Hi, Misti26 !!!!!!!!!!
Thank u !
Its wonderful to c u again !
Seems like everyone, bar the odd Quaker, will agree on a right to self defense. Strange that so many would deny the means to self defense.
There is no question as to the right to self-defense. I think the argument is over what type of weaponry one is allowed to carry.
I want a nuke. It's exotic, plus many whole nations are denied their right to self-defense of the ultimate caliber. I'd be the talk of the town.
If they ever ban guns here I hope they at least have special days where they are allowed at least a rabbit season.
Ya know, if criminals would just start using more firepower we'd be able to rationalize bigger toys. I wish guns weren't so expensive. What do you have Roger? I'm thinking revolver. Prolly a big one.
Hi, Tartarin !
Very pleased to meet u !
It is a natural right of everyone
to defend himself and his property from attacks
of criminals or animals. Thus, everyone has the right to free access
to the necessary emergency equipment (guns).
In America, in 1954 the USSC said that its
unconstitutional for a government to discriminate
by telling someone to sit in the back of a bus for a few minutes,
yet we find little complaint to governments
discriminating as to
who can physically defend himself
from an animal tearing him apart,
or from a human criminal robbing, defiling, n killing
him or her, at the criminal's discretion.
Discriminatory licensure of the right to self-defense is immoral.
Registration of guns is only a prelude
to the government robbing the citizens of them, in its own good time,
after it knows where to go to get them.
History has shown time n again,
that genocides were preceded by the victims being disarmed by governments.
An armed populace = a free country,
in which the government knows its place,
as a mere servant of the citizens.
Mr. Wolf:
It seems I accidentally skipped one of your posts.
I don't believe that we are sick,
as u told me to. Rejected.
If u were robbed, or your daughter raped n murdered
(by ANYONE)
wud u be celebrating how many 1OOOs of foreigners u had around ? I suspect that self-defense wud be on your mind, instead.
What difference does it make how many Albanians u have around ?
Survival is more important
(tho the perverted jury that convicted Tony Martin does not seem to think so).
U, sir, have bought into a slave mentality,
of collectivist authoritarianism. I reject that.
I CHAMPION INDIVIDUAL ISM.
Craven,
U bring up a philosophical point
that I have found troublesome for quite a while.
Undoubtedly, the Founders (successful Revolutionaries all)
wanted the citizens to be able to keep governments
in line, as THEY had done.
That meant musketry, riflry, handguns n artillery.
They also had (n used) biowarfare, but no nukes.
Its a fact that they did not contemplate nukes.
In ANY event, if some lunatic
were to decide to arm himself with a nuke,
and went to the necessary trouble n expense
to get or build one, he'd DO SO, regardless of any law; don't u think ?
Unless the lunatic were obsessed with obeying the law ?
Craven, u say:
"There is no question as to the right to self-defense.
I think the argument is over what type of weaponry one is allowed to carry."
1. With the Tony Martin case,
I doubt that everyone accepts the right of self-defense.
2. In some jurisdictions there are no gun laws.
In others, handguns are banned (e.g. Morton Grove, Ill.)
As a practical matter,
u CAN'T carry shoulder weapons around;
too heavy n cumbersome, clumsy.
A robbery victim needs
a gun that is sufficiently convenient to carry around
and adequate to turn back a malicious charge
with a sharp or blunt object (or another gun).
My own preference runs to .44 special revolvers.
Ah, more than one, actually, and none really big. I subscribe to the theory that the gun that saves your life is the one you have with you. Well, that was my theory in Denver. I haven't even unlocked the vault in six months.
OSD,
I don't agree with any of the pro-gun arguments that I am aware of but I like guns anyway so you are preaching to the choir.
roger, I used to have one smaller than my palm. In Brazil I was one that was small enough for a keychain. I like sigs. Since they don't let me shoot people the gun can at least look purty.
For anyone who cares about the truth, the violent crime rate in Australia DID NOT go through the roof when gun laws were tightened.
Instead of speculating, can anybody come up with some hard statistics?
FYI Craven, the ultra small, like the the Freedom Arms revolvers shouldn't be carried on a keychain. Wear a gold chain on the neck, with a bore brush silver soldered at the bottom. The brush will grip the bore with total security. It's well concealed and very accessable.
Thing is, I can't stand necklaces. Plus I haven't really needed it. I see few rabbits these days.
smith & wesson model 9 38 double action 6" barrel
Had a Baretta 92s and couldn't get rid of it quick enough. Great piece of machinery, with all the grace, balance, and pointability of a broomhandle Mauser. Back when I was doing a bit of shooting, it was almost entirely point shooting, which is more accurate than you would ever believe - with the right gun. The Colt 1911 and Walther PP & PPK are creampuffs for this kind of shooting.
I'm hallucinating. . .
This is strange stuff for everyone but Americans. The sickness of your society lies in the need for guns in the first place. You would think visions of Jesse James are remnants of a dangerous past. Apparently not. Several of you are eloquent, yet primitive at the same time.
I know it's not your personal faults, but maybe you should personally work towards a system where people have no need for guns. Ah well, that's America. Life don't mean much around here <spits and opens saloon doors>
I'd rather be a gun nut than rave about alien landings and other such lunacy. ;-)
I saw that one coming as I was typing.
Yeah, I saw that while you were typing too.
How did you know I was in the Company?
