...don't the Swiss have something similar? No question, though, they take their weapons home; for the duration. We don't hear much about the Swiss Berserkers...oh, Isreal's service commitment is unigender and required...interesting juxtaposition...
cg
And in Israel people regularly get shot up, blown up, and otherwise killed, but not by people who are legally armed and despite the best efforts of the Israeli government the people they don't want to be armed seem to be getting all the weapons they want.
You know WHY they're getting attacked. They are on land that doesn't belong to them. Other than that, next time you go trolling, don't use bait that looks as artificial as this ...
In a firearm troll thread? ;) Fer sure not at all required, but always welcome for the difficulty points.
Just when I thought you couldn't get any lower...
Pardon me if I allow my skepticism to show...
*Those* claims, on the other hand, I believe without reservation.So if you really have that level of experience with firearms, why would you imagine that anyone wants or needs a "sub machine gun ... or a bazooka in the trunk" (your words, not mine) for personal self defense?
Then you are a fool. Let me ask you. What if I was able to prove some of it to your satisfaction? What would it do to this discussion?
You're so gung ho about self protection. If everybody has a gun, then why haven't you ramped up your protection to outdo everybody else? That's partly why I asked the question and also because it *was* a ridiculous question to ask. Of course, you bit on it right away.
To the contrary, I would be a fool if I accepted at face value the claims of someone as rabidly anti-gun as yourself to be a gun owner with extensive shooting experience. To put it bluntly, I think you're lying about that.
That ought to be interesting...
All the more reason why I think you're lying about having, or knowing anything about, guns. You clearly don't understand the concepts involved.
So you only said that for "effect". Riiiiiiiiight.
I'll tell you what I want if you're proven wrong. I want you to publicly apologize to me for thinking I was lying and admit you're a fool for thinking so. Nothing less, nothing more. What would you want in return if I don't offer that proof? How about it big man, put yourself on the line. I'm willing to. This is going to be fun. One person would trust is Robatoy. He makes the occasional trip to Toronto. Him I would agree to meet. What it if he agrees to be arbiter?
You said this would be interesting, take it one step further. I ask you again. What would it take to prove otherwise while maintaining a certain level of my privacy?
Speaking only for myself, and presuming others might feel the same, it isn't worth even the crust on my one day old PBJ sandwich. It might be worth something to you, however, as your earlier "ramp up" escalation comment makes you look churlish, foolish, and ill informed.
Something you said made me think a bit and I'm come to the conclusion that you don't understand fully what I've trying to say. Perhaps it's partly the cause of the friction between us. I'm not "anti-gun". I'm anti-everybody having a gun and the average citizen being able to get a carry permit. There's a big difference between the first and the second as far as I'm concerned.
Does that make any sense to you? Owning a gun comes with a significant sense of responsibility. Your firearms laws negate any real responsibility.
One other thing. I don't cheat and I don't lie. As far as you accepting anything at face value, that's up to you, but you'd be 100% wrong in this case.
Give it up. NObody has EVER been able to make Miller see anything other than his own (often wrong) viewpoints. You, my friend, are wasting your time. I'd put him close to par with Timbo The Hot Air- inflatable Clown.
Another manifestation of the "I Know What's Good For Everybody Else" syndrome. "Everybody" cannot get a gun in the US, nor can "Everyone" carry - concealed or otherwise. But it's convenient to prop up these ideological strawmen in the face of contrary facts - stunning coming from someone who does not "cheat {or] lie". But, as always, you and yours love your self anointed role as Saviors Of Mankind and
*you* of course should get to decide just who fits into what category. It's precisely because of the liberty robbers with that attitude that the US Framers made personal gun ownership an explicitly protected right.The latter statement is absurd on its face and can only be uttered by someone with a complete lack of (or completely sophomoric) understanding of US laws, how power is divided between states and the Fed government, and just what firearms laws are in place in the US. To legally purchase a firearm in the US, you are under Federal, State, and sometimes local government scrutiny. Ditto purchasing ammo. If and when you discharge the weapon - whether in a range or at an intruder - you are once again under the supervision, and potentially the lockup of the state and local authorities respectively. Lethal force is legal in the US in only the narrowest of circumstances - defense of life and/or property, and even these vary considerably by State.
Then again, crimes tend to be committed by ... criminals ... for whom no amount of law makes much difference.
You support theft - we established that long ago in your vigorous defense of taking from some citizens and giving to others. This is a kind of cheating.
I can't speak to the lying issue - you seem truthful enough, however utterly wrong you are on most issues.
You honor me deeply by association with one of the few clear thinkers in this blabfest. And its good to know that I bug you enough that you feel the need to invent pet names of aggravation. Game ... set ... match (as always).
...the *laws* don't negate responsibility, the criminal part of our culture does. The *laws* are fine as written, the problem is in the enforcement. You're still on the arrogant side...you consider the "average" citizen to be pretty far down on the evolutionary scale, apparently. What *is* average?
cg
You've got to be kidding. He's clinically insane.
In other words, you think most people shouldn't be allowed to have them.
That makes you anti-gun.
Hardly.
You're clearly ignorant of our firearms laws.
Whatever. You're obviously strongly anti-gun, and your claim to own them is simply not plausible.
Uh-oh. That'd be libel. Expect some paperwork on that soon. You're about to find out how well connected I am south of the border.
Not necessarily. Almost without exception, lefty ideologues think they are above the huddled masses (the rest of us) and feel no particular compunction in granting themselves permission to do and own things they feel others should be forbidden from doing/having. It is entirely possible our dear Upscale wants for himself that which he wishes to deny others. The examples of such behaviors on the left are numerous (and nauseating). Among them, we find Our Savior Of The Earth, Al Gore, flying around in private jets. Our Savior Of The Downtrodden, Michael Moore, living the life of a wealthy millionaire. And, of course, Our Savior Of Everything, Comrade St. Obama, denying the average citizen (or trying to) the same protections afforded by firearms that he personally possesses (and we all pay for). They're not really liars - they're arrogant hypocrites...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key:
Dream on, Fuckface. It is YOU who is infatuated with ME. Now go play with somebody else. I have very little time for you.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.