quote Originally posted by Patrick: No need to get catty. There are plenty of guns up here. We just don't feel the need to take them to the supermarket with us.

Nothing catty about it, Except for drone strikes on our own homegrown terrorist advertised on the news, I highly doubt an invading army will every set a tea time and give us a step by step guide as to how and were they will come. In the age of foreign and domestic terrorism it is absurd to think anyone these days anywhere is safe anymore. People will clash no matter were you are and it's the weak and undefended that usual are the first of target. Note: Schools, Shopping Malls and Big tall buildings as recent examples. A gun is a tool just as a jet or a shovel or any other thing that could be used as as weapon. You do not know were and you usually do not know the why till after it is done. But, the prepared individuals that are in the right place at the right time can and do make a difference. Note the incidence a few months ago in that shopping mall, a gunman went in to do a little innocent bystander hunting trip only it got cut short when he was confronted by a individual there in the right place with his weapon. The gunman took himself instead. The Royal Mounted Mall Cop could do nothing, he was not prepared he had no weapon he was false security to the people in the mall he was a person with a walkie talkie and no way to mount a defense.

quote Originally posted by skuzzbomer: And who said that was the case?

At least two people in just this thread alone.

quote Originally posted by skuzzbomer: Doesn't mean people shouldn't know how to use one or should be scared of an inanimate object.

I can't speak for everyone else, but...

I don't think anyone here has stated that people shouldn't be allowed to learn how to use a gun.

I don't think anyone here has stated that people should be scared of an inanimate object.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: I can't speak for the other "foreigners", but I have no problem if you want a closet full of guns. And I have no problem if you want them for protection from your own government. I'm simply saying it's freakin' awful that it's too dangerous down there to go buy milk and bread without packing a gun.

You can say whatever you want. You can say there are millions of Martians living here on Earth. You can say you slept with Marylin Monroe.
Neither of which constitutes a true statement. (or do they?)
You may "think" they are true, just as you evidently think we are afraid to go to the store without a gun, but thinking and reality are two different things.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: I'm simply saying it's freakin' awful that it's too dangerous down there to go buy milk and bread without packing a gun.

In 1992 the aftermath of the Los Angeles Riots due to the Rodney King civil rights beating incident, after the criminal trial for the cops let them get away with it, by May 16, 1992, 51 men and 7 women were dead because of the riots and the Los Angeles Coroner's Office listed 50 of the 58 people dead as homicide victims. Forty-one of the victims were shot to death, seven were killed in traffic accidents, four died in fires, three were beaten to death, two were fatally stabbed, and one died of a heart attack.
I agree that it is much like a spare tire, a fire extinguisher, a seat belt. It is a tool.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: You may "think" they are true, just as you evidently think we are afraid to go to the store without a gun, but thinking and reality are two different things.

What is it you're disagreeing with... the use of the term "afraid"?

quote Originally posted by Patrick: What is it you're disagreeing with... the use of the term "afraid"?

Please show proof that any of us here are "afraid".

Do you buckle your seat belt because you are scared or because it just makes good sense to be prepared?
Wash your vegetables because you are frightened or simply to ensure safe food intake?
Do you run a good anti-virus program out of fear or simply to keep your data safe and secure--tremble in your boots if it isn't updated when you go online?

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Please show proof that any of us here are "afraid".

Seems to me we've been down this road before.

There are at least two people who have posted in this thread who appear to not leave their homes without being armed.

Unless they just happen to enjoy picking off empty beer cans on the side of the road, I'd say they are concerned about something.

Judging from what they've posted, if they didn't have their gun(s) with them, I suspect they'd be more concerned. Call it what you wish.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 02-12-2014).]

How about I answer the question as to why some officers in other countries are starting to carry firearms. Could it be that criminals in those countries aren't obeying the gun laws?

quote The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year. Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...-crime-soars-35.html

Nah, that can't be it. That's just to simple.

quote Toronto has witnessed a spate of brazen gun violence in the past few months. One man was killed and another later died of his injuries after a gang-related shooting on June 2 in a food court at the Eaton Centre, a downtown hub for shoppers and tourists alike.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/cana...disturbing-1.1129887

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Seems to me we've been down this road before. There are at least two people who have posted in this thread who appear to not leave their homes without being armed. Unless they just happen to enjoy picking off empty beer cans on the side of the road, I'd say they are concerned about something. Judging from what they've posted, if they didn't have their gun(s) with them, I suspect they'd be more concerned. Call it what you wish.

I already know their stance. I am asking yours.

Please show proof that any of us here are "afraid".

Do you buckle your seat belt because you are scared or because it just makes good sense to be prepared?
Wash your vegetables because you are frightened or simply to ensure safe food intake?
Do you run a good anti-virus program out of fear or simply to keep your data safe and secure--tremble in your boots if it isn't updated when you go online?

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Please show proof that any of us here are "afraid".

Please show proof that no one here is "afraid".

I have seen no one say they are.
I have been shot at hundreds of times. Spent countless days and nights knowing I would be shot at the next day. Never felt fear.
I think you watch too much TV.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-12-2014).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I already know their stance. I am asking yours. Please show proof that any of us here are "afraid". Do you buckle your seat belt because you are scared or because it just makes good sense to be prepared? Wash your vegetables because you are frightened or simply to ensure safe food intake? Do you run a good anti-virus program out of fear or simply to keep your data safe and secure--tremble in your boots if it isn't updated when you go online?

I own firearms, not because I'm scared. I bought my M1 91/30 so I could modify it (new stock, scope mount and scope) so if I ever decide to take up one of my neighbors on a deer hunt, I'll have a rifle I can use. I bought our handguns not because I was suddenly afraid, but because even though we live in a wonderful neighborhood I want my home protected and not by a 5 minute response time from the police. I bought the 2 handguns we currently own of such a size that I or my wife could conceal carry them if we felt the need. We rarely conceal carry, more me than her because of the young wannabe thug pot heads that I sometimes have to run off private property that I am the caretaker of. They don't exactly inspire the persona of rationality. Even then it's not because of fear but because "if" one of them ever decided to escelate the situation I want to be able to respond. It hasn't happened yet, but that doesn't mean it won't ever happen. Sorry, I have a wife and kids to take care of. We don't carry to the grocery store, we aren't afraid to go buy a loaf of bread...

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 02-12-2014).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I have seen no one say they are.

I guess that about wraps it up then.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: I guess that about wraps it up then.

Well I'll keep my ears out for ya.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Rationalize it all you want... you are both afraid. I'm not questioning your courage, but I am questioning the quality of your social environment. I wonder how many other "civilized" countries there are which have citizens who believe they need to be armed to go to the supermarket. IMO it's a very sad commentary on how badly the situation has apparently de-volved down there.

What?....what dumb thing to say. Yup were all afraid, that's why we have spare tires, fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, air bags, seat belts, etc.....or could just be a little thing called being prepared?

wow...

quote Originally posted by jetsnvettes2000: Apparently our German friend here forgot a certain part of history Were a whole bunch of people were systematically disarmed for their own good than tossed into ovens and those o so comfy gas showers and mass graves. Man I usually stay out of these kind of threads but dang the stupid burns to a point here I have to say something. History is destine to repeat itself if it is left to do so.

I was waiting for that one, it always appears eventually. So your argument goes that an armed Jewish populace would have had a fighting chance against a military (a 1930's military)? Consider the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. The Jewish population there did arm themselves and did fight back. They were pounded by professional soldiers, artillery, tanks and ground-attack aircraft. Not many survived.

Personally, I don't buy the "defense against the government" argument. Maybe if your government is that of the Congo... But if the US population were serious about it, the first thing to do would be to severely cut back military spending. Having the world's mightiest military machine (that you, and I, paid for with tax dollars) against you will be very bad for your chances to defend your freedom against the government. Alternatively, you can stock up on armor-piercing weapons and AA guns and visit Jihad websites to learn how to make IED's...

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: I was waiting for that one, it always appears eventually. So your argument goes that an armed Jewish populace would have had a fighting chance against a military (a 1930's military)? Consider the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. The Jewish population there did arm themselves and did fight back. They were pounded by professional soldiers, artillery, tanks and ground-attack aircraft. Not many survived. Personally, I don't buy the "defense against the government" argument. Maybe if your government is that of the Congo... But if the US population were serious about it, the first thing to do would be to severely cut back military spending. Having the world's mightiest military machine (that you, and I, paid for with tax dollars) against you will be very bad for your chances to defend your freedom against the government. Alternatively, you can stock up on armor-piercing weapons and AA guns and visit Jihad websites to learn how to make IED's...

An army cannot fight an armed resistance indefinitely. Yes, they would have fared much better. The U.S. government could never successfully suppress the U.S. population. All the technology in the world cannot fight against people who are motivated, armed, and living within the battlefield. tanks, guns, jets, etc. all a moot point when millions of armed citizens with access to decent weapons and ingenuity.

I'm quite surprised at your naivete with this statement.

The Culture of Fear.

quote The documentary details the epidemic of fear in our society, ranging from child predators to immigrants and from flu pandemic to terrorism. It features interviews with Dr. Noam Chomsky, a renowned linguist, human behaviorist, and political activist; US House Representative Dennis Kucinich, once US presidential candidate; and many other experts offering an in-depth exploration of the culture of fear. Culture of Fear is a term used by certain scholars, writers, journalists and politicians who believe that some in society incite fear in the general public to achieve political goals. The term is used to describe fears about Islamic terrorism which, it is argued, are fears that are usually exaggerated or irrational in nature. The term has also been used to describe irrational fear in other contexts, such as citizens fearing persons of different ethnic backgrounds, or neighborhood residents fearing retribution if they assist police in identifying criminals.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/culture-of-fear/

quote Originally posted by skuzzbomer: There are too many shitty people in the world ...

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

You lock your door, are cautious, stay out of bad neighborhoods, withdraw from confrontation, get insurance, call the police. It's just not black or white, either being at the mercy of the criminal or being armed. There is a line (more of a gray area, I guess) where more protection becomes counterproductive as the disadvantages mount.

Everybody draws a line somewhere (actually, it's not a line but a gray area). A few may see the need to walk around in body armor but most don't. Some see the need to only buy the safest cars available, no matter the cost or design but most don't (especially all Fiero drivers).

My opinion is that defensive measures against crime and attack make sense up to a point. For me, private ownership of firearms (other than for sport and hunting and locked away at a remote location when not in use) is on the far side of that line. The disadvantages and dangers associated with private ownership of firearms outweigh the advantages (which I don't deny at all) so on balance I'm against it. Not out of principle, just the result of a cost/benefit analysis.

[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 02-12-2014).]

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: An army cannot fight an armed resistance indefinitely.

Yes, and any government cannot fight an unarmed but broad-based resistance indefinitely, either. The British colonial troops were definitely better armed than Gandhi and his followers. The while minority in SA was definitely better armed than Mandela and his followers. The Polish government was definitely better armed than Walesa and his followers. The East German government could have easily crushed the popular uprising that led to the fall of the Berlin wall and German reunification. If the general population opposes a regime, it will not stand indefinitely.

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: So your argument goes that an armed Jewish populace would have had a fighting chance against a military (a 1930's military)? Consider the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. The Jewish population there did arm themselves and did fight back. They were pounded by professional soldiers, artillery, tanks and ground-attack aircraft. Not many survived.

Yeah well, it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees - George Washington
Personally, I don't buy the "defense against the government" argument. Maybe if your government is that of the Congo... But if the US population were serious about it, the first thing to do would be to severely cut back military spending. Having the world's mightiest military machine (that you, and I, paid for with tax dollars) against you will be very bad for your chances to defend your freedom against the government. [/QUOTE]
It is against our Constitution for our military to be used against citizens. Your assumption relies on the military siding with the powers that be. That's why Nobama called for a civilian national security force which is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Definitely the US is the odd one out. I'm okay with that. And so is the rest of the world when they need us to save their asses.

So the private ownership of firearms in the US somehow enables it's ass-saving military? Please explain.

EDIT: Now I remember. The US called up the militia in 1941, everybody took their rifles out of their closets and assembled on the coasts, was shipped to Asia and Europe and then went on to win WW2. Right?

[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 02-12-2014).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: I have double dead-bolts on all my doors and bars on my windows. And yes, I lock my doors.

If the guns owners are afraid you must be scared shitless. I understand locking your door, but double dead bolts and bars on your windows?! What are you so scared of?

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: Interesting. Isn't one of the main arguments against control of private gun ownership that "only criminals would have guns"? Apparently you're of the opinion that it's possible for people to break regular laws but not the constitution.

I am not of that opinion. Especially after this bozo we have in office. However, many serving in the military may not feel the call to take up arms against citizens.
Also, during our Civil War, the military did use force to quell the secession of the southern states.

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: And that civilian national security force would then side with the government when the regular military isn't? How so? Would that civilian national security force swear person allegiance to the president or how would that work, in your opinion?

Sheesh, it's hard to opine on that. I would think it would be as divided as to whether allegiance to the president would be followed just as father fought son and brother fought brother in our Civil War. Sure there would be some hard core allegiance and promotions would reward it. I could see a very loyal unit being put together. No denigration intended but Hitler had a national security force (as I think I understand it). How did that work ?

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: So the private ownership of firearms in the US somehow enables it's ass-saving military? Please explain. EDIT: Now I remember. The US called up the militia in 1941, everybody took their rifles out of their closets and assembled on the coasts, was shipped to Asia and Europe and then went on to win WW2. Right?

Your leaps of logic fail to connect. I didn't make that claim. I agree with you that we are a breed apart from the rest of the world. Our private firearm ownership is one aspect of that. Our ass-saving military is another. How much our gun ownership contributes to a lack of invasion attempts is debatable. A large armed populace worked for the Swiss in WWII. While their approach to gun ownership is different, the end result is a large body of the people armed and able to resist an invading force.

Why are so many afraid to admit a lot of their motivation for their personal well being are fear based?

The oath contains "all enemies, foreign and domestic"...........

The military is sworn to protect the Constitution, not the government. Our government is limited by the Constitution, not empowered by it.

Although, the current group in DC seems intent on pushing the envelope, whenever and wherever they can.

Another point that should be made, a populace that is familiar with small arms allows the military to rapidly raise a force that needs very little training to be effective marksmen when in the field. The British know this first hand, as do every enemy we have had to face. Our military has never lost a war, although it could be said that our government has..........

quote Originally posted by newf: Why are so many afraid to admit a lot of their motivation for their personal well being are fear based?

Our founding fathers feared an unchecked government. Does that count ?

quote Originally posted by yellowstone: And that civilian national security force would then side with the government when the regular military isn't? How so? Would that civilian national security force swear person allegiance to the president or how would that work, in your opinion?

I think you only have to look at the National Park Service during the government shutdown last year for your answer. They were all too willing, even eager, to flex their might against the American people for such things as "recreating" by looking at scenery from the side of the road when the national park was closed.


My personal thought is the Civilian National Security Force is the local police forced if they are placed under Federal control. Being a civilian force, they are not bound by Posse Comitatus and we've all seen how the various police forces in the nation have become more militarized and standardized with military equipment. That makes it very each to attach each local unit to Federal control in the event of a emergency.

Maybe that's off base, but I've not seen any other more plausible explanation of what a Civilian National Security Force that's "just as powerful, just as well funded" as our military.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Your leaps of logic fail to connect.

Than why did you bring of these two non-connected issues? I agree that they aren't connected and I was pointing that out.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: How much our gun ownership contributes to a lack of invasion attempts is debatable.

Not as much as having a large land-mass to occupy and two oceans to cross, IMO.

quote Originally posted by Formula88:A large armed populace worked for the Swiss in WWII. While their approach to gun ownership is different, the end result is a large body of the people armed and able to resist an invading force.

I think that a well-developed banking system and lack of scruples of any kind to deal with whomever offered money had something to do with it, too. I think that Switzerland was just more useful for everybody being neutral to be invaded by either. A difficult geography and being a target of relatively small strategic importance may have contributed.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: What's more of a "joke"... people who haven't had a need to be familiar with ammunition, or people who are afraid to step outside of their home without being armed?

You want to know what a joke is, people who were city folk, bought a place in the outskirts of the city bordering a wooded area and would call the local animal control guy, we know real well, that there was a deer in their yard and they were afraid to go outside because it was going to eat them, that a joke.

a single bullet in a garden in the UK scaring someone is not a joke it is stupid.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't



Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

Canada vs America in a thread on guns again.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I think you only have to look at the National Park Service during the government shutdown last year for your answer. They were all too willing, even eager, to flex their might against the American people for such things as "recreating" by looking at scenery from the side of the road when the national park was closed.

Yeah, that was tragic/hilarious/idiotic where that happened. Federal employees seem to be separate from the "American people", in your opinion. I don't agree with that. What I do agree with is that there are many little unimportant and frustrated "Napoleons" who like to throw their authority around. You find that in any level of government and also in private business (think bouncers).

Only about 2% - 3% of American citizens have a concealed weapons permit.

-chacha

Alot of those dont even carry.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Only about 2% - 3% of American citizens have a concealed weapons permit. Alot of those dont even carry.

I know. Usually most people are quite normal everywhere. That goes for muslims vs. jihadists as much as Americans vs. gun carriers.

(ducks and runs for cover)