Ah, the enjoyment of gun ownership and use...

Page 2 of 4  
" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

What if granny is the perp?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yours probably is. Good thing you live in that rat hole up North.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sure bub, That's why the jails are full of grannies instead of young make punks. Too bad for you that the stats give say otherwise Apparently you are stupid enough to imagine that the exception makes the rule.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course you would come up with such silliness.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Try making that criminal vs citizen and you would be right. There is very little LAW-ABIDING citizen on citizen crime...

See battle of Athens, Tennessee for the counter

It also need to have those people see citizens as the enemy Most police and military, being on the right, have a far better grasp of Constitutional issues than most. They also have sworn an oath to protect the Constitution, NOT the government.

Only idiots ignorant of history When the law-abiding are disarmed it does NOTHING to disarm the criminals who will then subjugate and terrorize the law-abiding.

And yet, the US, compared to just about any Western and non-Western country, is one of the few countries that has stayed the course more than 200 years in respecting individual rights and freedoms..
Your abyssal ignorance of history is sad to see.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Attila.Iskander" wrote:

All criminals are law abiding citizens - up until they commit a crime that is.

Technically there is no such thing as law-abiding citizen-on-citizen crime.

What's sad about that story is how the Cantrell clan ruled that county for (it appears) the better part of a decade as their own little kingdom, and all during that time the armed citizenry just stood by and watched:
You will note that in this case, it was not the federal or even state gov't that was imposing tyranny upon the citizens of McMinn County.
==================The sheriff and his deputies operated a fee system under which they received a cut of the money for every person they booked, incarcerated, and released; the more arrests, the more money they made. Often, buses passing through the county were pulled over and the passengers were randomly ticketed for drunkenness, whether guilty or not. ================== It was actually the LACK of action on the part of the state and federal gov't to deal with the Cantrell clan and restore effective gov't and libery to the citizens of McMinn County.
============The 79th Congress had adjourned on August 2, 1946, when the Battle of Athens ended. However, Representative John Jennings Jr. from Tennessee decried McMinn County's sorry situation under Cantrell and Mansfield and the Justice Department's repeated failures to help the McMinn County residents. ============ The wiki article points out that even though the state guard was mobilized, they did not even go to Athens - likely because the GI's in the Guard did not want to confront the citizen-GI's leading the rebellion against the Cantrells. It could be argued that had the rebellion been led or composed of non-GI's, that the Guard would have deployed to Athens and put an end to the citizen uprising.
Ultimately, it's not clear to me that the tyranny imposed by the Cantrell clan couldn't or wouldn't have been exposed and put to an end by sufficient application of the federal and state court system - no guns needed.

What weapons would the criminals have that the law-abiding citizens would *not* have?
I said that the genie can't be put back in the bottle. That means you can't wave a magic wand and make all civillian guns (guns in the hands of all types of citizens - criminals and otherwise) disappear.
But if you could - if no guns were ever available to anyone, that also means criminals too.

With what?
Sticks and stones? Clubs and knives? Their fists?
The citizens can have those too.

This has got nothing to do with rights and freedoms.
How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but not a machine gun?
Or a rocket launcher or bazooka or high explosives or all sorts of other deadly / destructive products?
Why aren't you crying foul that you can't buy hand grenades or land mines?
Or that you can't grow and smoke your own marijuana?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sorry if I'm not using the correct protocol for posting .... don't do it all that much.
"Home Guy" said:

What you said is so absurd that it boggles the mind. So, I guess if a person is allowed to have a knife and a baseball bat in their home for self defense, then with your reasoning, it should somehow be escalated to something like, "then why not allow a nuclear bomb as well"? What gives with that? How does your mind come up with such a conclusion? Do you apply this escalation to everything? How you get from a reasonable point (A) a gun to defend yourself and family to (B) then anything goes? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It is called irony. Americans don't understand it and never will.
Oh, I think we can understand "irony" when it's presented. We can also recognize a "non sequitur".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:19:50 -0800, "Forrest"

Need an assault rifle to "defend your home?" Big stink about allowing them to be owned by civilians. Gun lobby won that one. Seems a 12 gauge auto-loader should do for home defense, o You can shorten it to 26" with 18" barrel.. If you take the tack that the 2nd Amendment is to protect you from the government, you should be able to own mines and grenades, SAMS, tanks, auto-cannons, etc. Why not? Otherwise you're basically a sitting duck to gov firepower. Nukes are another story. There you get into EPA regulations.
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/1/2011 2:57 PM, Vic Smith wrote:

When the country was founded, the average citizen/hunter had a rifle that was superior to the rifle carried by soldiers. Technology has marched on. <no pun> ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:57:30 -0600, Vic Smith

Define "assault rifle".

So?
Good thing.

OK, if that's your choice. However, home defense isn't the only reason to own a gun.

Do study civics, some time.

You're loopy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ah, I see. A racist weapon. Yes, PC demands that they be banned.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

ONLY if you're stump stupid and can't read the 2nd Amendment for comprehension

there you go You proved you ARE stupid
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're not supposed to It's dishonest argument
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Home Guy wrote:

Huh? I own two: An Uzi and a fully automatic AK-47. Both are fully legal.

Those, too, can be lawfully owned by American civilians.

Huh? Americans CAN buy hand grenades or land mines. Of course they, and the items above, may be subject to local or state restrictions, but there is no federal prohibition, per se, declaring them contraband.

Because marijuana IS contraband under federal law.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Tautology Most crime is criminal on criminal

That's usually the case. Most people are sheeple

So ? Does it matter who imposes the tyranny ?
Tyranny is tyranny, no matter who imposes it.
<<snip>>

Anything available on the black market Look at how effective gun-control has been in the last century History shows that ANY form of prohibition is due for failure

Finally you got something right Too bad you don't comprehend what it means.

Not everyone is strong or quick enough to use those successfully. At 60, I sure as hell, am not stupid enough to get into a fistfight with some punk 40 years younger than me. I'll just shoot the goblin

It has EVERYTHING to do with rights and freedoms All those other failures were all about a LACK of INDIVIDUAL rights and freedoms

There you go being ignorant again I do have the right to own a machine gun

More ignorance They don't qualify as "personal arms" as understood by the 2nd Amendment

More ignorance They don't qualify as "personal arms" as understood by the 2nd Amendment

Why would I want to be a (stupid and ignorant) pot-head like you ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Attila.Iskander" wrote:

Guns are not the "great equalizer".
Someone that's too weak (physically, emotionally, etc) to use physical force to commit a crime can more easily commit that crime by using a gun.

That presupposes that you always have a gun within easy reach, at all times, in your home or when out in public. That they're not taken from you during a struggle, used against you, stolen from you during these encounters.
Guns are not ergonomic replacements for physical ability when confronted with an un-armed assailant. Your own strength (if you have it) is something you always have with you, can be used instantly - reflexively, can't be taken and used against you.
When confronted with an armed assailant, there's no garantee that you won't be shot if you're unarmed. But if you are armed, the brandishing of your own gun will almost garantee a shoot-out, the outcome of which is far from certain.

You watch too much TV.

While I was under the impression that silencers and machine guns were generally prohibited across the board, it does seem that they are legal (if not hard to obtain and expensive to own) in some states, and illegal in others:
=================http://www.shootersdepot.com/legalities.html
NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT (Class 3 weapons ) LEGALITIES
To our knowledge, the following States BAN the following :
Machineguns are banned in : CA, DE, DC, HI, NY, WA.
Suppressors are banned in : CA, DE, DC, HI, IL, KS, MN, MO, MS, NY, NJ, RI.
Some States would have additional requirements (like LA, MD)
One more kink:
Machineguns (not the other NFAs) can only be owned by Civilians if they are registered as such by May 19, 1986. This is the reason that transferrable machineguns are gaining over 25% of value annually !!! ==================
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Home Guy wrote:

You're right, and that tactic will generally succeed - until he runs up against a putative victim who also has a gun. For that reason, "home invasions" and "kick burglaries" have never been too popular in the south and west. About the third time (on average) the stink-eyes try that tactic, they are met with double-barreled Betsy.

Hmm. I DO have a gun within easy reach at all times. I have several handguns stashed in various parts of the house, I have a concealed handgun license and always carry one with me.
Let's think about struggles. I do not let a potential assailant get close enough TO have a struggle. If he refuses my command to "STOP. Come no closer!" with the next step he sees my gun. Should, however, I am disarmed by some fluke, I pull my BUG (back up gun).

Guns ARE a replacement for physical ability when confronted by an un-armed assailant.*

Three times I've been accosted by an armed assailant (twice in the Home Depot parking lot). Once the assailant had a tire iron, once the assailant had a piece of a 2x2, and the third time the probable assailant refused to remove his hands from his pockets. When they were somewhere in the neighborhood of ten feet from me, I drew my weapon and commanded them to back off.

You can learn a lot from TV.
"[Shooting team sergeant] Okay, then this is your statement: 'I followed the suspect to a rear bedroom where he opened the bottom drawer of a bureau. He withdrew a large-caliber handgun and pointed it in my direction. I, then, in fear of my life, discharged my service weapon.' "
"[Officer] Yeah, like I said, he went for his piece and I smoked him."

-------- * True story. Shortly after concealed handguns became legal in Texas, a road-rage incident occurred in Dallas stop-and-go traffic. One van driver rushed to the driver's-side window of the second van, grabbed the driver's necktie and began pummeling the 2nd driver with his fists. The second driver drew his (now legal) pistol and canceled the assailant's ticket. The second driver wasn't even arrested.
There's a humorous coda to this story - at least for me. The first driver was a TRAINEE, his first day on the job. His supervisor was riding with him to show him the route. Now imagine the supervisor getting back to the office and slumping into the break room.
"How's the new guy working out?" some employee might ask.
"KIA, I'm afraid. We need to put the ad back in the paper..."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And yet, looking at the crime stats, they are the exception and not the rule Someone as you describe is not able to function on their own and depend on others for most everything in their lives.
Another false/dishonest/disingenuous posit from the hoplophobes

What makes you think that I don't ?

Another false false/dishonest/disingenuous posit from the hoplophobes that does NOT hold up when you look at the data. The opposite, people of all ages successfully defending themselves from much younger/stronger/faster/meaner criminals contradicts your claim

Another false/dishonest/disingenuous posit from the hoplophobes. Guns not supposed to be "ergonomic replacements for physical ability when confronted with an un-armed assailant.", whatever silly thing that may actually mean And yet statistically, guns do allow more people than not to effectively AND SUCCESSFULLY confront armed assailants

Another false/dishonest/disingenuous posit from the hoplophobes. The statistics prove otherwise This results in a) More than double the criminals being shot by citizens than the police b) ironically almost 6 times more innocent bystanders being shot by the police than armed citizens

Another false/dishonest/disingenuous posit from the hoplophobes. There are "NO GUARANTEES" to anything in life, except maybe death and taxes

Another false/dishonest/disingenuous posit from the hoplophobes. Your claim is unsupported by data The opposite is.

Probably watch far les than you Which does explain why I know more about this subject than you do.

Thank you for admitting that you are ignorant on this issue Now look at the post above and get ready to admit to even more ignorance

Nonetheless you're original claim was just another false/dishonest/disingenuous posit from the hoplophobes.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm familiar with "Indian" hunting rights, but I've never seen a reservation that did not have a grocery with a meat department, or empty of Indians.
That's limited anecdotal evidence, but I think we can safely assume Indians are more like you and me than unlike you and me.
Of course there are NA Eskimos that do harvest all or most of their warm-blooded meat, but I do not think they can be accurately described as relatively "significant".

Specifically, the subject was "meat", and not the flavor sensations of the perennially hungry.
I've been so hungry a cold C-Ration can of ham and eggs (that smelled exactly like canned dog food) or a half-cooked crunchy spaghetti LRP tasted better than anything I could remember. -----
- gpsman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.