• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Gun issues & Republicans & Democrats & Indys

Free episodes:

Creepy Green Light

Paranormal Adept
One thing (amongst 100's) that needs to change in the U.S. is having gun laws/issues lobbed in with the Pro Life, Pro God/Religion groups. I can say for one that I am a gun owner (not a fanatic) and hold a concealed carry permit in three states. The last two times I voted it was for a D. This next time around will be for an R. I saw a pro gun rally and blended into the entire thing was a "Pro Life" booth. A lot of my friends who own & carry guns would have left as soon as they saw that. This gun thing shouldn't be a left or right issue as it has nothing to do with Pro Life or Religion.
 
So we have 33,000 deaths as a result of guns in the U.S. on an annual basis (yes, a fair amount are due to suicides), but this is totally absurd. But we freak over 14 people killed as a result of evil Muslims, but ignore the deaths caused by evil people from other religions. We have a greater chance of being killed by lightning strikes.

Yes, we need to deal with the terrorist problem, but we have far worse problems that also need to be handled.
 
If only sword owners died by the sword exclusively, I'd have no issue. I personally think we should be able to wield nukes, cause there's a lotta gun nuts out there I need protection from. No offense to any gun nuts.
 
Here's the misnomer in American and where the problem lies;

99% of the criminals that use guns in crimes DO NOT go into a gun store or police station, fill out the application, pay the fee, get the background check, get it registered etc. They are buying them from HorHay out of the trunk of a Buick in the hood & the guns have the serial numbers scratched out. And those guns were stolen from another state (say such as Georgia) and they're resold in NYC.

Now a law abiding citizen (myself) IS going to the gun shop, filling out the appropriate paperwork, having the background check, has it registered, etc.

I felt safe in Maine, Washington & Oregon (where I concealed carry a handgun) when I went out with my wife and two young daughters. I look at it like car insurance. I will probably NOT need it. However, I'd rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.

If I was in the mall or Nordstrom and all of sudden heard "pop-pop, pop....pop..." I have two options (say I was in the dressing room area with my 7 & 9 year old daughters). Option one, try and hide in dressing room & cross my fingers that the shooter(s) don't come in that area. And if they do, hurdle in fetal position and beg for my kids & my own lives. Or option 2), probably still stay in dressing room area, have my kids sit down in corner of dressing room, but be ready & prepared with my weapon. If I even get a glimmer of a gunman coming into the dressing room area I am targeting them and shooting. Id' AT LEAST like to have a sporting chance in this scenario or ANY scenario while I'm out and about.

Four days after I applied for my concealed carry permit in Oregon, the following happened

Now what MSM (mainstream media) hardly reported at all (in fact, I never saw it when it aired, my boss showed it to me the next day - btw, my boss is a female who conceal carries a handgun). Basically, its a concealed carry permit holder that pulled out his gun, NEVER fired a shot, but yet saved lives;

Now this last part of my quasi-rant baffles me; why would anyone NOT want to AT LEAST HAVE A SPORTING CHANCE to defend yourself & loved ones versus ZERO chance?? Just like your car insurance, wouldn't you rather have it just in case? If your stuck on a deserted island, wouldn't it be comforting that you have SOME CHANCE of being saved versus NO CHANCE? Crossing my fingers and hoping that police come quickly isn't good enough for me or my daughters. If need be, I'm going to protect them.

I can list 100 reasons to have a gun in your home for self defense (and a concealed carry permit) but this is the only reason I need, it trumps all others;

When my first daughter was about 1 month old, she was in bed between me and my wife. Our bedroom was upstairs. We had no landline phone and half the time I would leave my iPhone downstairs when retiring for the night. That night I paused our TV and asked my wife "Seriously, what could we possibly do right now if we heard our downstairs back sliding door shatter and then heard footsteps on the hardwood floors downstairs?" I told her the only thing I would be able to do is tell her to take the baby and hide in the walk in closet, and then I could look for my iPhone, which again stands a good chance it was left downstairs. OR I could tell her do the exact same thing with the baby but I could reach in my nightstand drawer, take out my pistol, get it and myself in the ready position and shout loudly downstairs that "the police are on their way and anybody even tries to come up the stairs they are getting shot and killed."

I AM NOT getting in fetal position with my wife and baby and begging them to not hurt my child or wife. Or begging them not to rape my wife or baby, etc. etc. etc. Not an option. But yet, unless I have a gun in my home, that is the only option.

End of quasi-rant. Thanks for listening :)
 
Except the guns used in San Bernardino were purchased legally, as were the guns used in a number of recent shootings, such as the one at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado and the Charleston, SC church.

What are your sources for that 90% figure.
 
BA6476E2-3600-489B-9880-FAD5EA860B1D-118-00000025A7972A3F.jpg


imageedit_483_5517140720.jpg


b8aa5676be963438c4b1ef37af38f4db.jpg


2ba13ccc163390fc3ae214a1760cd74d.jpg


1997.jpg
piersmorganguncontrolstats.jpeg
 
Except the guns used in San Bernardino were purchased legally, as were the guns used in a number of recent shootings, such as the one at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado and the Charleston, SC church.

What are your sources for that 90% figure.
I'll look for the source. Yes, you are correct with those statements. However, look at crimes that involve a gun on a daily basis in the U.S. How many are those are bought/obtained illegally? The stories you mentioned are national media stories. You don't hear about when 70 year old Mrs Smith get's mugged at gunpoint from street thug in Anytown, USA. Or when a home is broken into and the family in there get's tied, gagged (or worse) and then robbed.

It's like taking all the homicides that involved a knife and then saying "all knifes are banned/not allowed to be sold starting today." What? Why? So the 99% of us that use knives for legitimate purposes are punished because of the few that kill people with them?

Here's the bottom line; a criminal/thug is going to have a gun NO MATTER WHAT the laws are. Whether their are gun stores, or stores are outlawed, or guns are outlawed, or what precautions and background checks are required. They will have them no matter what. Just like drugs are outlawed but guess what? How much cocaine do you think flows across our borders on a daily basis? Same here. The bad guys will have the guns no matter what. The people that are punished are the law abiding, responsible owners.

The best possible thing I could see or go to if I was a homicidal maniac and wanted to take out a bunch of people is the ridiculous "THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE" sign. That's like ringing the dinner bell to these killers/terrorists. If I wanted to take out a bunch of people, that's where you go right? A place that is guaranteed that NOBODY might have a firearm on them to protect themselves or others.

In the history of time, do you think any bad guy/terrorist got their gun(s) together & ammunition and said "Im off to the local community college to kill & cause havoc." and once they are walking on the property see the sign that says "This is a gun free zone" and stop and say "What? Oh crap. I didn't know this school was gun free. I guess I'll leave and go pick another target." The only people that gun punished in these gun free zones are responsible concealed carry holders.

It comes down to this and only this. In my other dressing room scenario; if I was in there trying on clothes and you were in the next booth next to me and we heard those gun shots. And we had to hunker down in the dressing room. Would you rather you and I both be crapping our pants and crossing our fingers the shooters don't find us - or would you rather I have a firearm on me and if someone does come, then we at least have a chance of going home that night and sleeping in our own beds? You can't tell me "nah, I'd rather neither one of us have a gun and that we both just leave it to fate."
 
I'm from the UK,in a utopian world we wouldn't need to have this discussion but I honestly feel that the U.S. has it right.Guns for the law abiding are a necessary evil I believe.As stated above,criminals will get firearms no matter what and if I lived there and was unfortunate to find myself in a life or death situation with a gun man I'd want a fighting chance to survive and not trust to luck.
 
If we're going to outlaw guns then we should definitely outlaw cars. More people die in car crashes than in gun violence. Besides outlawing cars will definitely curb global warming.
 
Except the guns used in San Bernardino were purchased legally, as were the guns used in a number of recent shootings, such as the one at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado and the Charleston, SC church.

Wrong. Semi-auto AR-15 type rifles (and magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammo) have been illegal in California for about 20 years. As a civilian in California it is impossible to purchase a AR-15 type rifle.

Decker
 
As an aside I have asked (for years) that EVEN if there were a national confiscation of firearms (from law abiding citizens ... and with that the risk of a civil insurrection) just how in HELL are they going to collect the mostly illegal firearms from types like the Crips, Bloods, Aryan Brotherhood, Mexican Mafia, etc. etc. etc.? I was a history major in college ... let me tell you about the European resistance fighters against the Nazi's in WW II. They had weapons in the most restrictive area on Earth. That should make you think ... even if it is only a little bit ....


Decker

PS Nobody has EVER ANSWERED MY QUESTION ABOUT DISARMING CRIMINAL GANGS .....
 
Oh yea, one more thing .. please.

Forget that horseshit about the USA being a "Democracy." A democracy is 3 wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. We are a Constitutional Republic governed by our Constitution. In the Bill of Rights of our Constitution the founders very clearly stated ... and it was upheld by the Supreme Court ... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now, what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?

Decker
 
So say it again:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

They aren't separate phrases. One relates to the other. Or at least that's what you'd expect with a normal English sentence. That's the reason for the commas.

Why are we taking the final two phrases out of context to the first two?
 
So say it again:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

They aren't separate phrases. One relates to the other. Or at least that's what you'd expect with a normal English sentence. That's the reason for the commas.

Actually they are separate. At the founding all men were considered to be a part of a militia since we really did not have a standing army. They wanted to make sure that the citizens had the "right" to keep and bare arms. If you know your history you should know that the United States began because of an attempted "gun confiscation" by the British directed at the Americans. When the Bill of Rights was written the founders knew that at some time, possibly in the future, the government would become restrictive and tyrannical and wanted to make sure that citizens would have a means to resist. The 2nd Admn. is NOT about hunting .. it is about the means for free men and free women to defend themselves if necessary. Free men and women, if they choose, have the right to have a weapon. Slaves, serfs, bound men and women do not. I cherish that right the founders gave us. Make of this what you will.

Decker
 
That is not cut and dried.

And the gun paranoia in this country doesn't help. Many of the worst mass shootings were committed with legally purchased weapons.
 
Back
Top