Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 31
60 Minutes had an interesting story on the wave of mass shootings the nation is experiencing. Many emergency care professionals are now recommending we distribute "bleed kits" (i.e. easily applied tourniquets) much like defibrillators. A lot of folks hit with AR-15 gunfire survive the initial hit, but bleed out due to the delay in getting medical help while authorities corral the shooter.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ar-15-used-mass-shootings-weapo...

https://controlbleedingkits.com/

Astonishing what people accept as "normal" in this country.

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
OT - please don't read further if talk of guns or politics disturbs you (but had to get this off my chest)

https://thebulwark.com/the-ar-15-is-like-the-swiss-army-knif...

Just last Friday, a federal district court judge ruled that California’s ban on assault weapons—which was signed into law by a Republican governor in 1989—is unconstitutional.

The California federal judge has overturned the state’s 32-year-old ban on assault weapons, likening the AR-15 to a Swiss army knife that could be used “for both home and battle".

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-matt-gaetz-bi...

Florida Representative Matt Gaetz (Stated in late May 2021, so of course it had nothing to do with January 6's insurrection in Washington DC):

"We have a 2nd amendment in this country and I think we have an obligation to use it!"

“The Second Amendment is about maintaining, within the citizenry, the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that becomes necessary,” he said. “I hope it never does, but it sure is important to recognize the founding principles of this nation, and to make sure that they are fully understood.”

Jeff
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
OT - please don't read further if talk of guns or politics disturbs you (but had to get this off my chest)

=================================================

These links just show the scumbags in our society. This mentality would not be acceptable in civilized countries.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Texas School approved -- Stop the Bleed Kit

https://www.mfasco.com/first-aid-kits/bleeding-control-kits/...
Includes Quikclot Coagulating Dressing & Chest Seal

Military Combat Style Tourniquet Included

Meets Texas School Stop the Bleed Requirement
Great for Schools, Churches & Entertainment Venues

</snip>


Chest Seals and Quikclot Coagulating Dressing are the kind of gear our troops carried when their were kicking down doors in Falujah, Iraq

https://neworleansphotoalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/...

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 32
The problem with armed rebellion against a "tyrannical government" is, who decides when that is necessary? Is it acceptable to shoot up a baseball game of legislators? Was January 6 justified under implication of authority endowed by the 2nd amendment? How would that scenario ever play out?

The idea, that an armed citizenry holds the government in check, is lunacy.

The alternative idea, that our armed citizens deter aggressor nation from invasion of our homeland, is similarly crackpot. The US has the largest and most powerful armed force in the world. It needs no help from its citizens.

The 2nd amendment was written for a time when we had no substantial standing army. Our armed citizens today are anything but well regulated.

fd
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
There are 19 million Americans who own an AR-15 style rifle.

If you get hit with ANY high power rifle bullet, you're in trouble.

If you get hit with a handgun bullet designed to quickly take down a suspect (not a standard 9mm) but say a .45 Mag.....you're going down for the count.

Of the 19 million people who own an AR, let's see...that's 0.000000001 % of the legally owned AR-15s out there than get used in a crime.

Now, there are what, 100 million vehicles registered - but probably only half that on the road in operating condition or the ones used only on a Sunday to the local car meet. Out of that hundreds of millions, there are 35,000 fatal traffic accidents and another 150,000 serious injuries in auto accidents, with over half of them caused by drunk drivers (often already convicted of several prior drunk driving offenses. )

If you are worrying about people dying, sometimes in mass accidents where 20-30 die all at one time, you'd spend a lot more time getting and keeping drunk drivers off the road. You'd save tens of thousands of lives, spare 50,000 serious injuries.

You're odds of being in a traffic accident this year is about 1 in 3000. Hmmmm....

I'd be a lot more worried about being mowed down by a drunk driver on my way the Walmart......than I am about being shot in the Walmart.

according to the latest news:

"As of Friday, Portland police said the number of homicides in Portland for 2021 was 42, including 5 deaths being investigated as homicides."

even more so

"My Chances of Becoming a Victim of a Violent Crime
1 in 181 in Portland

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/or/portland/crime




t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
<"We have a 2nd amendment in this country and I think we have an obligation to use it!"

“The Second Amendment is about maintaining, within the citizenry, the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that becomes necessary,” he said. “I hope it never does, but it sure is important to recognize the founding principles of this nation, and to make sure that they are fully understood.”>

That is exactly the kind of chaotic society-wide breakdown which is consistent with our stage of potential Crisis as predicted by the Political Stress Index (PSI) by Turchin in the book, "Ages of Discord." Many countries, past and present, have slid into chaos when armed citizen militias attacked the central government (and each other).

That an elected Congressman should say such a thing shows that he knows nothing about history and is totally unfit to lead.

Wendy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
I do not understand why gun owners are not required, at least, to carry liability insurance.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
"I do not understand why gun owners are not required, at least, to carry liability insurance."

Why? there are 100 million gun owners. There are at least 300,000 owned firearms in the country.

Less than one in a million get used in a 'mass shooting' each year. Oh, and half the 'multiple casualties these days are caused by - duh, handguns.....often by those who 'cannot' legally own them. You think they got insurance? You think the gang members in Chicago doing drive bys have any insurance at all or would buy insurance? Joke, joke...most of them have stolen guns....

Most people , probably the majority, have car insurance of $25,000 or the minimum state amount. In TX, in the south, half the vehicles are unregistered and drivers with no license and no insurance.

You think $25,000 is going to cover the long term care of someone you hit in a car accident....who needs a half million a year in medical costs?

Maybe we need to make sure you have $1 million liability on your car. You got a 1 in 3000 of being in a car accident this year.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"That an elected Congressman should say such a thing shows that he knows nothing about history and is totally unfit to lead."

If only he was the only one...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
The idea, that an armed citizenry holds the government in check, is lunacy.

The idea that, in the long run, there's anything else that can hold the government in check, is lunacy squared.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I do not understand why gun owners are not required, at least, to carry liability insurance.

The average legal gun owner's firearms are such a small liability risk that the premium for gun-specific insurance would be about 98% consumed by the cost of the insurance company billing the premiums and tracking payments collected. Claims processing, payouts, and company profits would take the other 2%.

Illegal gun owners, of course, could not be relied on to obey that law either.

And in a system consistent with the intent of the 2nd Amendment, it would be impossible to enforce the requirement. Because the government would have no idea who has a gun (other than police officers and people specifically licenses as armed security, and then possibly only when on duty).

I've never looked to see if standard homeowner's or renter's insurance has any specific terms regarding firearms.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The 2nd amendment was written for a time when we had no substantial standing army. Our armed citizens today are anything but well regulated.

In fact, no standing army at all. That's why the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise an army and maintain a navy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I've never looked to see if standard homeowner's or renter's insurance has any specific terms regarding firearms.

My homeowner's insurance requires I pay extra to insure my guns. But I think that is replacement value, not liability.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The idea, that an armed citizenry holds the government in check, is lunacy.

========================================================

fd,

You are destroying NRA selling sales pitch. People might stop believing the NRA.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
In TX, in the south, half the vehicles are unregistered and drivers with no license and no insurance.

Note to self: Don't drive in Texas.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The idea that, in the long run, there's anything else that can hold the government in check, is lunacy squared.

===============================================

LOL!

The ballot box keeps government in check.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
...who decides when that is necessary?

Whoever wins the armed insurrection!

The Captain
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"I've never looked to see if standard homeowner's or renter's insurance has any specific terms regarding firearms."

No....but if you have a valuable gun collection, you've got to get a rider to cover it - just like expensive jewelry, silverware collection, coin collection, paintings, jade, et.

with 100 million people owning guns, it would be a real problem.

And, of course, if someone goes berserk and wounds or kills some, likely that is a 'criminal activity' not covered by your liability policy.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
skye:"Don't drive in Texas."

Hmmm... it's a lot safer than driving on the DC Beltway or NYC........or parts of Chicago....

Drove on the beltway many days getting to class and other events after work - total zoo.....

---

"As of 2019, the leading cause of death in the country is car accidents."

"The fatal car crash death rate was 11.2 deaths per 100,000 people"

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/fatal-car-a...

t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Wendy writes,

<"We have a 2nd amendment in this country and I think we have an obligation to use it!">>

That an elected Congressman should say such a thing shows that he knows nothing about history and is totally unfit to lead.

</snip>


Sure, but the man knows his voters very well.

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I do not understand why gun owners are not required, at least, to carry liability insurance."

Where as most gun owners are still more likely to be killed by their own gun ie., suicide, acquaintances, family member, hunting accident and so on, perhaps they should be required to have life insurance instead.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I do not understand why gun owners are not required, at least, to carry liability insurance.

Check with your insurance agent.

Liability insurance may be covered under some part of your liability insurance policy, for example under 'home owner' or 'umbrella insurance'.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Liability insurance may be covered under some part of your liability insurance policy, for example under 'home owner' or 'umbrella insurance'. "


Use of a gun in a 'criminal activity' will never be insured by companies.

That includes IF your gun gets stolen...the same as when your car gets stolen. If the perp runs over 20 people, the insurance company is not going to pay because he is not an insured driver.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
That includes IF your gun gets stolen...the same as when your car gets stolen. If the perp runs over 20 people, the insurance company is not going to pay because he is not an insured driver.

On the other hand, if some punk steals your car and runs over 20 people, nobody's going to claim it's YOUR fault.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
The 2nd amendment was/is the way that it is for two primary reasons.

1. States were afraid of a large standing federal army so there wasn't one. In the event of an invasion, (something with the British Empire we were worried about, see War of 1812) the states were to provide a trained and 'well regulated militia'. National Guard is a close approximation today. You don't get to assemble your buddies together and declare yourself a 'militia' either.

2. Slave patrols. The southern states were in a situation where blacks outnumbered whites and slave rebellions were a problem for them. 'Them' being the white landowners. There were a number of bloody slave uprisings at the time. Not to mention Haiti. Every white male was required to serve time in the state 'militia' or rather, the slave patrols.

The 2nd amendment isn't there to ensure our 'right' to carry bazookas or AR15s. States are well within the law to regulate who and how guns are used.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Your arguments are very strong talking points that are well worded and intelligently designed. But they show a complete lack of history which I don't have time to teach you....for example please look up the term Behind Every Blade of Grass and Admiral Yamamoto the great Japanese admiral. He proves one of your two ideas so wrong it's embarrassing.

Secondly, your first argument could be USED AGAINST THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, ERGO it is irrelevant no matter how smart you think it sounds unless you wish we had a KING!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The 2nd amendment isn't there to ensure our 'right' to carry bazookas or AR15s. States are well within the law to regulate who and how guns are used.

The 2nd Amendment was put in because, in the view of those that wrote and ratified it, "a well-regulated militia" - that means they can shoot straight and walk together in a semi-organized fashion - is "necessary to the security of a free State."

And what did they see as the biggest threat to the security of a free State? Well, they'd just had a war to escape from what they viewed as an oppressive State, that had been the legitimate government over them, so that's a pretty likely candidate.

At the time it was written and ratified, EVERY weapon system known to any army in the world could also be found in private ownership in the US.

Not just weapons. Weapon SYSTEMS.

Warships, for example.

Artillery pieces - on the warships, AND on land. With ammunition (including explosive shells) and suitable transport.

As well as pistols, muskets, rifles, swords, spears, lances, bows, crossbows...

It was expected that government would be able to call on a militia and get, not a bunch of know-nothings to be trained to use the military's weapons, but a body of armed troops who were familiar with the weapons they carried.

The current law defining membership in the militia was enacted in 1903, so clearly has nothing to do with slave patrols. Male residents of the US age 17 to 45, minus some government officials, plus both male and female members of the National Guard. ALL such persons are, not eligible to join the militia, but ACTUALLY IN IT RIGHT NOW. Probably over 150 million people.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It was expected that government would be able to call on a militia and get, not a bunch of know-nothings to be trained to use the military's weapons, but a body of armed troops who were familiar with the weapons they carried.

======================================================

That may have been 18th century thinking, but it has no relevance in the 21st century.

We saw what the militias did on January 6th of this year. They proved to be a bunch of know-nothings and many of them have been arrested.

Jaak
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This was first posted on the Political Quagmire board so I hope it passes muster:

I had a Great Uncle who went to work in a Northern Maine lumber camp right after 6th grade. He was a real State of Mainer as he was a born at home, died at home and never went to a hospital in between. He also hunted deer into his 80's as he had the eyesight of a hawk and the mind as sharp as a tack.

Living and working in the lumber camps use to require that the lumberjacks had go out and hunt their own venison to eat. As such my Great Uncle learned to make every shot count and always said if you can't kill a deer with your 1st shot don't shoot.

He used to laugh a the flatlanders with their semi automatic weapons and never considered them REAL hunters.


There is a difference between a real hunting rifle and a weapon of war so why should civilians be allowed to own the latter?
Print the post Back To Top