quote:

ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor

I have always said the natives were wronged in the way they were treated.  However, my post was about the American experience, and in that light, not someone's twisting of my post, I say again, the colonists needed guns to protect themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

Hi there pretty kittin,

I'll tell you why I've been cleanin', oilin' and counting rounds....

I'm afraid some fuckin idiot obessed enough with racial paranoia will be inspired to or easily framed as a man willing to kill the man of the hour and the rest of the closet rasict on every side will be fighting in the streets...

quote:

ORIGINAL: N4SDChastity

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

KS

Given that they will remain part of US culture the only question left is how to make sure they're as safely held as possible........

Shoot anyone who mishandles one?

quote:

ORIGINAL: N4SDChastity

Shoot anyone who mishandles one?

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

KS

Given that they will remain part of US culture the only question left is how to make sure they're as safely held as possible........

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

Now, now mist...... you guys simply have to learn to get along...

Now let's explore this idea of whale huggin' and stump breaking things up the shitter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

KS

...i used to be very much the same in that i had a visceral dislike of guns and couldn't understand why any culture would tolerate them being so freely available.
On another forum i voiced this opinion, and late one night got into a very interesting voice chat with an American gentleman. He asked me to think of something that, if taken away from British people, would constitute a loss of identity....a cultural artefact that could be said to define a Brit. i thought a bit and suggested football (the one where you actually kick the ball with the foot, not the American wimpy version of rugby ) .........then he suggested that i see gun ownership in the USa as being the same sort of thing. It's a part of the culture that transcends logic.......it's a cultural artefact. So, as i'm someone that does my best to defend anyones right to cultural artefacts, i find myself forced to back away from my previous anti-gun position.
Given that they will remain part of US culture the only question left is how to make sure they're as safely held as possible........

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kailen

Heh...There was a case in England a few years ago, some poor bugger of an old man shot a couple of gypsy's who were breaking into his farmhouse for the umpteenth time. He got put in jail for using unnecessary force (because he shot them). Now personally I think he was fully justified in shooting the two gypsy's, as gyspy's has broken into his home numerous times and likely wouldn't have thought twice about killing him if the correct circumstance arose.

Bit of a bugger for the old man, especially if you shoot anyone who mishandles a gun. That means the old man defending his property just got shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold


We should carry our weapons at all times.
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
...yup, damn tricksy Euros changing their mind in the face of new evidence.....can't trust 'em

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kailen

Heh...There was a case in England a few years ago, some poor bugger of an old man shot a couple of gypsy's who were breaking into his farmhouse for the umpteenth time. He got put in jail for using unnecessary force (because he shot them). Now personally I think he was fully justified in shooting the two gypsy's, as gyspy's has broken into his home numerous times and likely wouldn't have thought twice about killing him if the correct circumstance arose.

Bit of a bugger for the old man, especially if you shoot anyone who mishandles a gun. That means the old man defending his property just got shot.

...ah, now be fair. He wasn't prosecuted for shooting them as they tried to rob him.....he was prosecuted for shooting one of them in the back as they ran away. That was a clear infringement of the minimum force test that exists in British law and does not just apply to the use of firearms. Mind you, the police in that particular case acted appallingly in the months leading up to the incident.

Here is the problem with what is called the "middle ground"

The problem is that nearly every rifle and shotgun can be cut into a "handgun" by anyone smart enough to be able to operate a hacksaw, so in short your basic crackhead.  FBI statistics show the two most common guns used in crime are Mossberg 500 shotguns and Marlin/Glenfield Mod 60 .22 rifles cut down into pistols.  Both of those guns are exactly the same as a HUGE number of other guns that would be high on the list of "good/safe/hunting/nice" guns.  So banning/controlling/restricting handguns has ZERO effect so they keep bannning more and more.  Thus no middle ground.

Since it seems "bad" guns are anything painted black or are used in the movies, this again is a slippery slope one made even more stupid by the fact all guns are lethal, there is no more a "bad" gun than there is a "good or safe" one.

I think I covered that already but assualt weapons are less powerful, less accurate, less lethal AND cannot be shortened for the most part, certainly not by your average crackhead or even your average biker gang with a machine shop.

This sounds like hyperbole but it isn't.  The whole "lets ban .50 cals" fits in this.  Yes, it is a very powerful round that goes very very far.  So what?  Seriously.  Most gunfights happen at seven yard.  The damn things almost take two people to carry so they suck for doing drive-bys and robbing a bank takes an appointment.  Oh yeah the whole "you can shoot down a helicopter with one"  true in theory but lets not forget how these are semi auto at best with a ten round magazine.  In WII they used water cooled .50 cal machineguns in mounts of four and couldn't shoot down airplanes well and in vietnam they didn't down that many with similar set ups.  However, one guy who can shoot could down a helicopter with a lucky shot with your average hunting rifle just as easy and in fact easier because the weapon is lighter and easier to track with.  So it is complete overreaction to a non existent threat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor

Hey MadRabbit....thats always been my belief.  The gun control groups will never stop until they get full disarmament.  When the the "Brady bunch" got the Brady Bill passed, they did not fold up shop and go home.  They continued pushing for further "sensible" gun control measures.  People complain that gun groups like the NRA don't want to ever give an inch....and there's a reason for that!!  The gun banners won't ever just take a victory and quit the fight.  They keep going and going, so groups like the NRA understand that you have to dig your heels in and not give an inch.  While you might believe that victory in the recent heller case would end this gun control nonsense, the truth is, the new tactic now will be taxing guns and ammo to the point of unattainability by the vast majority of the public.  The battle is not over, and I don't see an end in sight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Here is the problem with what is called the "middle ground"

"lets just ban/control/restrict handguns"

The problem is that nearly every rifle and shotgun can be cut into a "handgun" by anyone smart enough to be able to operate a hacksaw, so in short your basic crackhead.  FBI statistics show the two most common guns used in crime are Mossberg 500 shotguns and Marlin/Glenfield Mod 60 .22 rifles cut down into pistols.  Both of those guns are exactly the same as a HUGE number of other guns that would be high on the list of "good/safe/hunting/nice" guns.  So banning/controlling/restricting handguns has ZERO effect so they keep bannning more and more.  Thus no middle ground.

"Lets just control the "bad" guns"

Since it seems "bad" guns are anything painted black or are used in the movies, this again is a slippery slope one made even more stupid by the fact all guns are lethal, there is no more a "bad" gun than there is a "good or safe" one.

"Lets just ban those overpowered assualt weapons"

I think I covered that already but assualt weapons are less powerful, less accurate, less lethal AND cannot be shortened for the most part, certainly not by your average crackhead or even your average biker gang with a machine shop.

"Well we should at least ban SOMETHING"

This sounds like hyperbole but it isn't.  The whole "lets ban .50 cals" fits in this.  Yes, it is a very powerful round that goes very very far.  So what?  Seriously.  Most gunfights happen at seven yard.  The damn things almost take two people to carry so they suck for doing drive-bys and robbing a bank takes an appointment.  Oh yeah the whole "you can shoot down a helicopter with one"  true in theory but lets not forget how these are semi auto at best with a ten round magazine.  In WII they used water cooled .50 cal machineguns in mounts of four and couldn't shoot down airplanes well and in vietnam they didn't down that many with similar set ups.  However, one guy who can shoot could down a helicopter with a lucky shot with your average hunting rifle just as easy and in fact easier because the weapon is lighter and easier to track with.  So it is complete overreaction to a non existent threat.

As Merc, I am a left wing commie liberal but I do like my guns.  I think we have lost far more gun rights under republican's than we have under democrats.  I think the '94 elections clearly traumatized the smarter Dems and they are going to stay the hell away from guns and I think we have some issues that are just a bit bigger than this to deal with at the moment.  However, I am VERY paranoid about the supposed "middle ground" because there really is none.  Either the citizenry are trusted to own guns or we are not.  Some are happy with the government having all the power, I am not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor

Hey MadRabbit....thats always been my belief.  The gun control groups will never stop until they get full disarmament.  When the the "Brady bunch" got the Brady Bill passed, they did not fold up shop and go home.  They continued pushing for further "sensible" gun control measures.  People complain that gun groups like the NRA don't want to ever give an inch....and there's a reason for that!!  The gun banners won't ever just take a victory and quit the fight.  They keep going and going, so groups like the NRA understand that you have to dig your heels in and not give an inch.  While you might believe that victory in the recent heller case would end this gun control nonsense, the truth is, the new tactic now will be taxing guns and ammo to the point of unattainability by the vast majority of the public.  The battle is not over, and I don't see an end in sight.

There you go!

That's the spirit of compromise!

Did you ever think that the "Brady Bunch" as you so derisively refer to them might have had just a little extra motivation because of the guy in the wheelchair?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor
So you think Outlaw would be safer sitting in his living room, unarmed, when 6 thugs decide to kick his door in unarmed themselves?  Unless Outlaw is the new Bruce Lee, God help him if he has no gun. 

Well... if you live in a Lethal Weapon movie I suppose being armed makes sense. BUT this means carrying your weapon on you at all times: otherwise, good luck finding the thing after the thugs have kicked your front door in.

Should we carry on our business being armed at all times? Should children be armed at all times, just in case?  Because that's the logical next step.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Outlaw85

You know you have a very good point in that too.  I have considered this myself.  If half the population were to suddenly, stop paying taxes, imagine how quickly the government would be brought to it's knees.


but in a worst case scenario then the government would try to intimidate the population through use of arms ala saddam husein or the blockading of boston harbor and the housing of soldiers in people's homes ala King George.

of course, those situations are likely as you said, not plausable in this day and age, and also like you said, the tradition of it is a key factor,  it's a tradition that we are armed to make sure that it never happens again.  

I will also argue that the southern states did have some legitimate complaints and justifications for seceeding from the united states in 1861.

Your post  indicates a dramatic lack of knowledge of the history of the U.S.
 
H.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoulPiercer

Imagine if you will: Abortions Up Since McCain Election Victory.

After 26 years of being of voting age, I still cannot figure out why guns and abortion seem to always be rights that people are afraid of losing if their party doesn't win the election.

Reagan - 8 years
Bush 41 - 4 years
Bush 43 - 8 years = Abortion is still legal

Jimmy Carter - 4 years
Bill Clinton - 8 years = Guns are still legal

It really, really is the economy folks.

quote:



but it hasn't convinced me that I, and my family, are safe from firearms. I want them away from me, at all times. How do you guarantee that?

PS: edited for claridad.