So, to the anti-gun crowd...

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Amused
To those who would take the 2nd Amendment to an illogical extreme:

In Colonial times "arms" meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

Though that photo is amusing, the one with the fighter jet parked in front of a residential garage with the caption "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: busmaster11
There is often a very thin line between what gun fans consider "law-abiding" and "not law abiding" citizens. They cannot accept this truth because it is the basis for any rational justification of gun ownership.

Strangers may see a not so honorable side of the friends and family you love and are loyal to. They may see, in conflict or otherwise, a side of them that are only marginally law-abiding. Given a situation involving the anarchy where Katrina ravaged, it is not much of a stretch to see such an individual using the gun (though not necessarily shooting it) in a non-defensive manner.

The mind is a fragile thing - given a desparate situation like Katrina, it takes little to drive a previously sane person to act in completely irresponsible ways. Take those sn ipers for instance.

Dialogue on this board has drawn me a little closer to the middle ground - with thorough background checks, I believe it is reasonable for a person to purchase and leave a handgun at home, but that is all I support. Anything more than that to me, is still simply ego-driven, or in the case of perhaps a few, the desire to protect oneself against someone they screwed over...

A gun left at home or unloaded is useless. Convince otherwise those who have been killed while out eating dinner or waiting in line to pay for gas.

Thinking that everyone can be peaceful and civilized is an extremely dangerous idealistic view of the world. The reality is that only we as individuals can strive for that ideal, and hope that everyone else can to, all the while being prepared to handle occasional "glitches" in the system. I believe in open carry and think conceal carry certification should be extended to include trained and legal airline carry. We the people can (or used to be able to) take care of ourselves. The 2nd amendment is the oldest and most effective homeland security we have. We don't need air marshals that can?t be everywhere and federal security; in fact federal security is a farce that serves only to makes white sheeple feel safe while they chug beer and watch TV. The reality is only you are responsible for your own security, and if you are feeling generous, the security of those around you who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

There is no excuse for the actions of those in N.O., I don't buy "fragile mind." They acted how they would probably always act if there were no consequences. A true measure of a person's integrity is how that person behaves in situations like N.O. while carrying the ability to impart life or death for another person inches from their fingers in a time where there may not be consequences.

And snipers.... the media has overused the term... anyone that can throw a rock from behind a wall and duck back down is considered an expert sharp shooter in the eyes of the media. A true "sniper" would have killed one person for every shot fired, and to my knowledge, nobody in N.O. has been downed by "sniper" fire. In fact, from what I have heard regarding these lousy "snipers" suggests they wouldn't even qualify in basic marksmanship.

And all the talk about "paramilitary" groups and "vigilantes" (ie: minuteman project, armed civilians patrolling for looters in N.O., etc) ... don't forget this country and our beloved constitution was FOUNDED AND WRITTEN BY vigilantes and militia men who figured out long ago what people today still don't get.


"we pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor"

I don't go out late at night by myself, or to questionable places. I protect the home I own with simple, sensible but not over-the-top ways I can't afford that would probably inconvenience me the most. I have so far been 100% successful in protecting myself and my family in this way. So personally, I have never understood why some people take the whole vigilante "only you are responsible for protecting yourself so you better do a damn good job" mentality and legitimize it with all this talk about history and philosophy. What about the precedence the cavemen gave us with the hunting and the spears and the fires? We are trying to be a civilized society here, and I think it is reasonable to believe that if you don't go asking for trouble or live in the most opulent of homes, you can do well without being concerned about your safety first and foremost.

Call it idealistic, but you can't knock the fact that I've perhaps saved a considerable amount of money, time, effort, and most of all, anxiety over those that chose to or have reason to carry. The obvious exception being those public servants and the millitary, most of which I have the utmost respect for.

The "fragile mind" part was not an excuse - it was an observation. I damn them just the same. I do believe that when your life and the lives of those you love are on the line, your priorities shift, and your moral principles may take a back seat. The looters? Sure - they're opportunistic amoral people. But for many whoses lives are on the line, or perceive their lives are on the line, I stand by my theory. It's human.

As for the snipers... their level of expertise is irrelevant. They are a story only because guns are so available via legal and illegal channels.

One day when technology allows, there may be people on this board defending the right to carry baby nukes.

Just as you, I go out of my way to be polite, mind my own business, and avoid trouble. Unfortunately I cannot say that those who wish to cause trouble won't be as persistent in causing it as I am in avoiding it.

As for going out late, I go out whenever I damn well please; where I go and when is my own business. My schedule is no excuse for someone else?s unlawful intentions, and I will not alter my course of personal lawful business for fear or threat of potential thugs.

If you think I a walk around all the time watching everybody with my hand on the ready, expecting someone to mug me, you are mistaken. My daily routine is about the same as anybody elses and I don't really give a second though to security or safety; it is intrinsic, natural, automatic.

And don't mix up "vigilante" and "citizen." It's been over done. (though from time to time I wonder if there is a difference...)

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: exdeath
Personal nukes?

While I am a firm supporter of the right to bear "arms", I understand the difference between "arms" and military "ordnance"...

While I think civilians should have access to explosives and items of that nature I don't expect that it would be proper to anybody, gun owners or not, for individuals to carry items like nuclear weapons around in their pockets...

Back to general explosives, I don't think they should be EASILY obtainable by anybody, but it would be nice to know I as a respectable citizen have those options should the government decide to unlawfully raid my home or legions of muslims are knocking at my door or Mexico formally declares its invasion of the US (I am ~60 miles from the border and would be on the front line) and I need the capacity to eliminate those individuals more effectively/rapidly/safely (for myself) than firearms can provide for.

Far fetched? Maybe... maybe not (given the current terrorism situation, the political/social split in the country, the Kelo ruling, illegal immigration out of control, etc)

Paranoid? Not at all. I work full time, go to school, etc. just like most everyone else without a thought to any of this. But I am educated in those ways and I won't be like those mindless sheep you see on the news "we don't know what to do, we are waiting for someone to tell us what to do!!!" when major catastrophe occurs.

Wake up from the beer, titties, and football and smell the real world.

I meant personal nukes... as in if and when technology permits, the work of a nuke in a small portable package. And it was sort of in jest.

The scenarios you described are exactly the paranoid ones I refuse to prepare for. If the government improperly raids my house, what method of defense can I possibly use to protect myself? There is nothing. Similiarly, my house is protected to where most robbers will see, be discouraged and move on, but if someone is that dead set on robbing my house, killing me and/or my family, they will find a way to do it. I work in IT, and one of my functions involve security. There is a saying... If someone is dead set on hacking into your system, they will find a way no matter what you do. I believe I've been successful going the route f not making myself an extraordinary target - I leave that up to the rich, or the criminals, or the gun fiends.

Most of all, I'd like to believe I rely on God, who may not necessarily keep me and my home safe, but keeps me spiritually healthy in the long run. This is why I have peace of mind, even as I live with my family in inner city Chicago.

 

[BuckNaked]

Police Begin Seizing Guns of Civilians

Mr. Compass, the police superintendent, said that after a week of near anarchy in the city, no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns, or other firearms of any kind. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.

That order apparently does not apply to the hundreds of security guards whom businesses and some wealthy individuals have hired to protect their property. The guards, who are civilians working for private security firms like Blackwater, are openly carrying M-16s and other assault rifles.

Mr. Compass said that he was aware of the private guards but that the police had no plans to make them give up their weapons.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

I meant personal nukes... as in if and when technology permits, the work of a nuke in a small portable package. And it was sort of in jest.

The scenarios you described are exactly the paranoid ones I refuse to prepare for. If the government improperly raids my house, what method of defense can I possibly use to protect myself? There is nothing. Similiarly, my house is protected to where most robbers will see, be discouraged and move on, but if someone is that dead set on robbing my house, killing me and/or my family, they will find a way to do it. I work in IT, and one of my functions involve security. There is a saying... If someone is dead set on hacking into your system, they will find a way no matter what you do. I believe I've been successful going the route f not making myself an extraordinary target - I leave that up to the rich, or the criminals, or the gun fiends.

Most of all, I'd like to believe I rely on God, who may not necessarily keep me and my home safe, but keeps me spiritually healthy in the long run. This is why I have peace of mind, even as I live with my family in inner city Chicago.

I don't know a lot of what you are trying to say above.

A well armed/trained citizen could prevent most law enforcement entries on the first go around.

Unless you have a history (and in that case you are probably with 'friends') they are rolling in about 2 - 3 cars at the most, 6 cops/soldiers.

Preventing hacking is way different...It's very possible to lock it down. I dont get that statement at all.

The idea behind most religions is not 'relying on God' Unless you have performed some miracle they are usually hands off, let the people work it out.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: exdeath
Personal nukes?

While I am a firm supporter of the right to bear "arms", I understand the difference between "arms" and military "ordnance"...

While I think civilians should have access to explosives and items of that nature I don't expect that it would be proper to anybody, gun owners or not, for individuals to carry items like nuclear weapons around in their pockets...

Back to general explosives, I don't think they should be EASILY obtainable by anybody, but it would be nice to know I as a respectable citizen have those options should the government decide to unlawfully raid my home or legions of muslims are knocking at my door or Mexico formally declares its invasion of the US (I am ~60 miles from the border and would be on the front line) and I need the capacity to eliminate those individuals more effectively/rapidly/safely (for myself) than firearms can provide for.

Far fetched? Maybe... maybe not (given the current terrorism situation, the political/social split in the country, the Kelo ruling, illegal immigration out of control, etc)

Paranoid? Not at all. I work full time, go to school, etc. just like most everyone else without a thought to any of this. But I am educated in those ways and I won't be like those mindless sheep you see on the news "we don't know what to do, we are waiting for someone to tell us what to do!!!" when major catastrophe occurs.

Wake up from the beer, titties, and football and smell the real world.

I meant personal nukes... as in if and when technology permits, the work of a nuke in a small portable package. And it was sort of in jest.

The scenarios you described are exactly the paranoid ones I refuse to prepare for. If the government improperly raids my house, what method of defense can I possibly use to protect myself? There is nothing. Similiarly, my house is protected to where most robbers will see, be discouraged and move on, but if someone is that dead set on robbing my house, killing me and/or my family, they will find a way to do it. I work in IT, and one of my functions involve security. There is a saying... If someone is dead set on hacking into your system, they will find a way no matter what you do. I believe I've been successful going the route f not making myself an extraordinary target - I leave that up to the rich, or the criminals, or the gun fiends.

Most of all, I'd like to believe I rely on God, who may not necessarily keep me and my home safe, but keeps me spiritually healthy in the long run. This is why I have peace of mind, even as I live with my family in inner city Chicago.

I make no mistake what the outcome would be for me in such a situation (at least in the case of a determined and coordinated government sponsored assault), think of it as a last stand with the goal of doing my share of damage and achieving a high kill ratio. Assuming I have done nothing unlawful to warrant such an event and the actions of the government were unlawful, it would be assumed that there would be similar injustices happening all over the country and a revolution brewing; a scenario I wouldn?t be alone in. What's the point in living a slave to someone or some institution that can nullify anything you used your limited lifespan to achieve? I for one will not be a pawn. When you are backed into your home and have nowhere else to go, that is when you must decide to make a stand and die on your feet or live on your knees in someone else shadow. Far fetched and sociopathic, maybe, but as I said I don?t walk around in fear all the time expecting it to happen, I?m just saying I?ve touched upon the possibilities at one time or another and at least THOUGHT about it; most Americans are clueless mass media sheep that can?t think about anything other than beer, titties, and football. Suffice to say I am keenly aware of politics, government, economics, etc. and the single most thought that scares me the most is how many people are not. As for the threats presented by the Religion of Peace and the Mexican invasion, I don?t worry about it now since I have work and school to go to like everyone else, but I will be waiting and ready when the door to door action begins on my streets. As for government gone awry, I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, and how unfortunate, as by the time it does happen I fear there will not be enough real patriots like myself left to combat it.

Don't get me wrong, we need and want government so serve its very important role, but left unchecked, particularly when elected officials no longer represent the will of the people, it gets extremely dangerous and goes against every principle this country was founded upon. My allegiance is not to a person or institution, but to the Constitution of the United States and the basic principles of natural rights and freedoms that it defines.

I despise religion; it is one of the most dangerous practices in the world. It is the number one cause of illogical thought and fanaticism that causes people to devote themselves to a number of things, some threatening to others, without thought or reason in the name of blind faith.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: busmaster11

I meant personal nukes... as in if and when technology permits, the work of a nuke in a small portable package. And it was sort of in jest.

The scenarios you described are exactly the paranoid ones I refuse to prepare for. If the government improperly raids my house, what method of defense can I possibly use to protect myself? There is nothing. Similiarly, my house is protected to where most robbers will see, be discouraged and move on, but if someone is that dead set on robbing my house, killing me and/or my family, they will find a way to do it. I work in IT, and one of my functions involve security. There is a saying... If someone is dead set on hacking into your system, they will find a way no matter what you do. I believe I've been successful going the route f not making myself an extraordinary target - I leave that up to the rich, or the criminals, or the gun fiends.

Most of all, I'd like to believe I rely on God, who may not necessarily keep me and my home safe, but keeps me spiritually healthy in the long run. This is why I have peace of mind, even as I live with my family in inner city Chicago.

I don't know a lot of what you are trying to say above.

A well armed/trained citizen could prevent most law enforcement entries on the first go around.

Unless you have a history (and in that case you are probably with 'friends') they are rolling in about 2 - 3 cars at the most, 6 cops/soldiers.

Preventing hacking is way different...It's very possible to lock it down. I dont get that statement at all.

The idea behind most religions is not 'relying on God' Unless you have performed some miracle they are usually hands off, let the people work it out.

I'll let your words be your testimony.

To think that you can ever win against the feds to me is the ultimate in blind arrogance, but okay...

If you believe it is feasible to ensure with a virtual 100% certainty your company cannot be exploited via your network, I'll leave it up to the others on this forum to judge you. I'll also do you the favor of hooking you up with a couple companies. I'm sure they can use your expertise.

I don't know what you believe about "most religions", but as an evangelical Christian, I believe it is supremely central to rely on God, and contrary to most people's beliefs, NOT to vote with the neocons...

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
I'll let your words be your testimony.

don't judge me now...tsk tsk.

Originally posted by: busmaster11
To think that you can ever win against the feds to me is the ultimate in blind arrogance, but okay...

Here is where people like you mess up the argument. If/When the sh!t hits the fan many will die...however, the typical first home raid can be handled for most, then you WILL need to regroup and plan.

This is just history though...surely if you know all the HISTORY your bible preaches you will see this.

Originally posted by: busmaster11
If you believe it is feasible to ensure with a virtual 100% certainty your company cannot be exploited via your network, I'll leave it up to the others on this forum to judge you. I'll also do you the favor of hooking you up with a couple companies. I'm sure they can use your expertise.

You living in the inner city, I am sure you gotz da contacz! y0!

You do realize you stated all networks. There are many that are 100% secure.

If you are going to add "What if they kidnap your sys admin?" You could be right.

Originally posted by: busmaster11
I don't know what you believe about "most religions", but as an evangelical Christian, I believe it is supremely central to rely on God, and contrary to most people's beliefs, NOT to vote with the neocons...

I didn't know Christians were evangelical...thought it was the preachers. Anyway if you read the Bible...God states he is hands off.

Not to change the thread but as an evangelical Christian some other religions before you have the same 'story' ( I am not saying I ain't buying it....just that more than one can share it).

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: exdeath
Personal nukes?

While I am a firm supporter of the right to bear "arms", I understand the difference between "arms" and military "ordnance"...

While I think civilians should have access to explosives and items of that nature I don't expect that it would be proper to anybody, gun owners or not, for individuals to carry items like nuclear weapons around in their pockets...

Back to general explosives, I don't think they should be EASILY obtainable by anybody, but it would be nice to know I as a respectable citizen have those options should the government decide to unlawfully raid my home or legions of muslims are knocking at my door or Mexico formally declares its invasion of the US (I am ~60 miles from the border and would be on the front line) and I need the capacity to eliminate those individuals more effectively/rapidly/safely (for myself) than firearms can provide for.

Far fetched? Maybe... maybe not (given the current terrorism situation, the political/social split in the country, the Kelo ruling, illegal immigration out of control, etc)

Paranoid? Not at all. I work full time, go to school, etc. just like most everyone else without a thought to any of this. But I am educated in those ways and I won't be like those mindless sheep you see on the news "we don't know what to do, we are waiting for someone to tell us what to do!!!" when major catastrophe occurs.

Wake up from the beer, titties, and football and smell the real world.

I meant personal nukes... as in if and when technology permits, the work of a nuke in a small portable package. And it was sort of in jest.

The scenarios you described are exactly the paranoid ones I refuse to prepare for. If the government improperly raids my house, what method of defense can I possibly use to protect myself? There is nothing. Similiarly, my house is protected to where most robbers will see, be discouraged and move on, but if someone is that dead set on robbing my house, killing me and/or my family, they will find a way to do it. I work in IT, and one of my functions involve security. There is a saying... If someone is dead set on hacking into your system, they will find a way no matter what you do. I believe I've been successful going the route f not making myself an extraordinary target - I leave that up to the rich, or the criminals, or the gun fiends.

Most of all, I'd like to believe I rely on God, who may not necessarily keep me and my home safe, but keeps me spiritually healthy in the long run. This is why I have peace of mind, even as I live with my family in inner city Chicago.

I make no mistake what the outcome would be for me in such a situation (at least in the case of a determined and coordinated government sponsored assault), think of it as a last stand with the goal of doing my share of damage and achieving a high kill ratio. Assuming I have done nothing unlawful to warrant such an event and the actions of the government were unlawful, it would be assumed that there would be similar injustices happening all over the country and a revolution brewing; a scenario I wouldn?t be alone in. What's the point in living a slave to someone or some institution that can nullify anything you used your limited lifespan to achieve? I for one will not be a pawn. When you are backed into your home and have nowhere else to go, that is when you must decide to make a stand and die on your feet or live on your knees in someone else shadow. Far fetched and sociopathic, maybe, but as I said I don?t walk around in fear all the time expecting it to happen, I?m just saying I?ve touched upon the possibilities at one time or another and at least THOUGHT about it; most Americans are clueless mass media sheep that can?t think about anything other than beer, titties, and football. Suffice to say I am keenly aware of politics, government, economics, etc. and the single most thought that scares me the most is how many people are not. As for the threats presented by the Religion of Peace and the Mexican invasion, I don?t worry about it now since I have work and school to go to like everyone else, but I will be waiting and ready when the door to door action begins on my streets. As for government gone awry, I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, and how unfortunate, as by the time it does happen I fear there will not be enough real patriots like myself left to combat it.

Don't get me wrong, we need and want government so serve its very important role, but left unchecked, particularly when elected officials no longer represent the will of the people, it gets extremely dangerous and goes against every principle this country was founded upon. My allegiance is not to a person or institution, but to the Constitution of the United States and the basic principles of natural rights and freedoms that it defines.

I despise religion; it is one of the most dangerous practices in the world. It is the number one cause of illogical thought and fanaticism that causes people to devote themselves to a number of things, some threatening to others, without thought or reason in the name of blind faith.

If I have reduced your argument to "but I need guns to perform kamikaze in highly unlikely scenarios"... then I haven't done too bad...

Seriously, we'll agree to disagree. cheers, and good night.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Seriously, we'll agree to disagree. cheers, and good night.

dude this is said in a well debated argument. Not just giving up after you drop thread turds.

So you think the meek won't inherit the earth?

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: exdeath
Personal nukes?

While I am a firm supporter of the right to bear "arms", I understand the difference between "arms" and military "ordnance"...

While I think civilians should have access to explosives and items of that nature I don't expect that it would be proper to anybody, gun owners or not, for individuals to carry items like nuclear weapons around in their pockets...

Back to general explosives, I don't think they should be EASILY obtainable by anybody, but it would be nice to know I as a respectable citizen have those options should the government decide to unlawfully raid my home or legions of muslims are knocking at my door or Mexico formally declares its invasion of the US (I am ~60 miles from the border and would be on the front line) and I need the capacity to eliminate those individuals more effectively/rapidly/safely (for myself) than firearms can provide for.

Far fetched? Maybe... maybe not (given the current terrorism situation, the political/social split in the country, the Kelo ruling, illegal immigration out of control, etc)

Paranoid? Not at all. I work full time, go to school, etc. just like most everyone else without a thought to any of this. But I am educated in those ways and I won't be like those mindless sheep you see on the news "we don't know what to do, we are waiting for someone to tell us what to do!!!" when major catastrophe occurs.

Wake up from the beer, titties, and football and smell the real world.

I meant personal nukes... as in if and when technology permits, the work of a nuke in a small portable package. And it was sort of in jest.

The scenarios you described are exactly the paranoid ones I refuse to prepare for. If the government improperly raids my house, what method of defense can I possibly use to protect myself? There is nothing. Similiarly, my house is protected to where most robbers will see, be discouraged and move on, but if someone is that dead set on robbing my house, killing me and/or my family, they will find a way to do it. I work in IT, and one of my functions involve security. There is a saying... If someone is dead set on hacking into your system, they will find a way no matter what you do. I believe I've been successful going the route f not making myself an extraordinary target - I leave that up to the rich, or the criminals, or the gun fiends.

Most of all, I'd like to believe I rely on God, who may not necessarily keep me and my home safe, but keeps me spiritually healthy in the long run. This is why I have peace of mind, even as I live with my family in inner city Chicago.

I make no mistake what the outcome would be for me in such a situation (at least in the case of a determined and coordinated government sponsored assault), think of it as a last stand with the goal of doing my share of damage and achieving a high kill ratio. Assuming I have done nothing unlawful to warrant such an event and the actions of the government were unlawful, it would be assumed that there would be similar injustices happening all over the country and a revolution brewing; a scenario I wouldn?t be alone in. What's the point in living a slave to someone or some institution that can nullify anything you used your limited lifespan to achieve? I for one will not be a pawn. When you are backed into your home and have nowhere else to go, that is when you must decide to make a stand and die on your feet or live on your knees in someone else shadow. Far fetched and sociopathic, maybe, but as I said I don?t walk around in fear all the time expecting it to happen, I?m just saying I?ve touched upon the possibilities at one time or another and at least THOUGHT about it; most Americans are clueless mass media sheep that can?t think about anything other than beer, titties, and football. Suffice to say I am keenly aware of politics, government, economics, etc. and the single most thought that scares me the most is how many people are not. As for the threats presented by the Religion of Peace and the Mexican invasion, I don?t worry about it now since I have work and school to go to like everyone else, but I will be waiting and ready when the door to door action begins on my streets. As for government gone awry, I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, and how unfortunate, as by the time it does happen I fear there will not be enough real patriots like myself left to combat it.

Don't get me wrong, we need and want government so serve its very important role, but left unchecked, particularly when elected officials no longer represent the will of the people, it gets extremely dangerous and goes against every principle this country was founded upon. My allegiance is not to a person or institution, but to the Constitution of the United States and the basic principles of natural rights and freedoms that it defines.

I despise religion; it is one of the most dangerous practices in the world. It is the number one cause of illogical thought and fanaticism that causes people to devote themselves to a number of things, some threatening to others, without thought or reason in the name of blind faith.

If I have reduced your argument to "but I need guns to perform kamikaze in highly unlikely scenarios"... then I haven't done too bad...

Seriously, we'll agree to disagree. cheers, and good night.

If you have reduced my argument to "but I need guns to perform kamikaze in highly unlikely scenarios"... then you haven't read, or at least understood, the implications and principles of anything I have said or tried to say in every post to this thread.

And I don't absolutely "need" guns for anything other than recreation and the occasional (legal) side jobs. But it's nice to know I'm well prepared for unlikely situations and the bother of holstering a medium bore side arm in plain view is less of a hastle to me than most people have with their cell phones. I've said it in the first minutes of Katrina: food, water, ammo. A week later, what are the people who were on the spot saying were the things they needed most? Repeat after me: food, water, ammo.

Contrast the images in N.O. of people stranded on their roof tops and highways helpless and cowering from "snipers" and looters and ... and ... the images of those sitting reclined on *their own* front patio with rifles in arm just chilling and content with being alive and unbothered for another day.

Now which ones are the thugs preying upon? Nuff said.

Unlikely? Ask some of the Katrina victims. Amazing how well TV can shelter one from actual events in their own country. The events there are REAL.

 

[alkemyst]

Why does everyone think it's one person versus the whole 'army' should all hell break loose?

Too many FPS games....

 

[Abe Froman]

Alcohol,
Tobacco,
Fire-Arms

Who's Bringing the Chips?

 

[Painkiller]

Originally posted by: Ulfwald
My idea of gun control:

Maintain your line of fire, hit your intended target, and make sure no innocent people are hurt. That is gun control.

A well armed society is a polite society.

Really? That's like saying the whole world would be safer if everybody has nukes. You may say that if every country has them, no country would use them. If that is the case, why then is the US all worried about other countrys developing them? I agree that most people have guns are very reponsible but what about the ones that are not?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Painkiller

Originally posted by: Ulfwald
My idea of gun control:

Maintain your line of fire, hit your intended target, and make sure no innocent people are hurt. That is gun control.

A well armed society is a polite society.

Really? That's like saying the whole world would be safer if everybody has nukes. You may say that if every country has them, no country would use them. If that is the case, why then is the US all worried about other countrys developing them? I agree that most people have guns are very reponsible but what about the ones that are not?

This line can be used for anything. It can be used to take away any freedom. Therefore it's useless.

Irresponsible people suffer the consequences if they harm themselves. They go to jail if they harm others.

 

[Bumrush99]

The question I have and will always have: Who the f*ck needs an AK47 or an Uzi or a high powered semi automatic weapon to shoot wabbits?
I think people should have the right to bear arms, but I don't understand why most of you are so passionate when it comes to restricting guns that can maim and kill a lot of people in a short period of time.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: busmaster11
There is often a very thin line between what gun fans consider "law-abiding" and "not law abiding" citizens. They cannot accept this truth because it is the basis for any rational justification of gun ownership.

Strangers may see a not so honorable side of the friends and family you love and are loyal to. They may see, in conflict or otherwise, a side of them that are only marginally law-abiding. Given a situation involving the anarchy where Katrina ravaged, it is not much of a stretch to see such an individual using the gun (though not necessarily shooting it) in a non-defensive manner.

The mind is a fragile thing - given a desparate situation like Katrina, it takes little to drive a previously sane person to act in completely irresponsible ways. Take those sn ipers for instance.

Dialogue on this board has drawn me a little closer to the middle ground - with thorough background checks, I believe it is reasonable for a person to purchase and leave a handgun at home, but that is all I support. Anything more than that to me, is still simply ego-driven, or in the case of perhaps a few, the desire to protect oneself against someone they screwed over...

A gun left at home or unloaded is useless. Convince otherwise those who have been killed while out eating dinner or waiting in line to pay for gas.

Thinking that everyone can be peaceful and civilized is an extremely dangerous idealistic view of the world. The reality is that only we as individuals can strive for that ideal, and hope that everyone else can to, all the while being prepared to handle occasional "glitches" in the system. I believe in open carry and think conceal carry certification should be extended to include trained and legal airline carry. We the people can (or used to be able to) take care of ourselves. The 2nd amendment is the oldest and most effective homeland security we have. We don't need air marshals that can?t be everywhere and federal security; in fact federal security is a farce that serves only to makes white sheeple feel safe while they chug beer and watch TV. The reality is only you are responsible for your own security, and if you are feeling generous, the security of those around you who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

There is no excuse for the actions of those in N.O., I don't buy "fragile mind." They acted how they would probably always act if there were no consequences. A true measure of a person's integrity is how that person behaves in situations like N.O. while carrying the ability to impart life or death for another person inches from their fingers in a time where there may not be consequences.

And snipers.... the media has overused the term... anyone that can throw a rock from behind a wall and duck back down is considered an expert sharp shooter in the eyes of the media. A true "sniper" would have killed one person for every shot fired, and to my knowledge, nobody in N.O. has been downed by "sniper" fire. In fact, from what I have heard regarding these lousy "snipers" suggests they wouldn't even qualify in basic marksmanship.

And all the talk about "paramilitary" groups and "vigilantes" (ie: minuteman project, armed civilians patrolling for looters in N.O., etc) ... don't forget this country and our beloved constitution was FOUNDED AND WRITTEN BY vigilantes and militia men who figured out long ago what people today still don't get.

"we pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor"

:thumbsup:

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
The question I have and will always have: Who the f*ck needs an AK47 or an Uzi or a high powered semi automatic weapon to shoot wabbits?
I think people should have the right to bear arms, but I don't understand why most of you are so passionate when it comes to restricting guns that can maim and kill a lot of people in a short period of time.

Semi-auto rifles account for a relatively small percentage of illegal gun use. Handguns are far more likely to be used, be they autos or revolvers.

 

[Painkiller]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aircooled
You may or may not believe in stats, but these are real numbers. Something is obviously not right in our (U.S.) model.

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population:

---------------------------Homicide----------------Suicide---------------Unintentional

USA-------------------4.08 (1999)--------------6.08 (1999)----------0.42 (1999)

Canada---------------0.54 (1999)--------------2.65 (1997)----------0.15 (1997)

Switzerland-----------0.50 (1999)--------------5.78 (1998)----------

Scotland--------------0.12 (1999)---------------0.27 (1999)----------

England/Wales-------0.12 (1999/00)-----------0.22 (1999)----------0.01 (1999)

Japan-----------------0.04 (1998)---------------0.04 (1995)----------<0.01 (1997)

By including Switzerland, you've shot your argument in the foot.

Note Switzerland is lower than Canada, yet has far more liberal gun laws. In fact, most men have fully automatic weapons in their homes.

Switzerland and Israel are two shining examples that high private ownership of firearms does NOT cause violence in and of itself. Therefore the banning or severe regulation of firearms will NOT cure our ills.

Look elsewhere to stem the violence in the US.

It was all I could find.. but you gotta admit that the US number is drastic compared to any other number. even discarding Switzerland....

Absolutely.

No one here has ever claimed the US doesn't have a problem with our murder rate.

But blaming an inanimate object for the intentions of men is absurd.

And this isn't even theoretical, as Switzerland and Israel prove the point that liberal gun laws and high rates of personal gun ownership do NOT cause violence.

BTW, were you aware that of all those countries, Japan has the highest suicide rate... by far? Again, proof that guns don't cause suicide, but instead become the method of choice if available.

Yes blaming an inanimate object for the intentions of men is absurd. Making it easier for mentally unstable men to obtain fire arms is even more absurd.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Painkiller

Yes blaming an inanimate object for the intentions of men is absurd. Making it easier for mentally unstable men to obtain fire arms is even more absurd.

It is already illegal for people with a history of mental illness to buy a gun. People with documented mental illnesses are databased, and found in instant background checks at purchase.

And the vast, VAST majority of crimes with guns are NOT committed by people who bought their gun legally.

You can either nanny all of society, and limit everyone's freedom to protect yourself from the tiny minority, or you can allow the law abiding their freedom, and target only those who commit crimes.

I'll take freedom, thank you.

 

[Mathlete]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: my sons father
Guns suck. They make paranoid people a danger to everyone around them. They give a sense of power to people who crave it because they have an inferiority complex, and don't feel complete without a weapon. They also fall into the hands of innocent children, because some gun owners are complete idiots!

Those same idiots kill kids with their cars too. Should we take away peoples right to drive because there are morons out there who don't know how to act.

No but we do make LAWS to CONTROL who drives on the road, how fast they can legally drive, how much alcohol they can have in their system... That is Auto Control!!!

 

[Painkiller]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Painkiller

Yes blaming an inanimate object for the intentions of men is absurd. Making it easier for mentally unstable men to obtain fire arms is even more absurd.

It is already illegal for people with a history of mental illness to buy a gun. People with documented mental illnesses are databased, and found in instant background checks at purchase.

And the vast, VAST majority of crimes with guns are NOT committed by people who bought their gun legally.

You can either nanny all of society, and limit everyone's freedom to protect yourself from the tiny minority, or you can allow the law abiding their freedom, and target only those who commit crimes.

I'll take freedom, thank you.

You really think you have any freedom?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Painkiller

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Painkiller

Yes blaming an inanimate object for the intentions of men is absurd. Making it easier for mentally unstable men to obtain fire arms is even more absurd.

It is already illegal for people with a history of mental illness to buy a gun. People with documented mental illnesses are databased, and found in instant background checks at purchase.

And the vast, VAST majority of crimes with guns are NOT committed by people who bought their gun legally.

You can either nanny all of society, and limit everyone's freedom to protect yourself from the tiny minority, or you can allow the law abiding their freedom, and target only those who commit crimes.

I'll take freedom, thank you.

You really think you have any freedom?

I have the freedom to own a gun, still.

I have lots of freedom. Just because you don't think you do doesn't mean you have to try and take away what freedom we have left.

BTW, nice dodge.

 

[Painkiller]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Painkiller

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Painkiller

Yes blaming an inanimate object for the intentions of men is absurd. Making it easier for mentally unstable men to obtain fire arms is even more absurd.

It is already illegal for people with a history of mental illness to buy a gun. People with documented mental illnesses are databased, and found in instant background checks at purchase.

And the vast, VAST majority of crimes with guns are NOT committed by people who bought their gun legally.

You can either nanny all of society, and limit everyone's freedom to protect yourself from the tiny minority, or you can allow the law abiding their freedom, and target only those who commit crimes.

I'll take freedom, thank you.

You really think you have any freedom?

I have the freedom to own a gun, still.

I have lots of freedom. Just because you don't think you do doesn't mean you have to try and take away what freedom we have left.

BTW, nice dodge.

I have nothing against guns, but I don't want to have to get one just because everyone else has one. So two sides of the fence are that either everyone has guns or nobody has guns. To me the middle would be gun control but that is just my opinion. No trying to change people's minds or convince them otherwise, just posting my thoughts.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Painkiller

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Painkiller

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Painkiller

Yes blaming an inanimate object for the intentions of men is absurd. Making it easier for mentally unstable men to obtain fire arms is even more absurd.

It is already illegal for people with a history of mental illness to buy a gun. People with documented mental illnesses are databased, and found in instant background checks at purchase.

And the vast, VAST majority of crimes with guns are NOT committed by people who bought their gun legally.

You can either nanny all of society, and limit everyone's freedom to protect yourself from the tiny minority, or you can allow the law abiding their freedom, and target only those who commit crimes.

I'll take freedom, thank you.

You really think you have any freedom?

I have the freedom to own a gun, still.

I have lots of freedom. Just because you don't think you do doesn't mean you have to try and take away what freedom we have left.

BTW, nice dodge.

I have nothing against guns, but I don't want to have to get one just because everyone else has one. So two sides of the fence are that either everyone has guns or nobody has guns. To me the middle would be gun control but that is just my opinion. No trying to change people's minds or convince them otherwise, just posting my thoughts.

There will never be a time when nobody has guns. The war on drugs was meant to make it so nobody had drugs. Prohibition was meant to make it so nobody had alcohol. We see how those worked out.

You cannot uninvent a 500+ year old, very simple technology.

Therefore, since criminals and tyrants will always have guns, I demand the right to equal the playing field.