In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

I need help with gun debate

jimkanejimkane Member Posts: 1,534 ✭✭✭✭✭
Hello all. Here at my college in my dorm we have been having an on going discussion about gun control. Somebody made the assertion that guns are not useful for self defence. I know this is bull but I need some facts to back it up. could I get links stats ect that whould help me in my arguement? Some of these people I am dealing with are no the brightest. They don't understand the issues they just know what the liberal media has portrade. Thanks guys.

Live for Peace, prepare for War
«1

Comments

  • kissgoodnightkissgoodnight Member Posts: 4,063 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The Bill of Rights was written to:
    a. Protect the rights of Bill.
    b. Protect Americans from the British.
    C. Protect Americans from their own government.

    Guess what? Only the American government is a danger to your rights.

    Also note: Everyone says we live in a democracy. This country is a Republic. "The Republic for which it stands" remember? People vote for representatives to vote for them.

    To get these rights, people died. If you give up your rights, someone will have to die to get them back for you. Don't give up the lives of your descendants easily.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Find a copy of John Lott s MORE GUNS LESS CRIME. A bit to statistical for my interests, but it certainly dispells the myth that gun ownership does not deter crime.

    "Sometimes the people have to give up some individual rights for the safety of society."
    -Bill Clinton(MTV interview)
  • hondohondo Member Posts: 181 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I dont pay much attention to statistics unless I know all the perameters that go with them. But I do put alot of faith in personal experience. I live in Southern California and two things have sold me on firearms ownership, the Watts riot and the Rodny King riot. Case closed................Hondo
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    [url][/url]www.flashbunny.org
    [url][/url]www.fightthebias.com

    That should give you a pretty good start. In any sense, I suggest they also read in the Bible, Luke 22:36. It tells us just how important Jesus instructed us about being armed. Is Jesus a pacifist?? No, He is not. To assume that He is makes a mockery of the Will of God and discredits the Spiritual War. I'll warn you in advance, though. Liberals are, by nature, of this earth, and are typically godless.
    Death to Tyrants!!!

    Jesus Christ believed in the right to keep and bear arms, Luke 22:36.

    -Gunphreak

    Edited by - gunphreak on 10/29/2002 01:22:28
  • snake-eyessnake-eyes Member Posts: 869
    edited November -1
    Germany during the Nazi government seized all the people's firearms...No one could do anything against him while he slaughtered his own people and the jews.
    England...currently all citizens are prohibited from private gun ownership- only criminals have guns now and look at their crime rates skyrocketing.
    Germany now has more new gun laws that took effect September 30,2002- not even a U.S. military member who get's sent over to Germany is allowed to own a firearm. If I was a Al Quaeda member I would take note and storm their unsecured housing complexes knowing their wasn't a sole to shoot back.
    Ruby Ridge, The FBI or whas it the BATF heard a man was selling shotguns with the barrels sawed off but had no proof. They bought a house next to him and put two agents in their pretending to be a family and over what a year tried to get the man to sell a sawed off shotgun...repeatedly...asking and asking and asking until I guess the sold him a shotgun. Then the Federal Agents stormed the house with a swat team first shooting the man's son in his back yard who had a .22 shooting at pop cans. Then they shot his dog. Then the mother walked out the front door with a baby in her arms and got popped right between the eyes by a Federal Sniper. The guy shot back hitting two agents finally surendered. The United States Government gave him something like 2 million for killing his family. Their evidence was not acceptable into a court of law against him...entrapment.
    Go ahead U.S., give up your gun laws...fall into a third world country status and be something like Columbia. Where drug lords rule as they have the weapons and money and do as they wish..Kidnapping, rape, extortion.....with no one able to do a thing about it. Not even the good 'ole US of A can fix that country.
    Switzerland, I believe all residents are required by law to possess in each home a fully automatic weapon...Look at their crime rates..
    World War II it was common for a U.S. soldier to have his own sidearm..a U.S. soldier now is prohibited from carrying any weapon unless his commander authorizes it, a sacrificial pawn...not a U.S. citizen in the military with the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
    Look at the U.S.S. Liberty, a U.S. naval spyship with no weapons operating off the coast of Israel during the six day war of 1967 monitoring Israel's actions. The Israel military fired over 3,000 missiles, torpedoes, bullets, and bombs at the ship to prevent what holocausts they did to the Muslim world from reaching the worlds population. The Liberty got out one SOS before the Israely boarding party of 5 helicopters with men armed with explosives to scuttle the ship and kill all Americans aboard...but were pulled off at the last second because the ship did get out a SOS. A nearby U.S. aircraft carrier dispatched fighters to defend the ship but were recalled back by the President of the United States for unknown reasons. 170 wounded, @40-50 dead. The ship was full of holes, fires all over, and the flag was still flying for all to see. The ship and crew had to limp home bleeding, dyeing, forgotten by the people they were supposed to be defending. Accident my white behind.
    Saudi Arabia currently....all U.S. military members are flown in on a contracted air line, no big military air lift to move troops back and forth to the battle ground anymore ya know. The civilian aircrafts have no weapons, no defensive measures against surface to air missiles. They only fly in at night and vear left and right like a roller coaster ride with all lights off. People in the Saudi desert frequently fire small arms at it trying to take it down and recently U.S. surface to air missiles that were given to Afghanistan to fight off the Russians were found just outside the U.S. airbase in Saudi burried in the desert..but guess what, some have been fired. Guess they missed. It's like the U.S. Government WANTS someone to kill Americans abroad and is waiving them around defenseless like a shoot me please sign so we could justify further military action....What the heck is the world coming to.
    California and it's new gun laws and waiting periods and supposedly better system....Think their crime rates have changed? Ever wonder what will happen to California with it's booming suburbia housing complexes that is filling the state with more people than they can feed? Well when the oil runs dry the people have two choices..One leave and ravage nearby states like locusts or eat each other. What do you think will happen to them in 50 years?

    *If there is one gun for every 7 people in the world, I'm saving alot of people money*
  • snomars1snomars1 Member Posts: 3 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Short and sweet, You should ask that person why they think police carry side arms or why the secret service surrounds the president with ARMED men. That somebody sounds like they need a few more years of college to me.
  • spclarkspclark Member Posts: 408
    edited November -1
    Point your browser at http://www.packing.org and then send some time at http://www.concealcarry.org. There are so many instances of folks defending themselves with firearms every day that you never, hardly ever hear about because of the media establishment's bias to ONLY TELL YOU WHAT WILL MAKE YOU A GOOD CONSUMER of the drivel their sponsors want to sell you.
    What it comes down to though is that: the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms, whether they're useful (in anybody else's opinion but your own!) for defensive purpose or not. If that right is circumvented, believe me (and many other much more in-touch folks) it won't be the first to go.
  • thebutcherthebutcher Member Posts: 374 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    All you need to say is this:

    If those guys don't want to protect themselves and want to rely on the police to scrape their dead families off the floor because they have been emasculated to the point of helplessness, they are free to do so. Just don't get in the way of those of us who would like to protect our families in the way we see most fit.

    The definition of an "expert":An "X" is an unknown quantity and a "spurt" is a drip under pressure.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Let me add something to that, Butcher.

    For anyone who thinks it is morally superior to allow another person to rob, rape or kill them or their family, since when does it become morally superior not to defend your family?? If they will not defend their family, what good are they??? To allow someone else to play God and deprive one of their own life is in total contempt of the Gift of God. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to not fight back, and serves as a perfect deterrence to these forms of criminal activity. To allow someone else to prey on you, when you have an alternative to preserve your life and defend your family is both stupid, and cowardly.

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    Jesus Christ believed in the right to keep and bear arms, Luke 22:36.

    -Gunphreak
  • greeker375greeker375 Member Posts: 3,644
    edited November -1
    I believe Benjamin Franklin was the first to say, and I will paraphrase as I don't believe I can quote directly...he who gives up some liberty for security has neither.

    Remember the following:

    Liberal vs conservative decision-making


    The Difference Between The Liberal and Conservative "Debate" Over The War On Terrorism:

    Question:

    You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two
    small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes
    around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your
    hand is a .357 Magnum and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds
    before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

    Liberal Answer:

    Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man
    look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring
    him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the
    kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of
    his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd
    be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would
    he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on,
    could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing!
    I need to go on a listening tour debate with some friends for a few days to try to come to a
    conclusion.


    Conservative Answer:

    You immediately waste this roach...Reload...then go about your business.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    My answer, Immediately terminate this piece of trash with a double tap and call police to send someone out to do paperwork, call an ambulance to get someone to clean up the mess, and then call for a pizza and see which gets there first.

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    Jesus Christ believed in the right to keep and bear arms, Luke 22:36.

    -Gunphreak
  • DarrellDarrell Member Posts: 733 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Germany during the Nazi government seized all the people's firearms...No one could do anything against him while he slaughtered his own people and the jews.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    PURE BS. Germany had the 1928 Gun Control Act, and it was ammended in 1938 as I recall. It did NOT prohibit gun ownership and in fact shooting flourished in nazi germany in the form of "hunt clubs" and "Schuetzen Clubs" in bars etc. There was NO confiscation of guns as such from anyone. All the law said is that firearms and ammunition could not be owned by "undesireables/jews." That ONE word
    "undesireables" was the focus of the law. They just decided who was "undesireable" and of course Jews.. But they NEVER went out confiscating just guns. They took PROPERTY and of course guns were part of that definition. They came in the door often on jews and OTHERS and kicked them into the street and kept the PROPERTY. Europe as a rule was not a "gun culture" as we know it. Few hunted and guns were not a common sport except the Schuetzen clubs which were very popular much like darts are now in our bars. Even if the govt had confiscated no guns, it wouldn't have mattered much. German homes for the most part held few weapons of any concern to the military. Mostly shotguns, a few rare rifles and fewer handguns. Before the war Europe was rather crime free and had been for decades save a few rare spots.
    Hitler also didn't make a speech about a gun free germany. That is a total urban legend as well. Gun owners get a bad rep by spreading BAD information.
    In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people. This is VERY similar to laws like the NY Sullivan law and MAY issue states.

    The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives. The law was that narrowly applied.

    Here is the TOTAL law. Not much to it. But well written to be so selective. next time you think of the German gun thing, look at a copy of the actual LAW. Light reading. The focus is of course the jews..NOT the general population. There was little or no need to regulate the everyday type non=jewish german.

    11 November 1938

    With a basis in ?31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and ?9 of the F?hrer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:

    ?1 Jews (?5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons.Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

    ?2 Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

    ?3 The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in ?1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

    ?4 Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of ?1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

    ?5 For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

    ?6 This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.

    Berlin, 11 November 1938
    Minister of the Interior
    Frick







    Edited by - Darrell on 12/01/2002 06:04:28
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    So, Darrell, exactly what is it you're saying?? In my judgment, removing firearms from a specific group of people, or just simply making such unable to be purchased is the precursor to genocide, plain and simple. Even in our country, after the Civil War, many Southern States banned inexpensive firearms to keep newly freed slaves disarmed, and as a result, almost 3500 defenseless blacks were lynched. Russia kills 10 million people after rendering them defenseless. Political dissidents, among others are exterminated.

    Gun Control on all fields are BS.

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    Jesus Christ believed in the right to keep and bear arms, Luke 22:36.

    -Gunphreak
  • DarrellDarrell Member Posts: 733 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    So, Darrell, exactly what is it you're saying?? In my judgment, removing firearms from a specific group of people, or just simply making such unable to be purchased is the precursor to genocide, plain and simple.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I ONLY addressed the issue in Nazi Germany. Somehow you got to Russia etc. We have in this country done something few others have
    done. We do not allow ownership by felons and those with a protective order in place against them where NO crime has been done.
    One has to decide if disarming felons is always a good thing. It disarms an entire group of people, millions in fact. But Germany used the ability to disarm a particular group (undesireables) to it's advantage kind of. Even if Jewish firearms were left in place few would have used them against the German military. Few of the weapons would have had much or any value against any military. In fact many of the jews PAID CASH for their train rides to the camps being told it was only a "work" area or "settlement" area. It took some time for the horror stories to get out and then many did not believe them.
    If you read Kaplan's book on the Warsaw Ghetto you soon realize the guns the defenders had only delayed the end result. As with any fighting unit the issue was resupply of exhausted ammunition etc.
    The secure perimeter of the ghetto made such resupply all but impossible. The civilian type weapons played little part in the defense. It was the captured military style weapons that did the most damage and the Germans provided that from dead and wounded soldiers but not enough. The German troops used were not elite units but just the opposite and had a history of discipline issues and going to Warsaw was almost a punishment and they fought accordingly.
    The German anti gun effort was neither effective or all that necessary. Taking the Jews money/property was far more effective. In fact if your family was starving to death would you trade a gun for food or cash to buy food? Most would.
  • BudBud Member Posts: 20 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hey Darrell,

    You seem to be "UP" on Nazi Germany gun laws. I don't know what that has to do with explaining gun control and whether or not guns are useful for self defense(in a college dorm). You may be able to refresh my memory on a "Nazi" related gun subject.

    Twenty or so years ago I read an article in Guns and Ammo. The article was very well written and, a foreward stated, it was an excerpt from a book published before the second world war. It was a treatise concerning the logic of gun control in general. I found very little that I could disagree with. It was very disconcerting, being a gun nut from early childhood.

    The author finally dropped the other shoe. This excerpt was taken from a book called Mein Kampf(did I spell it right?) and written by a fellow named Hitler.

    I think I will get a copy from the library and see if I can find this excerpt first hand. It may be that I've overlooked the logic in gun control. This book may be a good place to be reeducated(tongue in cheek). You may know where, in the book, it's located. Any information will be appreciated.

    Thanks,

    Bud
  • DarrellDarrell Member Posts: 733 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The author finally dropped the other shoe. This excerpt was taken from a book called Mein Kampf(did I spell it right?) and written by a fellow named Hitler.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    What Hitler believed and what he could do was not the same. He believed in total CONTROL of everything. It wasn't just about guns. It was about the press, travel, distribution etc. That logic is with all government types in one form or another. Those that control a dorm want CONTROL. We may need some but some take it to great lengths like what shoes you can wear (to protect floors) to what size stereo you can have. Guns are only a natural "no brainer" for those types. Hitler in his madness was some interesting logic as all nut cases do. As a nation we think we can do better with LESS control. To which I agree. But when you go to a college for example you are stuck with what you walk into for the most part.
  • chunkstylechunkstyle Member Posts: 2,463 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:That should give you a pretty good start. In any sense, I suggest they also read in the Bible, Luke 22:36. It tells us just how important Jesus instructed us about being armed. Is Jesus a pacifist?? No, He is not. To assume that He is makes a mockery of the Will of God and discredits the Spiritual War. I'll warn you in advance, though. Liberals are, by nature, of this earth, and are typically godless.
    Death to Tyrants!!!

    Jesus Christ believed in the right to keep and bear arms, Luke 22:36.

    -Gunphreak

    Didn't Christ also instruct us to heal the sick, eschew possession, and pay our taxes?
  • chunkstylechunkstyle Member Posts: 2,463 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Sorry, just stirring the pot in the previous post. I'm not sure that a religious argumant has a place in what is, after all, a legal debate...

    quote:We have in this country done something few others have
    done. We do not allow ownership by felons and those with a protective order in place against them where NO crime has been done.
    One has to decide if disarming felons is always a good thing. It disarms an entire group of people, millions in fact.


    This is an interesting point. Is it in keeping with the ideals of civil liberty to disarm non-criminals? What's more, who is a "felon" seems to be expanding every day. What about a guy who has a quarter pound of weed stashed, and occasionally turns his friends on to a reef or 2, then the local heat/"drug war soldier" gets wind of this. That's a felony, but why should such a person be one, with all the deprivation of rights accompaning that? What's more, in respect to gun rights, once you are a felon, you are always a felon, as BATF does not restore gun rights, unlike any other civil rights.
  • DarrellDarrell Member Posts: 733 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This is an interesting point. Is it in keeping with the ideals of civil liberty to disarm non-criminals? What's more, who is a "felon" seems to be expanding every day.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It can include crimes like bouncing checks and DUI or not paying child support in some cases. Many traffic offenses can become a felony. There has been discussion of prohibting firearms ownership by anyone with ANY drug or drug related offenses regardless of classification. That would wipe out another group of MILLIONS.
    Some want mandatory training/testing. 12% of our general population can't read enough to pass such a test. Wipe out a few more million.
    A student signed himself in to a treatment program for alcholism. He spent the 30 days and has been dry 20 yrs. He was smart enough to see he had a problem and was very proactive in addressing it. Well, the state contends he was "committed" for a form of "mental illness" and thus prohibited from owning firearms and they won't budge. Such policy would not make a person want to get treatment when it is needed. I think the man should get a hero button.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Big Brother is watching!!!!

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    Jesus Christ believed in the right to keep and bear arms, Luke 22:36.

    -Gunphreak
  • Marksman_9mmMarksman_9mm Member Posts: 5 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Switzerland is the safest place in the world, because:

    1. everyone has to serve in the military at some time

    2. everyone own a gun in thier home

    you don't rob and kill someone that has a gun.
  • DarrellDarrell Member Posts: 733 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Switzerland is the safest place in the world, because:

    1. everyone has to serve in the military at some time

    2. everyone own a gun in thier home

    you don't rob and kill someone that has a gun.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    BS and then some. They just had a mass shooting incident at their capital. Crime is going NUTS in Switzerland like most of the world
    and there is a strong and probably winable crowd demanding more gun
    control and they seem to be getting it. Thanks for the post anyway.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    On the Switzerland note... no one serves in the military. All able bodied males are issued a uniform and select fire automatic rifle. Their army is nothing more than an organized militia.

    On average, about 300 murders occur there per year. There are 7 million people. The math shows a homicide rate of less than a single percent. So, that means a mass killing was probably pulled off by a complete idiot, and there have been no such gun control measures called to the attention of the people as a result.... not that it would matter, anyways. The Swiss will always be armed to the teeth.

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    Jesus Christ believed in the right to keep and bear arms, Luke 22:36.

    -Gunphreak
  • chunkstylechunkstyle Member Posts: 2,463 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:
    On the Switzerland note... no one serves in the military. All able bodied males are issued a uniform and select fire automatic rifle. Their army is nothing more than an organized militia.

    Yes, much like our National Guard, except EVERYONE (male) is in it. All young men at 20 years of age, do 4 months of basic training. Then, 3 week sessions 8 times over the next 12 years, plus short drills. Then more training, but slower, until they are 45. 55 for officers. A total of a bit more than 2 years active duty over 25 years of life. Schedules of mobilization are prominently posted in places like train and bus stops. It's not at all unusual to see men carrying automatic rifles and light machine guns on public transport. Spent the summer of '89 there, and saw it myself. People keep the guns and ammo right in their closets, next to the umbrellas.
  • hikeandskihikeandski Member Posts: 2 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    You may be interested in the experience in the socialist neighbor to the north. Canada has had compulsory reistration of handguns since 1934. The majority of firearm offenses by criminals involve non-reistered handguns. Our socialist government has in effect confiscated certain "restricred" firearms without compensation by rendering them ineligible for sale or re-registration! This same government recently passed legislation to require the registration of long guns, and projected the cost of this exercise at a net Cdn $2,000,000 (about US$1,250,000). The Auditor General of Canada just reported that this registration program is the worst case of mis-manaagement and overspending in history. Costs are now estimated at Cdn $1,000,000,000 (US$ 650,000,000)by 1994 and the system does not work and the information is useless!

    Thjat is what liberal socialist governments and bureaucrats do about gun control. Spend your money and not help law abiding citizens. The criminals do not bother to abide by that law either.
  • hikeandskihikeandski Member Posts: 2 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    You may be interested in the experience in the socialist neighbor to the north. Canada has had compulsory registration of handguns since 1934. The majority of firearm offenses by criminals involve non-registered handguns. Our socialist government has in effect confiscated certain "restricted" firearms without compensation by rendering them ineligible for sale or re-registration! This same government recently passed legislation to require the registration of long guns, and projected the cost of this exercise at a net Cdn $2,000,000 (about US$1,250,000). The Auditor General of Canada just reported that this registration program is the worst case of mis-management and overspending in history. Costs are now estimated at Cdn $1,000,000,000 (US$ 650,000,000)by 2004 and the system does not work and the information is useless!

    That is what liberal socialist governments and bureaucrats do about gun control. Spend your money and not help law abiding citizens. The criminals do not bother to abide by that law either.
  • airborneairborne Member Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    jimkane,

    Review Josey1's post, "Guns and Freedom", dated 12/22/2002, 14:40:39. This will provide you with an arsenal of ammunition for your debate.

    B - BreatheR - RelaxA - AimS - SightS - Squeeze
  • snake-eyessnake-eyes Member Posts: 869
    edited November -1
    If a man attacks you with a stick and you take it away, he will pick up a rock.

    *In 1909 Henry Ford created the Model T and it got around 30mpg..today's Ford's may be safer and more luxurious but in 100 years we've not really gotten further on a gallon of gasoline have we?*
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    All any gun kontrol law ever did was disarm a sect of the general public that is neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. By placing those restrictions on the general public, the true message becomes obvious. They do not trust the general public. The so-called "assault weapon" ban has been put in place to disarm a particular sect of people most likely to resist tyranny, a so called "Saturday night Special" ban, which has been locally applied more often than state or federally attempted, targets the poor (God forbid they are allowed access to guns, too), and a machine gun ban is enacted due to the removal of the check and balance the people pose to the feds when they wish to pass oppressive laws on the people. Debate it, disagree with it, take it with a grain of salt, or shove it up your @ss, ALL gun kontrol is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • snake-eyessnake-eyes Member Posts: 869
    edited November -1
    You know, I acually just realized we are the promoters of gun control. Another Sovereign country doesn't have a weapon, but is thinking of building one...so we're gonna go over and bomb the crap out of them so they don't think about gettin' a weapon, to defend themselves...but we'll just make them mad, and they'll come after us with chemical weapons.

    *In 1909 Henry Ford created the Model T and it got around 30mpg..today's Ford's may be safer and more luxurious but in 100 years we've not really gotten further on a gallon of gasoline have we?*
  • Delta514Delta514 Member Posts: 440 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Actually Randy Weaver was an ex-soldier, he served in the U.S. Army in Special Forces. The ATF thought that Randy would be a great asset if they could intimidate him into joining the Militia as a *. Randy declined of course and paid the cost with the lives of his Wife and son. (Randy Weaver was in my store a couple of weeks ago). Read his Book; "Ruby Ridge".

    There was a Lady jogging Central Park, she was attacked by 4 young black men, they Raped her and then beat her in the head with an Iron Pipe, attempting to kill her. (somehow she lived to testify).

    I have a good friend named "AHMED" he is from Croatia. Ahmed has seen his people raped and killed, (until young men as himself finally captured enough Rifles and Ammunition to defend themselves). The Bosinians and Serbs had the Guns = The Bosinians and Serbs did the rape and killing, (Does this make the equation?) Read the Book or watch the Movie; "Straight through the Heart". Stay away from Liberals in La La Land, they will be the first to cry "Foul", then come to Patriots to cover their cowardly butts. (Liberals; obviously are not students of History, nor do they understand the Human Physique. "We have Tamed the Rivers and Harnessed the Lightning, yet let us become Angry, hungry or Hurt; we look into the mirror and see the Fiery eyes of the Caveman staring back. We have made great strides in improving our dwellings, transportation, medical and food supplys; we have yet to tame the Beast within".

    Ronnie G. Perkins
  • rldowns3rldowns3 Member Posts: 6,096
    edited November -1
    Had the civilian not been armed in 1776, there would have been no American Revolution as most men who fought used their own personal rifles.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hey Ronnie,

    You see Randy Weaver again, tell him from me, "Gunphreak" from Ohio, that I said God Bless and that I am looking for his book (hard to find around here) and can't wait to read it. Then tell him I said "Death to tyrants!!!"[:D]



    Death to Tyrants!!!

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • kaliforniankalifornian Member Posts: 475 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Sorry for plugging myself, but check out my website:

    http://www.ynot4free.com

    There's a whole page dedicated to the subject with lots of links to stats.

    Click on the Blue Freedom button in the menu on the left.

    Good luck.


    http://ynot4free.com
  • Delta514Delta514 Member Posts: 440 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Gunny I will try and find Randy Weavers book for you: There have been many Patriotic Replys to this topic (Knowledgable and Wise). It seems Heir Darrell would have made a number 1 "Spin Doctor" for the Clintons. (What Heir Darrell doesn't know = he makes up).
    If the Founding Fathers had been more like Heir Darrell: We would not be having this discussion.

    Ronnie G. Perkins
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thanks a million, Ronnie[:D]

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • Delta514Delta514 Member Posts: 440 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It's a shame when you can anticipate the sentiments of Supreme Court Justices before they are appointed. Federal Judges are appointed for life (That is as near immortallity as one can get)makes them God Like in their assumptions. "Truth suffers to arbitrary opinions", Where our Founding Fathers had SUPERVISION, our modern Justices can't seem to grasp. Mis-conceptions and Manipulation need support of Liberal Pascification, "Truth can stand on it's own". I still think; It was a sad day for America, when we accepted William Jeffersons Philosophy, (looking only at the short term = "It's the Economy Stupid". Which would lead to the question "Is it better to live a (possibly) short life as a Lion, or a long and uneventful life as a Dog"? OR as George Patton said: "Then after the War, you won't have to tell your Grandson sitting on your knee, when he ask; "What did you do in the Great War Grandpa?" ; Well, Son, I shoveled S-it in Louisiana".

    Ronnie G. Perkins
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Look at the bright side, Ronnie. They can't live forever[;)]

    Death to Tyrants!!!

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Man, there is some truly great stuff here. However, for some reason I always seem to break down any complicated discussion or decision I have to make to the most basis, simple elements so that I can look at what I perceive as the whole picture at once. That way I don't have to go and get a college degree on every situation I might encounter. But this also means, that when ever possible I don't have time to study the past or project to far into the future. With all that said, when it comes to the gun control questions I would just answer by asking some questions: Would the violent criminal (they are out there and they like their profession) prefer that you defended yourself with your bare hands or a gun? If criminals voted as a group, would they vote for or against outlawing gun ownership? (keeping in mind that by the very nature of being a criminal they violate any laws they chose). If society breaks down and an angry mob is headed down your street, would the anti-gun liberal run to another anti-gun liberals house for help or would he run to the home of his NRA neighbor? And lastly, does even the most extreme anti-gunner deny that every living thing has an animal right to protect itself from unprovoked attack? If that is so, then what are we supposed to use for our defense in the event the police or military are busy elsewhere? Larry


    if they don't want us to have guns for self defense, what do they want us to have?
  • frankentrailerfrankentrailer Member Posts: 4 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I would think the debate is long passed, but here's a GREAT article that you might like. It's chock full o' damn good points.

    http://www.rense.com/general32/nine.htm

    There is simply no better form of self-defense than a firearm and the knowledge to use it effectively and responsibly. The vast majority of successful defensive uses of guns involve simple brandishment of the weapon. You don't have to fire a gun to defend yourself with it.
Sign In or Register to comment.