Re: OT - Is it really worth saving any more?

Page 10 of 13  
Robatoy wrote:

You have your own person? I thought slavery was illegal, even in Canada. Boy did I miss something ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled several years ago that the average citizen DOES NOT have a Constitutional right to PERSONAL police protection. The Police are there to protect society not the indivicual.
Dave N
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have to say, that is entirely the point. Kudos. Except that I stand on the other side of the same line. To put it in very few words, it's the will to resist that's a problem, not the popguns and peashooters that they allow us.
It isn't the firearms lending a prop for a "delusion of confidence". It's the mindset of resisting wrong doing, violently if need be, that causes one to seek out and acquire the tools to do so. Much as one acquires a saw to cut wood, the perceived need precedes the purchase, not the other way around. (If it matters to you, I own more handsaws than I do firearms.) What's the opposite? What is so wrong with cowering behind your mattress and dialing 911 when things go bump in the middle of the night? Briefly, by abdicating responsibility for your physical safety and the sanctity of your home, you had already bought in on the big lie, a "delusion of confidence", of a benevolent and effective goverment. I don't share your delusion. And while this simple difference in opinion shouldn't divide us, your vocal opposition to my way of living does. I have never once tried to deprive you of your right to think as you do. Why should you feel so free to do so to me? (That's a rhetorical question. I already know why, but I wonder if you do.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

You didn't read it all:
SOUND BITES FROM BEFORE AND AFTER THE REVOLUTION
Samuel Adams:
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And your point? All through this discussion, you and most everybody else who lives in the US refer constantly to the laws and rights in your country. Grow up and realize that there's other countries out there with their own laws and rights and they're doing fine thanks. Who the hell do you think you are insisting that *your* way is the best for everybody else? There's many great things about your country. Your supreme arrogance is definitely not one of them.
Come up to Canada and live here for a few years without a gun in your house or anywhere within reach and then you *might* be able to talk with a little bit of knowledge and intelligence about what's best for Canadian citizens. Until then, shove it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

My goodness! My point was that US gun rights weren't based on a single use of guns to "kill and maim". I made no mention of what was best for anyone including the US.
With your short fuse, perhaps it's better you live in Canada where a gun isn't easily available to you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bull. A significant portion of this lengthy discussion has included what's best or better for other countries. And please, I'm kind of slow, so please spell it out exactly to me what other use than killing and maiming you'd use a hand gun for? Leaving aside armed forces, peace officers and the relatively few target shooters, hunters and farmers, there is really only one use for a gun. And you think your millions and millions should be armed at will?
I know, you'd use the butt of your hand gun when there wasn't a hammer close by. Perhaps you'd need it to be important and feared by all your friends and neighbours.

That's right, dig out the insinuations while having minimal knowledge about other people or places. You run with that opinion. I'm sure you'll go far with it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

You seem to confuse what I have said with what others hae said.

"beep, boop, boop"
"911. What's your emergency?"
"Someone is breaking in my front door!"
"Please tell whoever it is that we are dispatching the police."
"STOP! THE POLICE ARE ON THE WAY.... KABOOM"
"This is 911 - what was that noise?... hello.....hello"

Seems your response to Larry was an arrogant statement about what was best in modern day US.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A few years ago, Ted Nugent was doing his show on his radio station in Detroit, a station I would listen to quite often. There had been a rash of car-jackings in the Detroit area. Ted (or a guest on his show, I don't recall) suggested that if a driver was in a bad neighbourhood to put his gun on his lap, pointing at the door. When a car-jacker would approach, just plug the bastard, right through the door. That in fact happened a couple of times. News travels fast and from then on, any carjacker deep-down knew he could be approaching a target that would shoot his balls off. The car-jackings went way down in a hurry.
I think that allowing citizens to arm themselves makes their homes, cars etc. targets that could shoot your balls off. Approaching a house, where the odds are more than 50-50 that the occupant/owner will shoot you, is a better deterrent than anything else I can think of.
Here in Canada, odds are that the home-owner is NOT armed.
That is wrong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 09:54:19 -0800 (PST), Robatoy

...hear here!
cg (I can't believe I spelled "defense" *defence*...must be in the water...).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

... snip

Wow, we actually agree on something. IIRC, shortly after you all had instituted some of your latest draconian gun laws, there were reports that home invasion robberies had increased by a significant percentage due to the fact that the bad guys knew they were most likely approaching soft targets. Is that still the case, or has that moderated?
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

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

The countries who most often whine and moan about the US and its "arrogance" are often the countries who would be whining and moaning with a German or Russian accent were they not living in the shadow of our protection. :-)
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One could wonder, with equal validity, who the hell you think you are, insisting that our way is wrong *for us*...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm sure you feel your way is right for you. That's not how this discussion originated. My part in it originated with my stating that innocent bystander shootings were a popular news item *in Canada* and I got an argument. I've always had Canadian firearm laws in mind when I've posted. As usual, the conversation somehow turned to what's best for people in the US. Maybe that's not arrogance, but it sure seems to be something akin to it because again, the discussion has been twisted to what US citizens feel.
If what I said sounded otherwise, that was not my intention. I've always stated I felt our firearm laws were sufficient for Canadians and argued against the US style of firearms laws *for Canadians*. You can do as you want down in the US. It's not my country, it's yours.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're perhaps too quick to see "arrogance" and "twisting the discussion" in what is probably no more than the natural result of the geographic distribution of the contributors to this newsgroup, i.e. more here from the U.S. than from the rest of the world combined.

I'll keep that in mind.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Winterburn wrote:

Some years ago a congressman speaking before Congress stated that the 2nd amendment wasn't about shooting Bambi. It was about shooting politicians who were screwing with the voting public. His speech was deleted from the Congressional Record.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL -- wonder who that was. Wouldn't surprise me if it was Dan Burton (R-Indiana).
The point is valid, though: all of the rights and freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are only so many empty promises if we the people lack the means to compel the government to honor those guarantees should it ever become reluctant to do so on its own.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

No I don't think that it was Dapper Dan.

In a compromise the original Congress agreed to adopt amendments to the Constitution to cover certain rights that were left out of the original document. These became the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. What most people don't know or realize what became the 1st amendment was originally the THIRD of thirteen resolutions that were submitted to the 13 states. The first resolution became the 2nd amendment upon ratification by 7 states. You can look up the dates yourself.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you
Obviously, they've happened because even though the laws are restrictive, guns were still available. Yet, here are wanting to make more guns available and more easily? The only possible end result is that things like that would happen more. There's no way you can argue that point.
While a number of gun crimes result because of firearms stolen from collectors, a sizable amount of them have happened because of guns smuggled up from the US.
And to Doug who jokingly suggests that baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes, automobiles need to be banned, all of those things have other other uses while hand guns have one use. A deadly use that can be effectively wielded from a distance ~ not even closely comparable to the examples you used Doug.
And of course for John Clarke, it makes perfect sense to legalize guns for millions so the four Olympic shooters in the country can practice their craft. Well thought out reasoning John.

what
It's an increasing problem, not a small problem.

Kids
You do have a point there, but for one thing. Population sizes and societal values have changed to a great degree. People weren't as packed together like sardines in the cities as they are today and there's been an extremely large influx of immigrants into Canada. When I went to school, if there was a fight, it was a fist fight. I wouldn't have dreamed of pulling out the pocket knife I had in my back pocket and I've never carried a gun of any type for the purpose of protection. Those values are different these days.
I won't argue for one second that just removing guns is going to solve all the problems that exist. I never suggested that for one second. However, it will help while also attending to the root causes of why a number of people use guns to solve their problems.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

and
I'll ask you again. What will be the result if you get definitive proof? The links I posted were available with a simple 10 minutes search. Assuming I spent 2 hours and produced undeniable evidence. What gain will there be.
Two of the links I produced were exactly the evidence *without question* that you've demanded to see, yet in your infinite wisdom, you've chosen to shoot them down anyway. The woman smoking and the guy walking by the bar were both innocent bystanders shot down by people who moments before had been asked to leave. They weren't gang members and theirs no evidence to say that they were out just to cause trouble.
I can product quite a few more articles like people being shot at birthday parties, non violent gatherings and stuff like that. But, why do I need to? I've given you two examples and you're demanding more.
Let me put the onus on you. Prove I'm wrong about the two shooting incidents above and then I'll see about finding you more proof.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.