In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Stunguns & NRA, GOA, Etc.?
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
In regards to Defender's post about Ill. Gov. Blagojevich crowing about signing a new law that makes buying a stungun/taser in ILL as difficult as buying a gun:
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=158462
Defender is correct as far as I know in that the NRA, or ANY pro-gun rights organization, has ever publically fought against/for an law/new right involving any self-defense equipment other than guns.
For several years now I have thought this was a big mistake. There appear to be several reasons why such pro-gun rights groups SHOULD fight for such non-lethal equipment as stunguns/tasers, pepper spray, concealed extendible metal batons, etc. There also appear to be several reasons why such pro-gun rights groups SHOULD NOT AVOID fighting for such non-lethal equipment rights.
More to follow because something just came up here at home. In the meantime, any opinions?
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=158462
Defender is correct as far as I know in that the NRA, or ANY pro-gun rights organization, has ever publically fought against/for an law/new right involving any self-defense equipment other than guns.
For several years now I have thought this was a big mistake. There appear to be several reasons why such pro-gun rights groups SHOULD fight for such non-lethal equipment as stunguns/tasers, pepper spray, concealed extendible metal batons, etc. There also appear to be several reasons why such pro-gun rights groups SHOULD NOT AVOID fighting for such non-lethal equipment rights.
More to follow because something just came up here at home. In the meantime, any opinions?
Comments
More to follow because something just came up here at home. In the meantime, any opinions?
I think we should always fight for an EFFECTIVE self-defense device. Pepper spray, and stun-guns are NOT really effective for an otherwise unarmed person. These pretend defense devices only have marginal value when used by a well trained person who has a real weapon as a back-up. I suspect that these kinder and gentler devices may be protected by the Constitution.
Batons, knives, swords, bows and alike are effective and should continue to be Constitutionally protected along with firearms.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
But if the NRA also added pepper spray and knives to their stance, they might get some members that are against owning any type of firearm, and those people would then vote for more anti-gun NRA members.
It would be like the GOA suddenly turning into a civil rights group. They'd get some people from the ACLU, but those ACLU members would bog down the group with anti-gun beliefs. Gun groups should stick to guns.
TR, I support owning such stuff as pepper spray and the like. However if gun groups started supporting this non-controversial stuff, they would marginalize their pro-gun stance. For example I've read that 40% of NRA members favored the so-called AW ban. I'm sure even more favor the MG ban. So I wouldn't consider a large percentage of the NRA to be really pro-gun.
But if the NRA also added pepper spray and knives to their stance, they might get some members that are against owning any type of firearm, and those people would then vote for more anti-gun NRA members.
It would be like the GOA suddenly turning into a civil rights group. They'd get some people from the ACLU, but those ACLU members would bog down the group with anti-gun beliefs. Gun groups should stick to guns.
Dsmith go ahead and fight the pepper spray and stun-gun fight while I fight for ALL firearms, full, semi and single shot. The candyassed dopes that want sun-guns and pepper spray will never join the fight for the Second Amendmant.
If the pro Second Amedmnet people stay away from the feel-good defense crap it makes banning this stuff less attractive to the Bolshevik gun-haters. If they think we really don't care they'll back off and not waste their time.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
I fully support the second amendment. A while back there was a litmus test post. My litmus test included all fully automatic firearms, grenades and rocket launchers. Don't challenge my beliefs on 2nd amendment issues.
I'm just saying that the gun groups shouldn't mess with this little stuff for fear of losing sight of their stated objective.
One thing that does annoy me though. Bans on automatic knives. Why?
I fully support the second amendment. A while back there was a litmus test post. My litmus test included all fully automatic firearms, grenades and rocket launchers. Don't challenge my beliefs on 2nd amendment issues.
I'm just saying that the gun groups shouldn't mess with this little stuff for fear of losing sight of their stated objective.
One thing that does annoy me though. Bans on automatic knives. Why?
I never suggested you don't support the second amendment. I just think the diversion over the stun-gun junk has some of us thinking about wasting efforts on things other than firearms. As a long time cop, private investigator and gun rights Lobbyist, I know the people that turn to the non-lethal crap hate guns and will NEVER support gun rights.
As for what some people call automatic knives, I guess people are too afraid to say switchblade anymore, here's the skinny:
When the Broadway musical and later film, WEST SIDE STORY was popular the weenies in nearly 48 state Legislatures and many other countries
passed laws banning these kinves. The sight of dancing actors with knives pretending to stab one another was too rich for these tender Legislative imaginations.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
The key to this logic is that non-lethal force for subduing is fine for law enforcement, but not for first responding citizens. And no, these tools are not tools of settling the score or vengeance, for all those willing to read into this more than stated.
Thing is, the monopoly on force is such that the individual does not possess, and may later be victimized by a miscreant at a later time with little fear of retribution. You kill a cop, your death is inevitable.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Maybe it was better that I didn't have time to go into detail about why I feel the way I do. Because of that perhaps I got more and varied opinions. I will remember that in the future.
A lot of what I read I agree with and some that I don't. Too much of both to go into a detailed point-by-point response or counterpoint.
Basically I think the progun rights groups should at least stand for the right of lawful, honest citizens to own/concealed carry/use any "weapon" they feel they want/need including and up a gun. Such a stand might cost the pro-gun organizations more in time, money and effort but I believe it would bring them dividends. I believe such organizations would keep their members who are gun rights people but would add millions more supporters who don't like/aren't comfortable with /fear guns. And there ARE millions such people who don't actually want to carry a gun, but have occassions where they might want to carry something else.
And carry that something else knowing full well that it is much less effective than a gun. Their reasoning might not make sense to us gun people but that is their reasoning.
There seem to be two camps in America regarding self-defense.
Basically, keeping it simple, one camp is that citizens need NOTHING for self defense. Instead citizens should rely on the police or just being careful and staying out of harms way. (Yeah, if harms way was predictable, wouldn't EVERY sane person be able to avoid rape, robbery, being kidnaapped, etc?).
The other camp is the one I'm in. We all know for positively sure that in the next 12 months thousands of innocent, defenseless people will be victims of violent crime. I feel that NO ONE can predict when and where this crime will occur. Therefore, every lawful citizen should have the right to carry ANY concealed "weapon" they choose anywhere and everywhere.
Now we all know that there are groups on both sides of this subject that try to influence the public and legislators to favor their side. One way they do that is to solicit donations for operating funds and to gain members so as to show "clout".
The progun people predictably get gun people. The antigun people predictbly get the gun haters. But the antigun side gets a bonus out of this. They also get some of the selfdefense in general haters.
The progun side, by emphazing only guns, does not generally get the bonus of having members who don't want a gun but would like to be able to carry a concealed extendible metal baton.
Naturally I agree that a gun is the ultimate defense tool. But sometimes for various reasons, I will not have a gun handy. So for those of you who have no faith in any other form of defense, I want to add this.
Because of my interests and vocation (I'm not an LEO. Never have been. But I could tell you some job-related personal stories that should be on the tv show COPS) I've had exposure to and training with various "tools". Frankly, if you give me an extendible metal baton in my hand, and put me within 4 feet of a perp with a holstered or pocketed gun I sincerely believe I can and will take that perp out to the point he will forget about even having a gun. And I will do this without doing any permanent injury to the perp. (Not that I care, but this might save me a permanent injury lawsuit).
So I believe in the rights of the citizens to be able to carry concealed, extendible batons, etc. Yet no organization I know of is fighting to get that right for citizens. Even in most states that will issue a CCW, they will NOT allow you to carry anything but a gun.
So I do believe that there are millions of good lawful citizens out there who would like to carry a concealed extendible baton, etc. yet no organization is fighting for their right to do so.
Folks, a group such as I just mentioned is also knows as "millions of potential customers" who are just waiting to join and support the first organization that will fight for their rights to carry a concealed baton, etc. (Hell, in some locals you can't even carry pepper spray).
Take for just one of dozens of examples. An elderly couple who don't really like or want a gun FOR THEMSELVES. Say the elderly couple is going out for an evening walk, maybe even pushing their grandchild baby in a stroller. Say the couple knows of a few different houses that have a couple of large dogs (Pit Bulls, etc.) that usually are in the backyard penned in by only a fence. Say that each time the couple walks by those yards, the dogs get loud and agressive. Say that the man in the couple has had training and knows how to use an extendible metal baton. IF HE IS ALLOWED TO CARRY IT CONCEALED he just might have in his possesion a tool that would allow him to fight off a couple of big dogs if they attack. Instead of having to use his ineffective, bare hands. But human nature being what it is, that man is very unlikely to carry that baton if he is required to (or even allowed to) carry it in the open. People might think he is "odd", don't ya' know.
This couple, and millions like them, are potential members of the first pro-gun, pro-self defense group that will fight for their rights to own, concealed carry, and use non-lethal force. And this can help us pro-gun people.
Comments?
I want all the help fighting for the Second Amendment we can get. We can't get it from this bunch since they will never help. Of course this bunch would like us to turn in our firearms and use pepper spray instead.
Beware the marketing propaganda the Tazer makers put out is all hype. The device will only get an unarmed victim/defender killed by an attacker!
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
Just as I am against owing a Corvette. Yet if you want to spend the money on it, I am happy for you.
I just think we gun-rights people are unnecessarily handicapping ourselves by not trying to linkup with those people who would like to be able to carry a concealed extendible baton, etc. but do not want a gun.
Even a middle ex-60'2 hippie I work around who is quick to state and be proud that she is a left-wing, anti-gun liberal once admitted to me in a self-defense debate that she would go along with a woman carrying and using pepper spray for self-defense.
I can see a place for people like her (well, probably a little less extreme people than her) linking up with the pro-gun crowd and everyone helping to become stronger.
quote:
Beware the marketing propaganda the Tazer makers put out is all hype. The device will only get an unarmed victim/defender killed by an attacker!
Defender
You sound like you know what you are talking about. However, if I had to send my daughter to a night job and having to park in a possibly dangerous parking garage and she could not have a gun, I would prefer she have a taser, 2,000,000 unit SHU pepper spray, stun gun or extendible baton instead of her bare hands.
Defender wrote:
quote:
Beware the marketing propaganda the Tazer makers put out is all hype. The device will only get an unarmed victim/defender killed by an attacker!
Defender
You sound like you know what you are talking about. However, if I had to send my daughter to a night job and having to park in a possibly dangerous parking garage and she could not have a gun, I would prefer she have a taser, 2,000,000 unit SHU pepper spray, stun gun or extendible baton instead of her bare hands.
If CCW is a felony where she is I'd go with an asp baton and some serious training with it. If CCW is only a misdemeanor she should pack something like a Sig 239 in .40 cal, again with serious training. If she injures or kills anyone she needs to ONLY remember four words to tell the police or anyone else, "I WANT A LAWYER." She should NEVER say something like, "I was in fear of my life" until a defense lawyer tells her to.
Defender
Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
I've always felt the real problem here is with society's refusal to acknowledge the basic human right of self defense. While guns tend to be the focal point of such arguments, there are a huge variety of other objects that can be used as self defense tools for those not comfortable with the idea of a gun or a tool designed to deliver lethal force. They should all be legal.
Clubs, batons, kubatons, pepper spray, stun guns, tasers, etc. etc. etc. are outlawed in many major cities and states. I've known many people, often women, who don't like the idea of guns but who carry one or more of the aforementioned alternatives, often in violation of the law.
The bottom line here is to convince people that everyone has a sacred right to self defense. If that concept was really understood and accepted, it wouldn't matter what tools people chose to aid in this goal as laws would focus on actions rather than tools. Laws against weapons are supported by people who feel weak and helpless and who only feel safe when they pretend that everyone else in their world is equally weak and helpless. All these laws do is create more weak and helpless victims and empower those who would prey upon them.
I live in a state where knives, any form of club/baton and guns are all likely to give me similar prison sentences if I violate the laws against carrying them.
Some time ago I needed to carry a large sum of cash (>$10k) as I planned to buy a used car from one of several potential private sellers on a Sunday when the banks where closed. (Private sellers wouldn't trust a personal check and a cashier's check or money order with a blank "Pay to:" field would have been almost the same as cash.) Losing that money would have REALLY hurt me, but the most I could legally carry for self defense was pepper spray, a small folding tactical knife, a stun gun/taser or perhaps a "personal alarm" or whistle LOL. That is ridiculous![:(!] It should be well within my legal right to have carried a baton, my .45 and/or anything else I felt I could effectively use to ensure my safety.
http://Blog.LestDarknessFall.com
http://LestDarknessFall.com
quote:
The bottom line here is to convince people that everyone has a sacred right to self defense. If that concept was really understood and accepted, it wouldn't matter what tools people chose to aid in this goal as laws would focus on actions rather than tools. Laws against weapons are supported by people who feel weak and helpless and who only feel safe when they pretend that everyone else in their world is equally weak and helpless. All these laws do is create more weak and helpless victims and empower those who would prey upon them.
It sounds like your are better able to express and understand what I am trying to say than I do
[:D]
Thanks for the post.