence and advisers.
    No, I said it will not immediately reduce the incidence of gun related violent crime. It will almost without doubt assist law enforcement in identifying, arresting and prosecuting those who commit them however. The current situation is graphic illustration. Identification of the weapon used around DC to pick off filing station customers and Home Depot shoppers would be by far the biggest and most useful clue in a case which, by today's reports, is otherwise totally clueless!

    And your point is? How are the other 95%'s rights put in jeopardy by registering their firearms? And your obvious implication is that fully 15% of crime is committed by this same 95%. That's a lot of crime! And it's probably harder to prosecute then the remainder committed by the "criminal class". Law enforcement organizations are generally in favor of increased gun control. Why? Because they realize it would be of great use in solving and prosecuting 100% of gun related crime.

    :confused:
    "But when they are used injudiciously, I'd like to know whose door the ATF should be knocking at."

    So it's paranoid to think that when firearms are used to commit crimes or endanger others, it would be helpful to be able to easily identify and locate the arms, owner and perpetrator? Then I guess I'm paranoid!:eek:

    I'm not a psychologist but I play one on TV. Your preoccupation with "shrinks" indicates that although you disparage them, deep down, you think that YOU are the one who should be consulting them.
    :welcome:
     
  20. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    For Geronimo:
    I think we all assumed if Geronimo has been touched by this incident beyond what he related, he would have included this in his post. I think Bogy summed up the situation. What exactly were we to say?

    You may remember about ten years ago when some bank robbers were cornered in Pewaukee, WI after taking a suburban housewife hostage. This is my home town and I was visiting at the time. After my hosts had left for work, I happened to look out the back door to see a Sheriff's cruiser in the back alley, the deputy with gun drawn and pointed, searching the yards. Suddenly, he leapt back in the cruiser and tore off, lights but no siren. About ten minutes later, I heard several hundred loud rounds fired in about 15 seconds. The robbers had attempted to crash a roadblock that had trapped them in a neighborhood park less then a half mile from where I was drinking my morning coffee. Luckily, the hostage jumped from the van relatively unharmed and the crooks were captured.

    Initially the reaction is apprehension mixed with curiosity over the nature of the situation. As it sinks in, and after a little thought, the vulnerability and randomness of life begins to hit home. I could have as easily been the hostage. In fact, my location would have probably afforded them a better chance for escape. Nevertheless I wasn't. But only by the chance that they choose to turn into a subdivision rather then my back alley. I was lucky. I didn't have to explain the bullet holes in my rental car to Avis.:lol: The suburban housewife and mother, not quite so lucky.

    Certainly there are other possibilities for a random, untimely death. Any of us could be hit by a cement truck next time we back out the driveway. But these are risks we accept as part of life. Deliberate acts by others that endanger us deserve another catagory. They are totally preventable because they are totally due to human malice.

    As weirdly stimulating and thought-provoking as my experience was, I cannot imagine having to deal with a similar possibility every day. This is the situation that Geronimo and millions of others in his area are subject to every day until this ghoul is captured or killed. How do you deal with this? Do you never go shopping? Do you still pump your own gas? Or do you drive fifty miles out of town to do both? Life's a crapshoot but usually we at least break even. Random snipers suddenly tilt the odds though in an ominously negative direction.

    Life must go on though. We can't(at least not too easily) retreat to a bunker in the basement with our unregistered firearms;) and have all our food, bottled water and paychecks delivered to us. Modern life is stressful enough without having to hunker down behind the fender at the Shell station. Hopefully this nightmare will be over soon and everyone can get back to more mundane worries. My sympathies go out to Geronimo and all his neighbors until then.

    Never fear though, once it's over the states and feds will dispatch an army of counselors and consultants to address the dreaded onslaught of post traumatic stress syndrome!:( On second thought, it might be better to just be shot at.:rolleyes:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page