Home - List All Discussions

The right to bear.

by: faithman

Well, the socialist is in office. they intend to disarm citizens, and take away the 2nd amendment. If you haven't bought a shot gun, do so now with several cases of ammo. It is an armed citizenry that protects our liberty from an over reaching government. It is better to have and not need, than to need and not have......

reply from: Yuuki

Yes, because gang members in cities really need those guns so they can kill innocent children during their turf wars.

reply from: faithman

Yes, because gang members in cities really need those guns so they can kill innocent children during their turf wars.
SSSSSOOOOO take away legal guns because some use them illegally? Just advocate the laws already on the books be enforced, not take away our right to defend ourselves from the very same gang members. Ain't it funny how the aeras with the most restrictive gun laws, also have the highest crime rate? in't it funny how whne restrictive gun laws are over turned crime rates go down? Gang guns are illegal already. Go after them with the laws already on the books. Don't come after my legal gun. You may not like the out come.

reply from: Yuuki

Yes, because gang members in cities really need those guns so they can kill innocent children during their turf wars.
SSSSSOOOOO take away legal guns because some use them illegally? Just advocate the laws already on the books be enforced, not take away our right to defend ourselves from the very same gang members. Ain't it funny how the aeras with the most restrictive gun laws, also have the highest crime rate? in't it funny how whne restrictive gun laws are over turned crime rates go down? Gang guns are illegal already. Go after them with the laws already on the books. Don't come after my legal gun. You may not like the out come.
Actually, what I believe is that hunters (for example) should be able to procure gun lisences related to the seasons they hunt it. I certainly don't want to take away their bread and butter; being from Northern New York, I am quite aware that many rural families depend on hunting to eat in the winter and that it does wonders for deer population control (since we destroyed their natural predator).
Canada has gun control laws, and a very LOW crime rate. They also have a lot of very legal game hunting. If you aren't using that gun for a reason, then why do you need it? You don't.

reply from: JRH

Yes, because gang members in cities really need those guns so they can kill innocent children during their turf wars.
SSSSSOOOOO take away legal guns because some use them illegally? Just advocate the laws already on the books be enforced, not take away our right to defend ourselves from the very same gang members. Ain't it funny how the aeras with the most restrictive gun laws, also have the highest crime rate? in't it funny how whne restrictive gun laws are over turned crime rates go down? Gang guns are illegal already. Go after them with the laws already on the books. Don't come after my legal gun. You may not like the out come.
Actually, what I believe is that hunters (for example) should be able to procure gun lisences related to the seasons they hunt it. I certainly don't want to take away their bread and butter; being from Northern New York, I am quite aware that many rural families depend on hunting to eat in the winter and that it does wonders for deer population control (since we destroyed their natural predator).
Canada has gun control laws, and a very LOW crime rate. They also have a lot of very legal game hunting. If you aren't using that gun for a reason, then why do you need it? You don't.
Enjoyment is the only reason I need. I don't have a reason for owning a painting other than enjoyment. Why can't I own a gun for the same reason?

reply from: CharlesD

The 2nd amendment wasn't about protecting the rights of citizens to hunt. It was about an armed citizenry being able to stand up better to a tyrannical government. The founders had just overthrown a tyrannical government, so they understood that they people need the ability to do so if the need arises. A law abiding citizen with a gun is not a threat to other law abiding citizens.

reply from: faithman

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
What de Fuque is a "gang gun," and what statute outlaws them?
(By the way, nobody wants your cheap-ass shotgun...)
You lieing peice of pro-death crap. How about the laws that criminals can not be in possesion of guns? who about the laws that say people can not be in possesion of stolen property? and a shot gun is one of the best home defence weapons there is. The U.S. Marines use them for urban warfare to this day. Aint nothing like a 12 gage to clear a room of evil doers. If you were half the gun owner you claim to be, you would know that. And I agree, you don't have to be the best shot to protect ypurself with a shot gun. That is why they are SSSSSOOOOOOOOO good for a home defence weapon.

reply from: faithman

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Excuse me, is there some reason you might want to gun down a room full of people?
What does gunning down a room full of people have to do with home defense?
UHHHH Home invasion? usually by the whole gang? The need to hit more than one target at a time?

reply from: CharlesD

Especially if you lived about 330 miles farther south.

reply from: snapdragon

Yes, pro-lifers go buy guns; that'll save you from having to install a security system. You can just kill everyone trying to jack your stuff!

reply from: Yuuki

Yes, because gang members in cities really need those guns so they can kill innocent children during their turf wars.
SSSSSOOOOO take away legal guns because some use them illegally? Just advocate the laws already on the books be enforced, not take away our right to defend ourselves from the very same gang members. Ain't it funny how the aeras with the most restrictive gun laws, also have the highest crime rate? in't it funny how whne restrictive gun laws are over turned crime rates go down? Gang guns are illegal already. Go after them with the laws already on the books. Don't come after my legal gun. You may not like the out come.
Actually, what I believe is that hunters (for example) should be able to procure gun lisences related to the seasons they hunt it. I certainly don't want to take away their bread and butter; being from Northern New York, I am quite aware that many rural families depend on hunting to eat in the winter and that it does wonders for deer population control (since we destroyed their natural predator).
Canada has gun control laws, and a very LOW crime rate. They also have a lot of very legal game hunting. If you aren't using that gun for a reason, then why do you need it? You don't.
Enjoyment is the only reason I need. I don't have a reason for owning a painting other than enjoyment. Why can't I own a gun for the same reason?
Because paintings don't fire projectiles and KILL people.

reply from: CharlesD

Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens don't kill other law abiding citizens either.
Anyway, people have been killing one another since way before gunpowder was invented. Take away the guns and they'll just find another way to do it.

reply from: Yuuki

Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens don't kill other law abiding citizens either.
Anyway, people have been killing one another since way before gunpowder was invented. Take away the guns and they'll just find another way to do it.
We will never have a nation where ALL citizens are law abiding. I think Canada is a wonderful example for this. I just see no need for people in a city to own a gun. Ordinary people only own one because the bad guys own one, and you're way more statistically likely to be injured by your OWN GUN than being shot by a bad person.

reply from: JRH

Yes, because gang members in cities really need those guns so they can kill innocent children during their turf wars.
SSSSSOOOOO take away legal guns because some use them illegally? Just advocate the laws already on the books be enforced, not take away our right to defend ourselves from the very same gang members. Ain't it funny how the aeras with the most restrictive gun laws, also have the highest crime rate? in't it funny how whne restrictive gun laws are over turned crime rates go down? Gang guns are illegal already. Go after them with the laws already on the books. Don't come after my legal gun. You may not like the out come.
Actually, what I believe is that hunters (for example) should be able to procure gun lisences related to the seasons they hunt it. I certainly don't want to take away their bread and butter; being from Northern New York, I am quite aware that many rural families depend on hunting to eat in the winter and that it does wonders for deer population control (since we destroyed their natural predator).
Canada has gun control laws, and a very LOW crime rate. They also have a lot of very legal game hunting. If you aren't using that gun for a reason, then why do you need it? You don't.
Enjoyment is the only reason I need. I don't have a reason for owning a painting other than enjoyment. Why can't I own a gun for the same reason?
Because paintings don't fire projectiles and KILL people.
But they can be used to bash someones head in can't they? In both cases someone has to choose to use them for evil purposes. If you ban all things that can be turned to such purposes nothing would be legal.

reply from: Yuuki

Yes, because gang members in cities really need those guns so they can kill innocent children during their turf wars.
SSSSSOOOOO take away legal guns because some use them illegally? Just advocate the laws already on the books be enforced, not take away our right to defend ourselves from the very same gang members. Ain't it funny how the aeras with the most restrictive gun laws, also have the highest crime rate? in't it funny how whne restrictive gun laws are over turned crime rates go down? Gang guns are illegal already. Go after them with the laws already on the books. Don't come after my legal gun. You may not like the out come.
Actually, what I believe is that hunters (for example) should be able to procure gun lisences related to the seasons they hunt it. I certainly don't want to take away their bread and butter; being from Northern New York, I am quite aware that many rural families depend on hunting to eat in the winter and that it does wonders for deer population control (since we destroyed their natural predator).
Canada has gun control laws, and a very LOW crime rate. They also have a lot of very legal game hunting. If you aren't using that gun for a reason, then why do you need it? You don't.
Enjoyment is the only reason I need. I don't have a reason for owning a painting other than enjoyment. Why can't I own a gun for the same reason?
Because paintings don't fire projectiles and KILL people.
But they can be used to bash someones head in can't they? In both cases someone has to choose to use them for evil purposes. If you ban all things that can be turned to such purposes nothing would be legal.
A gun is always meant to kill. It has no other intended purpose. A painting is meant to be looked at, and I have NEVER heard of a painting designed to kill people by firing projectiles at them. The two couldn't be more different.
Personally, I look at it this way. Faithman wants HIS right to own a gun, but he can surely understand how it is bad for evil people to own them. But he's so wrapped up in HIS right, what HE wants, that he can't see the bad side of guns. Kind of like pro-choicers and abortions...

reply from: JRH

Yes, because gang members in cities really need those guns so they can kill innocent children during their turf wars.
SSSSSOOOOO take away legal guns because some use them illegally? Just advocate the laws already on the books be enforced, not take away our right to defend ourselves from the very same gang members. Ain't it funny how the aeras with the most restrictive gun laws, also have the highest crime rate? in't it funny how whne restrictive gun laws are over turned crime rates go down? Gang guns are illegal already. Go after them with the laws already on the books. Don't come after my legal gun. You may not like the out come.
Actually, what I believe is that hunters (for example) should be able to procure gun lisences related to the seasons they hunt it. I certainly don't want to take away their bread and butter; being from Northern New York, I am quite aware that many rural families depend on hunting to eat in the winter and that it does wonders for deer population control (since we destroyed their natural predator).
Canada has gun control laws, and a very LOW crime rate. They also have a lot of very legal game hunting. If you aren't using that gun for a reason, then why do you need it? You don't.
Enjoyment is the only reason I need. I don't have a reason for owning a painting other than enjoyment. Why can't I own a gun for the same reason?
Because paintings don't fire projectiles and KILL people.
But they can be used to bash someones head in can't they? In both cases someone has to choose to use them for evil purposes. If you ban all things that can be turned to such purposes nothing would be legal.
A gun is always meant to kill. It has no other intended purpose.You can use it in a shooting range. I guess I killed that theory. lulz
Faithman has the right to his property. That other people use the same sort of property for an evil purpose is not a reason to restrict his rights. You wish to impose your system on him by fiat.

reply from: Shenanigans

Let me be as so bold as to clue those of the gun control lobby into a fact.
People dont' need guns to kill.
In New Zealand it is very hard to get a gun. Sure, they're out there, but generally you can't just walk into a shop and buy one. And those guns that are available are usually farming and hunting rifles.
Instead of "drive by shootings" we have "drive by, jump out of your car, and beat the guy up with a cricket bat".
We've had criminals use everythign from a sock with brick in it to a samurai sword to murder. Very rarely do we get a shooting related death.
If you ban guns, or limit their availiability, all you will cause is people to go back to other weapons.
And I would like an explanation from the pro-choice to kill unborn children lobby - why do so many try to limit the 2nd amendment which says in writing you can have a gun, yet you manage to twist "the right to privacy" to mean "the right to kill unborn children"?

reply from: snapdragon

I saw a rather funny story about two escaped New Zealand criminals who were handcuffed together having a rather bad run in with a light pole. From what I gather criminals from that part of the world are not particularly bright.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v5WPW_Dexs

reply from: faithman

I saw a rather funny story about two escaped New Zealand criminals who were handcuffed together having a rather bad run in with a light pole. From what I gather criminals from that part of the world are not particularly bright.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v5WPW_Dexs
"Down under" in IQ?

reply from: AshMarie88

Yes, because gang members in cities really need those guns so they can kill innocent children during their turf wars.
If you make guns illegal, they'll still get them no matter what. The majority of gun owners, LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, have never killed someone.

reply from: CharlesD

Drugs are illegal. How's that working out?

reply from: faithman

Anti gun nuts are the useful idiots of the oppressor. The right to bear arms is so when the government, or the gang member threatens, we have the power to repell them. There was a city in south Florida that was caught in the cross fire of rival drug gangs. The city loosened up gun restrictions on the citizens, and the drug dealers started catching fire from an armed citizenry. The drug war was over in short order. The city of new orleans was being over run by a rash of car jackers. They passed a law that allowed the citizens to shoot car jackers and that crime went down 60% the first year. If we had an armed citizenry, then the gang members would be very careful not to fire on the school ground in fear of justly being filled full of holes. Lead poisoning stopps evil doers very well indeed.

reply from: Yuuki

Doesn't mean we should legalize them.

reply from: nancyu

The United States of America was designed to be a government of, for, and by THE PEOPLE. (This is why the second amendment was written.)
The people of Canada apparently want no part of that. They want government to take care of them, and keep them safe. Something more and more Americans think they want as well.
If Canada's government becomes corrupt the people will be impotent, and have no way of changing anything unless a more powerful nation steps in to help them.
A true American is a steward of the United States Constitution and carries with him a sense of responsibility and love for his country. Canadians just want to be taken care of.
Who would you rather be?

reply from: nancyu

Did anyone receive in the mail a questionnaire from "Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms"? http:// ccrkba.org
It asks the following questions:
"Were you aware that since Obama's election, three people make a donation to a group dedicated to taking away your gun rights every minute?"
"Have you seen or heard an anti-gun news story, articles or news stories in the last 90 days?"
"Most anti-gun advocates claim that gun owners just like you are primarily responsible for violent crime, do you agree?"
"Were you aware that president Obama has appointed a record number of anti-gun rights people to high positions in his administration?"
"Were you aware that Barack Obama has supported bans on handguns, as well as, semi-auto rifles and shotguns?"
"Are you aware that Barack Obama supports gun bans like the one in the city of Chicago, his hometown?"
"Do you believe that you have an individual right to keep and bear arms?"
"If yes, do you believe your gun rights are under attack?"
"Will you help our national campaign to stop the anti-gun movement from taking away your right to keep and bear arms?"
Then follows request for contributions.
I thought this was a good idea. I think LDI should send out a similar questionnaire to find out what the average American knows about abortion, and Pres. Obama's position on it.

reply from: Yuuki

The United States of America was designed to be a government of, for, and by THE PEOPLE. (This is why the second amendment was written.)
The people of Canada apparently want no part of that. They want government to take care of them, and keep them safe. Something more and more Americans think they want as well.
If Canada's government becomes corrupt the people will be impotent, and have no way of changing anything unless a more powerful nation steps in to help them.
A true American is a steward of the United States Constitution and carries with him a sense of responsibility and love for his country. Canadians just want to be taken care of.
Who would you rather be?
I'd rather be anti-gun. I'd rather see fewer kids shooting each other and dying tragically in a COMPLETELY preventable accident. As I heard a doctor once say, gunshot wounds are 100% preventable.

reply from: faithman

http://personalsecurityzone.com/Shotgun_for_defense.htm

reply from: carolemarie

I wouldn't own a gun, because I wouldn't use it. But I am safer because everyone is armed out here. Freedom to own arms means an invasion of our country or a military takeover is unlikely.

reply from: Yuuki

You're not safer because gang members have guns.

reply from: yoda

Almost all criminals have guns. And if legislation was passed to take guns away, they would still have them because most of them are not registered.
But law abiding citizens would lose their guns, and be unable to defend themselves against the criminals who still have guns. Is that what you really want?

reply from: Yuuki

Almost all criminals have guns. And if legislation was passed to take guns away, they would still have them because most of them are not registered.
But law abiding citizens would lose their guns, and be unable to defend themselves against the criminals who still have guns. Is that what you really want?
Not ALL law abiding citizens would loose their guns, weren't you reading? And you do realise that statistically, you are much more likely to injure YOURSELF with your gun than you are to ever be held at gun point by a criminal?

reply from: scopia19822

"I'd rather be anti-gun. I'd rather see fewer kids shooting each other and dying tragically in a COMPLETELY preventable accident. As I heard a doctor once say, gunshot wounds are 100% preventable."
Taking peoples gun away isnt going to solve the problems/issues that drive kids to shoot each other. Drunk driving deaths are 100% preventable, but are we going to ban alcohol? We tried that Prohibition didnt work then and it wouldnt work for guns. The Supreme Court uphold the 2nd amendment right to bear arms and overturned DCs gun laws. I support background checks and mandatory gun safety courses. I have a conceal carry permit, but right now I dont own a gun. Guns dont kill its the people who pull the trigger that kill. Britian banned guns and do you know that knives are now the primary weapons used in homicides in Britian? People will just find another way to kill, should we ban knives next?

reply from: Yuuki

Then why do gun control laws work elsewhere!? I'm not making this up!!

reply from: scopia19822

:Then why do gun control laws work elsewhere!? I'm not making this up!!"
Maybe because Americans have a different mindset than our European counterparts. We value freedom, our nation was founded on the principal of freedom from government tyranny.

reply from: Yuuki

Canada is not a European country. Europe outlawed slavery almost a century before America did.

reply from: 4given

Back on topic.. Abortion. Would it bother us more if they used guns? (abort73.com)

reply from: carolemarie

Guns are not the problem, people being evil is the problem.
I am a NRA member, because it is our right to defend our lives and protect our homes and be secure.
Gang members are not going to give up guns if they are illegal! They will just do more home invasions....
NYC has a no gun law, yet it has plenty of gun crime....
Same with DC

reply from: scopia19822

"Same with DC"
The Supreme Court overturned DCs ban a few months ago.

reply from: yoda

Doesn't matter to me. All law abiding citizens have more of a right to posses guns that criminals, and yet they would be disadvantaged by such legislation.
That also doesn't matter to me. As long as I'm responsible for my own safety, I want to be as well armed as the criminals.

reply from: yoda

The work for some countries because the ordinary citizens in those countries have not had guns before. They don't have to take them away, and the criminals aren't so well armed. Australia is a good example of a country that tried to take away guns from an armed population, crime has skyrocketed there since the ban was enacted.

reply from: yoda

Good question. The collateral damage might be shocking.

reply from: Yuuki

I just can't fathom how more guns is going to reduce crime. it's like saying making drugs legal will reduce their use, or abortion being legal reduces how many women get.

reply from: faithman

Not the same at all. But if you don't want a gun don't buy one. But why should youy jack with my "choice" to own one?

reply from: yoda

Beats me, I just want to keep what I have now. Like Mr. Heston said, you can take my gun away from me when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

reply from: scopia19822

"I just can't fathom how more guns is going to reduce crime. it's like saying making drugs legal will reduce their use, or abortion being legal reduces how many women get."
Do a google search on Switzerland's gun laws. They issue every adult male a weapon for militia duty and they are required to keep these guns/pistols in their homes and yet their murder/crime rates are alot lower than ours.

reply from: rsg007

Doesn't matter to me. All law abiding citizens have more of a right to posses guns that criminals, and yet they would be disadvantaged by such legislation.
That also doesn't matter to me. As long as I'm responsible for my own safety, I want to be as well armed as the criminals.
But people are also responsible for the other people that live in their house with their gun (e.g., children):
"Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member [e.g., a child] or friend than to kill in self-defense."
( http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_and_firearms )
Check out the other stats in the above link--they make a pretty good case for why guns are very dangerous to kids. Or "doesn't that matter" to you either?

reply from: yoda

They sure are. And sometimes they get prosecuted for failure to exercise due diligence in keeping firearms. And that's as it should be, IMO.
Where did they get those stats? I don't know if they are accurate or not, but I do know that none of my family and none of my relatives have ever had an accidental shooting by such a weapon. Besides, a gun used for self-defense doesn't have to kill in order to be effective, so that would certainly skew the results.
Bottom line, if you don't want to be at the mercy of home invaders or drug crazed burglars desperate for money to buy more drugs, the only way you can accomplish that is to be physically capable of repelling them. And most of the time, that means having a firearm in your home.
And whether or not such protection is worth the risk of accidentally shooting someone is up to each individual family, not some organization trying to push an agenda.

reply from: Yuuki

They sure are. And sometimes they get prosecuted for failure to exercise due diligence in keeping firearms. And that's as it should be, IMO.
Where did they get those stats? I don't know if they are accurate or not, but I do know that none of my family and none of my relatives have ever had an accidental shooting by such a weapon. Besides, a gun used for self-defense doesn't have to kill in order to be effective, so that would certainly skew the results.
Bottom line, if you don't want to be at the mercy of home invaders or drug crazed burglars desperate for money to buy more drugs, the only way you can accomplish that is to be physically capable of repelling them. And most of the time, that means having a firearm in your home.
And whether or not such protection is worth the risk of accidentally shooting someone is up to each individual family, not some organization trying to push an agenda.
But isn't it kind of like playing russian roulette? You know the gun COULD kill one of your family members, yet you keep one anyway? Guns DO kill people, it's pretty undeniable! Yes, I am comparing this to hormonal contraception, because for some reason you're okay with risking your family's lives to keep guns in the house, but you're not okay with hormonal contraception because some of the brands risk the life of the unborn child.
Hm. Veeeery interesting indeed.

reply from: Yuuki

The Swiss are much more responsible than Americans. We're a nation of idiots.

reply from: Yuuki

Beats me, I just want to keep what I have now. Like Mr. Heston said, you can take my gun away from me when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
I find your attitude of clinging to your right to have a gun to be hilariously hypocritical compared to your pro-life views.

reply from: Yuuki

Not the same at all. But if you don't want a gun don't buy one. But why should youy jack with my "choice" to own one?
Because I'm not pro-choice?

reply from: yoda

"Kind of like", maybe.... but with RR you can't skew the odds, whereas with a weapon there are many things you can do to make it safer to have one. I assume you have heard of gun ownership courses, gun locks, etc.?

reply from: yoda

I don't kill babies, and I don't use guns to kill anyone, so far.
The ownership of a gun is not evidence of a willingness to electively kill an innocent human being.
Being a proabort is.

reply from: Yuuki

I don't kill babies, and I don't use guns to kill anyone, so far.
The ownership of a gun is not evidence of a willingness to electively kill an innocent human being.
Being a proabort is.
Taking birth control isn't either.

reply from: yoda

The proaborts say abortion is "birth control".
But playing Russian Roulette with BC chemicals is gambling with someone else's life.

reply from: Yuuki

"Kind of like", maybe.... but with RR you can't skew the odds, whereas with a weapon there are many things you can do to make it safer to have one. I assume you have heard of gun ownership courses, gun locks, etc.?
Yes yes; the gun in our house is located across the room from the hidden ammo actually.

reply from: Yuuki

The proaborts say abortion is "birth control".
But playing Russian Roulette with BC chemicals is gambling with someone else's life.
*Hormonal contraceptive. And so is having a gun in your home.

reply from: 4given

Okay.. so why would you want to risk it? You have made your feelings known about weaponry, yet compare it to abortifacients. I am confused. Sorry not my conversation anyway..

reply from: 4given

Wait.. guns = hormonal contraceptives? I guess. Are you a hucklebuck Yuuki?

reply from: yoda

That's nice, but of course you need to strike a balance between safety from little hands and usefulness in time of crisis. A home invader, for example, might not be willing to wait until you unlocked your weapon, then went and unlocked your ammo, and loaded your weapon. They are a bit impatient at times, I'm told.

reply from: yoda

That's right. BC pill come in 45 caliber and 38 caliber.

reply from: scopia19822

"The Swiss are much more responsible than Americans. We're a nation of idiots."
Maybe because they educate their citizens on gun safety? Maybe if we fixed our failing public school system we would not be a nation of"idiots" . So does that make you an idiot as well since your American?

reply from: Yuuki

I didn't fail in school, so that's just a silly statement. Yes, the system needs repair; only a moron would say otherwise.

reply from: Yuuki

That's nice, but of course you need to strike a balance between safety from little hands and usefulness in time of crisis. A home invader, for example, might not be willing to wait until you unlocked your weapon, then went and unlocked your ammo, and loaded your weapon. They are a bit impatient at times, I'm told.
And there is a perfectly practical and useful nature to hormonal contraception as well. As you may feel, the benefits outweigh the risks of having the gun in the house. Same goes for hormonal birth control.

reply from: Yuuki

Okay.. so why would you want to risk it? You have made your feelings known about weaponry, yet compare it to abortifacients. I am confused. Sorry not my conversation anyway..
Why would you want to risk having a gun in your house? I'm really only debating this because of how hypocritical it sounds compared to the hormonal contraceptives argument going on in another thread. Guns will never be illegal; and I happen to think they're pretty cool. Ideally, I wish only qualified people would own guns but it's not going to happen; and growing up as I did around rural people I understand the vicious defense of guns.

reply from: faithman

Okay.. so why would you want to risk it? You have made your feelings known about weaponry, yet compare it to abortifacients. I am confused. Sorry not my conversation anyway..
Why would you want to risk having a gun in your house? I'm really only debating this because of how hypocritical it sounds compared to the hormonal contraceptives argument going on in another thread. Guns will never be illegal; and I happen to think they're pretty cool. Ideally, I wish only qualified people would own guns but it's not going to happen; and growing up as I did around rural people I understand the vicious defense of guns.
I am in agreement with requiring gun safty courses as a condition of ownership. There is also required courses for permit to carry in our state. The proper and responcible use of such powerful and deadly tools should be a part of the deal, as well as proper storage.

reply from: CharlesD

There's something those rural people know about gun safety too. You go to the rural parts of this country and everybody has a gun, but you don't hear Billy Bob saying how he's going to put a cap in Jimbo's @$$.
News flash: Law abiding people who are taught the responsible use of firearms aren't a danger to one another. Maybe a danger to deer, rabbits, and home invaders, but not other law abiding people.

reply from: yoda

What would that be, facilitating recreational sex?

reply from: sk1bianca

in my country people are not allowed to have guns unless they have a permit of some kind or a special status: policemen, military, judges, diplomats, state officials, people who use guns at work (armed guards), people within the witness protection program, hunters (only "long guns" + they have to be members of a licensed hunting club), collectors, sports target shooters.
and there are many conditions that have to befulfilled: they have to be at least 18 years old, they have to prove the necessity of having a gun, no criminal record, must pass psychological evaluation, completed a training course offered by an authorized company, haven't lost a lethal gun.
there are also many laws about how and where to buy, transport and keep guns and ammo... not to mention how expensive they are and the taxes you have to pay to obtain the permit.
i guess that's why shooting incidents are pretty rare around here.
walking on the streets or going into public places or institutions with a knife is also illegal. in the same conditions, chains, bats, paralising sprays are not quite forbidden, but if the cops find them they will most likely confiscate them. it should be ok if you keep them out of sight (i keep my knife in my pocket).
so... if you get attacked... good luck!

reply from: Yuuki

What would that be, facilitating recreational sex?
Facilitating women in controlling their reproductive choices so they have the freedom to have sex, whether inside marriage or outside of it. If by recreational you mean "without the intent to reproduce", that is. Men don't get pregnant; women do. And yes, I believe that this is one of the practical and useful natures of hormonal contraceptives.

reply from: Yuuki

Okay.. so why would you want to risk it? You have made your feelings known about weaponry, yet compare it to abortifacients. I am confused. Sorry not my conversation anyway..
Why would you want to risk having a gun in your house? I'm really only debating this because of how hypocritical it sounds compared to the hormonal contraceptives argument going on in another thread. Guns will never be illegal; and I happen to think they're pretty cool. Ideally, I wish only qualified people would own guns but it's not going to happen; and growing up as I did around rural people I understand the vicious defense of guns.
I am in agreement with requiring gun safty courses as a condition of ownership. There is also required courses for permit to carry in our state. The proper and responcible use of such powerful and deadly tools should be a part of the deal, as well as proper storage.
At least we can agree on that.

reply from: yoda

"Yes" would have been a sufficient answer, without all the propaganda.
Then by your answer, you are declaring that in your value system, the ability to engage in recreational sex and not have to worry about whether any of your eggs get fertilized has more moral value than the lives of any number of new human being so destroyed.
Just wanted to make that clear.

reply from: faithman

If you care to live free, buy a shot gun. It is an armed citizenry that keeps an over reaching government at bay.

reply from: Yuuki

Shotguns are for people who can't aim.

reply from: faithman

Shotguns are for people who can't aim.
So?

reply from: yoda

If there are only two people in the room, very careful aim is not that important.

reply from: faithman

If there are only two people in the room, very careful aim is not that important.
And if there are more than one bad guys in the room, then general aim is more important. The 12 gage pump is still the weapon of choice for the USM's in urban warfare. If it is good enough for them....

reply from: faithman

Of course I have a 1022 stanless steal ruger carbine. A very reliable, very acurate little rifle. And with the banna clips, it is 110 rounds before I have to start reloading clips. With just a little filing, I could make it full auto. I still need a 20 gage pump though. 20 gage is still pretty good room coverage, but a little less kick for the wife. She can handle the ruger just fine. It just lacks the stoppng power of a shot gun. A shot gun puts them on their buts, no questions asked. Just a little messy. 22 long rifle doesn't leave as much bain matter on the walls.

reply from: Skippy

But Canada has a higher suicide rate than America. They just do it less efficiently.
The Second Amendment isn't about "need."
I really hesitate to get involved in this topic, because it requires agreeing with faithman. But he's right. We are in for some major social upheaval when Barry's supporters realize that the empty promises of free cheese are not going to come true. When that happens, being prepared to defend yourself, your family, and your property isn't loony. It's prudent.

reply from: faithman

For a bad boy pistol with a lot of knock down, it is hard to beat the Ruger P90 45. It has enough weight to absorb the recoil of the 45 round. Very accurate, and leaves rather large holes in things. A very reliable auto pistol.

reply from: Yuuki

Actually from all I've learned the second amendment is ONLY about need. It is about the need for an armed militia.

reply from: yoda

Indeed. (I need a new ID so I can post under it when I agree with skippy.)

reply from: faithman

**********************************************
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.


The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment! If you are too, please forward.

reply from: faithman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pygDini8fM&feature=email

reply from: faithman

Do you realize that you are a scancy little bort head scum bag? If the FBI wants to talk to me, they know where I live. They know that I am not a "member" of AOG. And they know what lying scum you are. I AM A PERSON is an idividual effort of many. No one person is IAAP. It streches accross the country, and many demographics. I am just one very small cog in that wheel. SSSSOOOO attack me all you like death maggot. You will not stop IAAP.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dec_1236442486

reply from: faithman

http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com/

reply from: faithman

http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/2009-02-16-RTLActofSC-intro-corr.doc

reply from: Yuuki

http://www.addictinggames.com/boomshine.html

reply from: yoda

Here's a post I picked up on the internet from a guy who was asking for advice on buying a handgun:
"I need a handgun for my house. For protection. I don't own any guns, though for a long time I've considered buying one. My friends all own handguns and they think that I'm nuttier than squirrel s*** for not owning one. I've put it off, but people are just too damn out of control these days. So, I'm getting one soon.
If you guys are handgun owners, what I want to know is what is the best handgun in your opinion for self-defense. I need a weapon that can be handled by my wife as well, so recoil come into play, as does aim/shoot/hit reliability within a fairly short range. I'm asking here because the people that I know and trust are giving me different answers on what to get. It's confusing.
Remember, this is just for self-defense, like if I awake in the middle of the night from a deep sleep and find some incomprehensible %$#@# in my living room surrounded by candles and standing in the middle of a makeshift scrawled-on-the-hardwood pentagram with a possum in his mouth chanting in some bizarre language. I would need to take this guy down without a lot of conversation. I would need this situation resolv ed quickly. I would need peace-of-mind in advance that when the trigger is pulled, the Satanist falls.
Thanks for any help you guys can provide."


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics