Gun owner poll

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2019, 12:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, you asked what makes a sacrifice successful or a failure. A true sacrifice is always successful. So yeah.. true sacrifice=honor.

A true sacrifice is not always successful.

If the only pilot in a group sacrifices his life to save one person and then that person and everyone else in the group dies because they don't have a pilot that is a huge failure.

What you are talking about is "ego".  Putting one person above the success of the entire mission is about ego.  And "ego" doe not equal "honor".

[fredtoast]

(10-03-2019, 07:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You noticed that too?

This thread is actually unnecessary as the real world has already supplied the answer to this question.  The compliance with New York states registration law has been estimated at around 4%. 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-safe-act-weapons-registry-numbers-released-article-1.2267730

https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2016/07/07/massive-noncompliance-with-safe-act/

So you are sayin that 96% of the owners of guns required to be registered in New York are NOT "law abiding citizens"?

What could possibly go wrong with telling everyone they only have to follow the laws they agree with?

[fredtoast]

(10-03-2019, 08:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  The vast majority of rank and file law enforcement and military are pro gun ownership.

I don't understand what you mean.


I am pro gun ownership and I support a gun registry.

Do you mean "pro gun ownership for criminals and mentally unstable people" or do you mean "pro gun ownership for law abiding citizens"?

[Dill]

(10-04-2019, 12:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What is your problem with being licensed to own a gun?  And this is aimed at not just Bels, but everyone else who said they would not. (Harley, Dill, Mmichaelsean, Cupcakes, Bfine, etc)

Right now when the police encounter a person with a  gun they have no idea if that person is a violent convicted felon or mentally unstable.  And if that person has no ID on them it is impossible to find out.

Then there is the issue of people who have no clue how to safely use a gun possessing one.

Seems to me anyone who cares about keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals, people who are mentally unstable, or people who have no idea how to safely use a gun would be in favor of a gun license.

Depends on the kind of gun.

I believe I just opposed the idea of the government trying to take my guns.  

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2019, 12:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What is your problem with being licensed to own a gun?  And this is aimed at not just Bels, but everyone else who said they would not. (Harley, Dill, Mmichaelsean, Cupcakes, Bfine, etc)

Right now when the police encounter a person with a  gun they have no idea if that person is a violent convicted felon or mentally unstable.  And if that person has no ID on them it is impossible to find out.

Then there is the issue of people who have no clue how to safely use a gun possessing one.

Seems to me anyone who cares about keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals, people who are mentally unstable, or people who have no idea how to safely use a gun would be in favor of a gun license.

The individual right to bear, or own, arms is established. I am against arbitrary barriers to civil liberties as defined in the Constitution. Ownership of a firearm is not an issue of public safety. However, license to carry one in public? That I can agree with. I don't think that a license should be required of anyone to possess a firearm or transport one unloaded to a range. Carrying a loaded firearm on one's person in public outside of a range or in a vehicle should require a certification and license. If you are seen carrying a firearm in public, then police could request that license. No license, not allowed to have it on them. License not on your person? Also a fine.

I'm less concerned about someone that owns firearms solely for hunting or home protection. One, hunters have to pass a safety class to hunt. But two, these groups don't pose any risk to the general public. Idiots out there walking around with an AR-15 or a Glock on their hip out in the open (not saying everyone who does this is an idiot, but we all know some of them are) concern me, and I would like to know that they have passed a course in firearm safety that tells me they know how to keep their booger hook off the bang bang switch, or at least have been taught how to properly handle a firearm in public.

Requiring a license to simply possess a firearm is a step too far against the Constitution in my view. It's an extra layer between an individual and their civil liberty. It is the same thing as adding a requirement to exercise your right to vote or telling someone "oh yeah, you have to identify your religion on these government documents." None of those things are right.

[Dill]

(10-04-2019, 02:35 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Considering the disparity of numbers, you might get a sense that this was a hopeless job. But our soldiers had a few things going for them: good leadership, planning, logistics, experience, discipline and the horse. The soldiers that came out West after the war were mostly veterans of the war. Hardened veterans. Most had been in the cavalry during the war they knew how to ride and shoot and how to operate under fire. The veterans would have been in their 30's in the 1870's and their 40's in the 1880's. Their leaders (Sherman, Crook, etc.) were also experienced. And they, Custer included, understood the importance of logistics. Hence one of the first items was constructing forts to operate out of and to protect supply lines settler trails. This was the same basic plan which the crusaders had used to set up their kingdoms in the Levant seven hundreds years earlier. And they, in turn had learned it from the Romans.

A very Bengalzonesque (i.e. excellent) overview of the plains campaign.

One quick point here, though. Sometimes there was a tendency to overconfidence among commanders.
Fetterman: "Give me 80 men and I'll ride through the entire Sioux nation."  lol

Ability of the plains Indians to move and fight from horseback was somewhat underestimated.

On the side of the U.S.--the fact native Americans had to protect, and often move with, their families, and, until Crazy Horse, had much difficulty mounting combined operations, made resistance rather thin until 1876. Also on the side of the U.S. were the Crow, among the best plains scouts.

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2019, 02:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The individual right to bear, or own, arms is established. I am against arbitrary barriers to civil liberties as defined in the Constitution. 

The governments right to regulate the ownership of weapons is also established and I don't see anything "arbitrary" about laws that enable police to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

(10-04-2019, 02:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ownership of a firearm is not an issue of public safety. 

Yes it is.  That is why we have laws preventing violent criminals or mentally ill people from owning guns.

The easy access criminals have to gun ownership has a huge impact on public safety.

(10-04-2019, 02:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm less concerned about someone that owns firearms solely for hunting or home protection. One, hunters have to pass a safety class to hunt. But two, these groups don't pose any risk to the general public.

Guns ostensibly purchased for "home protection" are often the ones used in domestic disputes, disputes with neighbors, or sold to criminals on the secondary market.

(10-04-2019, 02:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Requiring a license to simply possess a firearm is a step too far against the Constitution in my view. It's an extra layer between an individual and their civil liberty. It is the same thing as adding a requirement to exercise your right to vote or telling someone "oh yeah, you have to identify your religion on these government documents." None of those things are right.

"Civil liberties" are secondary to public safety.  You have freedom of speech, but you can't get a parade permit to advocate ethnic cleansing of Muslims in America or an armed assault on the White House.

Voting rights and questions on a census have nothing to do with public safety.

(10-04-2019, 02:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think that a license should be required of anyone to possess a firearm or transport one unloaded to a range.

How is a person supposed to prove he is "headed to the range" instead of "headed to sale all these gun to a stranger with no background check"?

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2019, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The governments right to regulate the ownership of weapons is also established and I don't see anything "arbitrary" about laws that enable police to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

What law does a license to own a firearm help police enforce?

(10-04-2019, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it is.  That is why we have laws preventing violent criminals or mentally ill people from owning guns.

The easy access criminals have to gun ownership has a huge impact on public safety.

A license to own does nothing to change any of this.

(10-04-2019, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Guns ostensibly purchased for "home protection" are often the ones used in domestic disputes, disputes with neighbors, or sold to criminals on the secondary market.

And in what way would a license to own do anything to prevent any of this?

(10-04-2019, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "Civil liberties" are secondary to public safety.  You have freedom of speech, but you can't get a parade permit to advocate ethnic cleansing of Muslims in America or an armed assault on the White House.

Voting rights and questions on a census have nothing to do with public safety.

Well, you can get a permit for a parade to advocate ethnic cleansing. I'm fully aware that our liberties are not without limits and they can have limits in place for public safety, but a license to own a firearm would not improve public safety in any way and only creates a barrier.

(10-04-2019, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How is a person supposed to prove he is "headed to the range" instead of "headed to sale all these gun to a stranger with no background check"?

[Dill]

(10-04-2019, 02:35 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: One of the more popular tactics at the time (particularly championed by Custer) was to feint an attack in one direction and have another group swiftly ride into the Native encampment, seize the women and children (large native assemblies almost always brought their women and children with them), and hold them hostage until the Native leaders negotiated and dispersed. And this tactic was popular because it almost always worked. One of the reasons it worked was because it was used against different tribes at different times scattered across the West.

The Battle of Little Bighorn was different, however. The size of the Native assembly was far, far larger than anything they had ever seen. Custer knew it was large. Archeologists and historians now believe that he not only planned for the initial feint, but also included two other feint attacks by the troops with him as he rode the ridge. But it is doubtful that he realized exactly how large the assembly was. It is pretty clear from the battlefield remains that he felt he could find some place to turn left, cross the river and move into the camp. There was no place. I suspect the Natives got wind of the cavalry tactics and did something they normally didn't do, divided their forces. In any event, as Custer and his troops rode the ridge line north looking for a place to cross, Native warriors followed and were able to assemble in force each time to cavalry tried to feint or cross.

A couple more notes.

1. I always keep in mind that Custer was part of a three-pronged advance, with Gibbon to the West on the Yellowstone, Crook to the south of the Sioux and Cheyenne encampment and Terry coming from the East, moving along the Bighorn River.  Custer was with Terry, before separating with less than 700 men, turning south and then west towards the Little Bighorn, where he was to wait for the other columns. Crook had a least 1,000 men, but was turned back on June 17 at the battle of the Rosebud. Forward deployed Crow and Shoshone saved his command from an early morning ambush that day. New tactics: the Sioux and Cheyenne did not hit and run. Rather they kept up a sustained battle, with Crazy horse leading charges, retreating, and wheeling to charge from different angels.  6 hour fight.

2.  Custer had heard the hostiles were "many many", but it's doubtful he had a clue of the real size of the village, which could muster possibly 3,000 mounted warriors. There is no doubt he separated his command into three parts, with Reno and Benteen taking their forces south to attack the village from the southern end, leaving Custer with the main force to attack what would be the center. Reno rode down from the eastern bluffs above the LBH and formed a skirmish line in the flat woody lands across the river just south of the village, but his men were quickly over whelmed and, with Benteen, beat a retreat across the Bighorn, back up to the hilltop which is not the site of the Reno-Benteen battle. There they shot their horses, dug in, and held out for two days. Almost 350+ men, a hundred more than Custer. 

3. Looks like Custer, as you say, was riding along the ridge above the East side of the river, and rode down to the LBH at Medicine Tail Coulee, but never crossed the river, given the numbers of Sioux swarming out of the village and returning from the Reno engagement. I have been over this area on horseback, marked by clusters of white crosses planted where soldiers were originally buried. Looks like Custer's men were ridden down in a fighting, uphill retreat to "Last Stand Hill," with groups straggling and overwhelmed from below and the sides. Two here, six there, 8 on the other side of the ravine, strung out over 50 yards. There are about 40 crosses at the top of the hill where Custer fell. Another 15 or so scattered down the east side of the hill. All manner of speculation about the final moments, from an overwhelming charge to a shoot out with dwindling firepower on one side.  Nothing like Reno hill where you can still see how defense comprised rectangular fire pits spaced and organized around a central command and operating field hospital. The big mystery still is, why didn't he wait? Was there some tactical urgency he sensed, and so proceeded on bad intel, or was he thinking about his promising political future?

4. Final note: there is a ranch farther west, across interstate 90, where archeologists have discovered still another engagement, which may have included 20-30 dismounted cavalry. This would have been mile or so from the river. No clue how that was related to the battle. I only know about it because I used to do ranch work there back in the 60s and knew the rancher, a guy named Zettle.  Two small hills face one another. In the north front of the southernmost they found bullets from various repeat-fire carbines and 45-70 casings. In the south front of the northern hill they found dozens of 45-70 slugs.

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2019, 04:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What law does a license to own a firearm help police enforce?

Right now if police encounter a person with a gun they have no idea if that person is a convicted felon or mentally unstable, and if the person has no ID it is impossible to find out.  Much easier to require anyone with a gun to have a license showing they are allowed to own that gun than yo have laws that are impossible to enforce.

Most of the other issues have to do with a gun registry instead of a license.  The lack of a gun registry makes it almost impossible to enforce bans on selling guns to criminals.  Police confiscate millions of weapons every year from criminals or crime scenes but they can't do anything to punish the people who supplied these guns because there is no record of ownership.  Why should a "responsible" gun owner be opposed to being held "responsible" for his own weapons?

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2019, 04:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  a license to own a firearm would not improve public safety in any way and only creates a barrier.

If you agree that keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and mentally unstable people then I don't see how you could disagree with laws that make that possible.

It is like being in favor of DUI laws but opposing drivers licenses that are the only way to identify offenders.

[Dill]

(10-04-2019, 02:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Carrying a loaded firearm on one's person in public outside of a range or in a vehicle should require a certification and license. If you are seen carrying a firearm in public, then police could request that license. No license, not allowed to have it on them. License not on your person? Also a fine.

Not so sure about this.

Where I grew up this was normal--at church, at the grocery store, even in the school parking lot.
Regulations you are talking about should just be East of the Mississippi.

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2019, 05:36 PM)Dill Wrote: Not so sure about this.

Where I grew up this was normal--at church, at the grocery store, even in the school parking lot.
Regulations you are talking about should just be East of the Mississippi.

Who cares if it was "normal"?  There are still a lot of people getting killed by guns west of the Mississippi.

When I grew up kids did not wear seatbelts.  Does that mean we should not require kids to wear seatbelts today?

[Dill]

(10-04-2019, 05:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Who cares if it was "normal"? 

When I grew up kids did not wear seatbelts.  Does that mean we should not require kids to wear seatbelts today?

Seatbelts ok. Especially for kids. 

"Normal" because nothing dangerous or out of the ordinary followed from a loaded gun rack.
It was like having a fishing rod.

And "normal" did not include open carry of pistols. Western towns stopped that back in the 19th century because too many people "stood their ground" to the detriment of the peace.  Not against the law where I lived, but anyone who openly wore a six-shooter would be laughed at as living inside a tv show like Gunsmoke or something. Guns were tools, not imaginary props.

Just harassing some poor farmer with a lot of licenses and registrations is going to far. 
Shot gun, deer rifle, 22.  Leave them alone.

(10-04-2019, 05:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There are still a lot of people getting killed by guns west of the Mississippi.

Ok Regulations east of the Mississippi PLUS California.  And Phoenix, AZ.  Leave the rest alone.

[Bengalzona]

(10-04-2019, 03:44 PM)Dill Wrote: A very Bengalzonesque (i.e. excellent) overview of the plains campaign.

One quick point here, though. Sometimes there was a tendency to overconfidence among commanders.
Fetterman: "Give me 80 men and I'll ride through the entire Sioux nation."  lol

Ability of the plains Indians to move and fight from horseback was somewhat underestimated.

On the side of the U.S.--the fact native Americans had to protect, and often move with, their families, and, until Crazy Horse, had much difficulty mounting combined operations, made resistance rather thin until 1876. Also on the side of the U.S. were the Crow, among the best plains scouts.

Thank you, sir!

The line between confidence and over-confidence among cavalry officers in the 19th century (worldwide) was a bit hazy. They were expected to be brash, bold, Type-A people  and to show utter fearlessness. At the same time, they were not expected to be stupid or simpletons. During the Civil War, they did often fight from horseback and there were cavalry charges. But the nature of warfare was different on the plains. Native Americans didn't fight in 'close order' rank and file masses. Nor did they have artillery. Hence, cavalry charges were neither productive nor necessary. They would dismount for a firefight and set up a perimeter with fields of fire and cover, with every fourth trooper taking the horses and leading them away (if possible). But the horses, like the vehicles for mechanized or air mobile infantry today, were utterly necessary for getting to where they needed to be to engage. They were almost always outnumbered in larger conflicts because the Natives would generally only attack soldiers if they had an advantage in numbers. Because of their discipline, training and experience, they were more than capable of taking on a Native group two or three times their size and winning. This led some commanders, like Fetterman and Custer, to feel they could test the limits of the advantage (they may have even felt 'invulnerable' to a certain degree). Unfortunately, that was sort of the nature of the beast. They learned a lot after Little Bighorn... or should have anyway.

Horses came to the new world with the Spanish in the 1500's and were quickly adopted by the Native Americans. They changed the Indians lives immediately and drastically. They went from being able to travel by foot maybe about 20 miles in a day to being able to ride a horse potentially five times that distance. They could reach new places and other tribes. As you can imagine, this was both good and bad. Contact with other tribes brought more trade and interaction. But it also spread disease and war quicker. Some tribes (Comanche, Apache, etc.) took to raiding other tribes, the horse being an ideal vehicle for this. Warfare among some of the tribes became much more brutal.

But it also should be noted that the native peoples' knowledge of horses was somewhat nascent in comparison with that of the Europeans and the Asians. Even in the 1800's. They had only been around for about 300 years at that time. And a lot of the Native peoples' knowledge about horses was gained through trial and error on their own or observation. There was a lot they didn't know (See "The Ballad of Buster Scruggs", 'gopher holes' for more info). Native Americans loved horses for a lot of the same reasons people love their cars. And some were capable of some great riding. But sometimes their capabilities with horses at that time have been a little over-glorified for media purposes.

That said, the Natives did fight from horseback. It killed their accuracy with firearms or bows (as anyone who has shot at something from even a standing horse can attest). Mostly, they would ride the horses to close the distance between them and a foe and use handheld weapons to engage.

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2019, 05:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Right now if police encounter a person with a gun they have no idea if that person is a convicted felon or mentally unstable, and if the person has no ID it is impossible to find out.  Much easier to require anyone with a gun to have a license showing they are allowed to own that gun than yo have laws that are impossible to enforce.

Most of the other issues have to do with a gun registry instead of a license.  The lack of a gun registry makes it almost impossible to enforce bans on selling guns to criminals.  Police confiscate millions of weapons every year from criminals or crime scenes but they can't do anything to punish the people who supplied these guns because there is no record of ownership.  Why should a "responsible" gun owner be opposed to being held "responsible" for his own weapons?

(10-04-2019, 05:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you agree that keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and mentally unstable people then I don't see how you could disagree with laws that make that possible.

It is like being in favor of DUI laws but opposing drivers licenses that are the only way to identify offenders.

It's already illegal for these folks to purchase or possess a firearm. Requiring a license does nothing to change that. If an officer sees someone with a gun they still won't know whether it's legal or not. They have to stop the person and whether or not there is a firearms license required the result will be the same: person not supposed to have a firearm will run or engage.

You have yet to produce an argument that shows a license requirement for ownership would have a significant impact on public safety to warrant a restriction of civil liberties.

(10-04-2019, 05:36 PM)Dill Wrote: Not so sure about this.

Where I grew up this was normal--at church, at the grocery store, even in the school parking lot.
Regulations you are talking about should just be East of the Mississippi.

I understand the need for ranch rifles, and think that since it is their private property there would not be a need for any such license while using it for its intended purpose. As for hunting off their property or going into town, they can quite easily unload the firearm when off their property if they choose not to be licensed. Honestly, it should be unloaded as well.

[Millhouse]

(10-03-2019, 11:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Mary, Mary, quite contrary, who won the effing war?  Leonidas stayed behind after being betrayed and delayed the Persians.  He could have retreated with the vast majority of his forces, that he ordered away.  He fought a delaying action at the cost of his life to protect his people.  

It's rather telling that two of our farthest left leaning posters view such an intentional sacrifice as a "failure".

The closest we have to relate to in our history is The Alamo. Overall not entirely too much different, though 300 is a better movie.

[Bengalzona]

(10-04-2019, 05:05 PM)Dill Wrote: A couple more notes.

1. I always keep in mind that Custer was part of a three-pronged advance, with Gibbon to the West on the Yellowstone, Crook to the south of the Sioux and Cheyenne encampment and Terry coming from the East, moving along the Bighorn River.  Custer was with Terry, before separating with less than 700 men, turning south and then west towards the Little Bighorn, where he was to wait for the other columns. Crook had a least 1,000 men, but was turned back on June 17 at the battle of the Rosebud. Forward deployed Crow and Shoshone saved his command from an early morning ambush that day. New tactics: the Sioux and Cheyenne did not hit and run. Rather they kept up a sustained battle, with Crazy horse leading charges, retreating, and wheeling to charge from different angels.  6 hour fight.

2.  Custer had heard the hostiles were "many many", but it's doubtful he had a clue of the real size of the village, which could muster possibly 3,000 mounted warriors. There is no doubt he separated his command into three parts, with Reno and Benteen taking their forces south to attack the village from the southern end, leaving Custer with the main force to attack what would be the center. Reno rode down from the eastern bluffs above the LBH and formed a skirmish line in the flat woody lands across the river just south of the village, but his men were quickly over whelmed and, with Benteen, beat a retreat across the Bighorn, back up to the hilltop which is not the site of the Reno-Benteen battle. There they shot their horses, dug in, and held out for two days. Almost 350+ men, a hundred more than Custer. 

3. Looks like Custer, as you say, was riding along the ridge above the East side of the river, and rode down to the LBH at Medicine Tail Coulee, but never crossed the river, given the numbers of Sioux swarming out of the village and returning from the Reno engagement. I have been over this area on horseback, marked by clusters of white crosses planted where soldiers were originally buried. Looks like Custer's men were ridden down in a fighting, uphill retreat to "Last Stand Hill," with groups straggling and overwhelmed from below and the sides. Two here, six there, 8 on the other side of the ravine, strung out over 50 yards. There are about 40 crosses at the top of the hill where Custer fell. Another 15 or so scattered down the east side of the hill. All manner of speculation about the final moments, from an overwhelming charge to a shoot out with dwindling firepower on one side.  Nothing like Reno hill where you can still see how defense comprised rectangular fire pits spaced and organized around a central command and operating field hospital. The big mystery still is, why didn't he wait? Was there some tactical urgency he sensed, and so proceeded on bad intel, or was he thinking about his promising political future?

4. Final note: there is a ranch farther west, across interstate 90, where archeologists have discovered still another engagement, which may have included 20-30 dismounted cavalry. This would have been mile or so from the river. No clue how that was related to the battle. I only know about it because I used to do ranch work there back in the 60s and knew the rancher, a guy named Zettle.  Two small hills face one another. In the north front of the southernmost they found bullets from various repeat-fire carbines and 45-70 casings. In the south front of the northern hill they found dozens of 45-70 slugs.

After the disaster, there were a lot of officers who were quick to hop on the "impetuous Custer" bandwagon and claim he should have waited for Terry or others. That is sort of Monday morning quarterbacking (with a bit of 'cover your ass' thrown in). The simple truth is, Custer's tactics were commonly used by a lot of officers at that time and you probably could have substituted any of them in his place and had the same result. Whether it was written or confirmed, he almost certainly had Terry's approval for independent  action. They knew who Custer was and how he went about his business. And they approved of it because he got things done.

On approaching the encampment, Custer split his regiment into three groups. Major Reno was given three companies and was ordered to move into the valley from the south. Captain Benteen was given three companies and held as a reserve. Custer took five companies with him and headed up the ridge line to the east of the river/camp.

Reno moved on the village in a skirmish line from the south and started firing into it around 3:00PM. The Native warriors charged out of the teepees piecemeal and started to swarm. At some point Reno realized from the size of the reaction that they were endanger of being overrun and ordered the men to fall back. They stopped and tried to stand at the bend in the river, but the Natives started to flank them. He ordered the men to retreat. Rather than an orderly retreat, chaos erupted and they fled helter skelter, losing a lot of soldiers in the process.

They fled south until they came to the hill now named for Reno. On the hill, they ran into Benteen and his forces. Benteen had received a dispatch from Custer to move forward to the bluff and support his attack. When Benteen saw the situation with Reno and his men, they dismounted there, rallied Reno's troops and set up a defensive perimeter. The position was repeatedly attacked by Natives. Except for an unsuccessful effort By Captain Weir and his company to move towards Custers position, the group remained pinned down from Native attacks until the next day.

Of Custer, the only things that are known for sure are when he moved out up the bluffs, that there was gunfire heard from the vicinity between 4:30 and 5:30, and where he and his men fell. He probably tried to find a good place to cross the river. Because of the escarpment on the east side (I'm sure you are familiar with), there are only three or four places where you could lead horses down heading west. They found shells at each and speculate that he sent troops down each to attempt feints and, finally, to try to attack at the last one. Also, as you mentioned, they eventually moved northeast to the hill where most of the bodies were found, apparently trying to assemble a defensive position similar to Reno/Benteen's. Obviously, they didn't have enough time.



Custer's final resting spot is about three and a half miles north of the Reno position. Considering that the Native attack on the Reno position was continuous and kept the from making attempts to reach Custer's position and the distances involved, the Natives would have had to have been split into at least two groups. Undoubtedly, there was some transfer of warriors back and forth from each site, but the firefights appear to have been going on at the same time (4:30 to 5:30). If Benteen had followed Custer's final order and tried to reach Custer, I think it is likely the entire regiment would have been destroyed piecemeal, considering the timing involved. He made the right choice.

The shells found west of I-90 are an interesting twist. Twenty to thirty troopers probably would have been a scouting group, possibly even Native scouts. Or, perhaps, maybe it was Natives from the battle trying out new weapons they had acquired after the fighting.

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2019, 07:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's already illegal for these folks to purchase or possess a firearm. Requiring a license does nothing to change that. If an officer sees someone with a gun they still won't know whether it's legal or not. They have to stop the person and whether or not there is a firearms license required the result will be the same: person not supposed to have a firearm will run or engage.

You have yet to produce an argument that shows a license requirement for ownership would have a significant impact on public safety to warrant a restriction of civil liberties.

Bolded is wrong.  Police encounter people possessing guns all the time.  In many situations they have the right to detain these people long enough to ask investigative questions but can not arrest them for not having ID or can not detain them long enough to run criminal history and mental health background checks on all of them.

Under current "no license required" situation citizen says "My name is Bob Smith and it is okay for me to possess this gun".  Nothing police can do.  If license required then citizen with gun either has to produce license or be arrested.

Same thing happens without gun registry. A car with multiple felon passengers has a load of guns in trunk.  One non-felon claims ownership of all weapons.  Nothing police can do.  Same with multiple guns in house with multiple felons.  No way to prove who is responsible for which guns.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

If you stop a car and the trunk is full of guns let one person claim ownership of all of them. Then you run every gun through the Automated Firearms System and if any come back stolen (which in this scenario is a given) then the "owner" is arrested and all the guns are impounded.  As an aside, all the guns in the trunk almost never happens.  Criminals carry guns so they can use them.  A gun in the trunk is of no use to them, you'll almost always find them in the passenger section of the vehicle, stuffed between seats, in the door pocket, basically hidden anywhere they can be hidden.  Then you can start detaining people based on area of immediate control.  Then you get to take prints. Then you get to run every gun again.  This fantasy scenario of a trunk full of firearms and completely powerless police officer is just that, an inane fantasy.  You get that with a lot of anti-gun types, they will lie and use misinformation all day.  I wonder why that is?