FREEDOM MARCHES ON !!!

In a hurry - gotta go to work - but briefly - to whoever made the comment about not believing what they read about Oz fauna - it is all true!!! Some of 'em are right li'l buggers - however, we refrain from inviting them into our homes and placing them in our bedside tables.

Farmerman - I believe you will find that you set up a gun-owner/victim dichotomy as though this were an either/or situation - however, you have reassured me that you merely meant that victims of crime were victims of crime after they were victims of crime - true enough, but I am a little unsure about why it was worth saying?

I had written a nice long comment, but my computer ate it - I shall post it again when I return home from work. (Unless I get car-jacked....LOL)

0 Replies

Be careful Deb!!!

0 Replies

Montana:

You need to understand what makes people like OMsig tick.

Go to a library and look for an issue of "Rolling Stone" from late 1994/1995(post OK-City) that had an article about the links between the Militia Movement and the NRA.

I hope that the mod will let me post this link, but this group does a good job at looking at some more of OMSIG's "buddies"

http://www.publiceye.org

I myself they're more afraid of the GOVERNMENT(which they have more control over than they think, but Heston won't mention that), than CRIMINALS.

I also believe that wilso may be right--to a point:(

PS. I still need to see "Bowling For Columbine"

0 Replies

whew,wilso may be right about what? ranting that the US will take itself down in a sea of intramural gunfights? naaah, hes not been watching enough mad max movies and too many Godfathers.

Spin the object all you wish , for those of you wanting to dissect why trhose like us keep guns, you merely continue to demonstrate that you havent a clue.
The militia movement and the NRA are quite joined at the hip. So is the Sierra Club, the Seashepherds and the LEF, does that negate the environmental movement because there are true nutballs who burn peoiples property and try to do harm with explosives.
the sorption argument takes one group, then tries to go out and find another that elieves in some of the same things but in a more criminal means. Most of us all (not merely the non gunnites) feel that militias are nutballs. SO what?

If your closing up the "big Tent" and requiring shibboleths to be a card carrying liberal, then youve forgotten the basis for liberalism as defined by Mr Cronkite. He likened it to cats making love.

0 Replies

Thanks for the link Neo. I just can't figure out what the quality of life could be for people who live in so much fear. It's sad really!

0 Replies

no deb, you just misread the entire point. Thats ok , were many time zones apart . i was the one that, in responding to Wilsos rant, stated that I didnt believe that Bill Brysons (an author) statements that evrything in Australia will kill you. So maybe wilso wasnt right on the money about his feelings about US. He sounded a bit colicky.

0 Replies

Farmerman
I actually have no problem at all with people having guns, well, besides the criminals and mentally ill of course. My thoughts here are merely based on why David is running everywhere ranting about guns. If guns make some people feel safer then by all means, I think they should have them, but those of us who are secure enough without them are not crazy either. I've actually thought about getting one from time to time since we live in the boonies surrounded by wild animals, but it's not something I feel I need. I heard a pack of coyotes howling in the woods today while I was in my garden, so yeah, having a gun around does cross my mind, but then I think of all the things that could happen with a gun in the house and I lose that thought completely.
What scares me the most are people with violent tempers who have guns. I have a neighbor like that and knowing he has guns bothers me.

0 Replies

Having spent three years living in Baltimore, in the Butchers Hill/PAtterson Park area, I am familiar with violent crime. I have been mugged twice. The fist time, I gave the guys my wallet,and that was that. The second time, I was accosted by a drunk with a baseball bat. Again, I got away mostly unscathed. In neither incident would I have felt justified taking someone's life. I felt bad about the damage I inflicted on the chap with the baseball bat and his equally drunken friends.
In the entire time I lived there I never felt the need for a firearm. As I mentioned earlier, a skilled assailant can kill you with a knife or similar object in the time it takes one to access a pistol. In addition, a pistol is of little use against a smack on the noggin from behind. A better tool is a sense of awareness and a concerted effort to stay out of bad areas.

0 Replies

I agree hob.

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

David
My question is, what are you going on about?
Is your right to carry a gun being threatened in any way?
Since our right to have guns in intact, then what's the fuss all about?

Some jurisdictions are in violation.
There are some governmental interferences,
including discriminatory licensure of the right to defend your existence;
e.g., a few years ago, in Merced, California, several children perished
in the Carpenter family,
to a murdering burglar who cut the fone line before entering
and who repeatedly stabbed them with agricultural implements,
while they were not able to open their gun locker.
Their parents left it locked, but neglected to tell the kids
where the key was (they were expert shots) when parents left the home.
Several lives were lost to "safe storage" laws; good n SAFE FOR THE MURDERER by operation of law.

Leftists never tire of devising harassments of gun owners.

0 Replies

Are you suggesting that guns should be left unlocked in a home where children reside? I hope you tell me I'm wrong. And what's with this lefties crap? I'm talking as a human being and not a politician.

0 Replies

NeoGuin wrote:

Montana:

You need to understand what makes people like OMsig tick.

Go to a library and look for an issue of "Rolling Stone" from late 1994/1995(post OK-City) that had an article about the links between the Militia Movement and the NRA.

I hope that the mod will let me post this link, but this group does a good job at looking at some more of OMSIG's "buddies"

http://www.publiceye.org

I myself they're more afraid of the GOVERNMENT(which they have more control over than they think, but Heston won't mention that), than CRIMINALS.

I also believe that wilso may be right--to a point:(

PS. I still need to see "Bowling For Columbine"

Back in the 196Os, some of us believed that the American
defense from the onslaught of communism was so weak n feeble,
that communism wud win, because it was more evil, more brutally energetic,
and more practical about getting the job DONE of dominating the world.
Some of them organized small militia groups, to die resisting the Reds.
I was too lazy to join militia, tho I did work in political campaigns.
I'm sure that they have been defunct for many years,
tho I don't see that it matters; waste of time. This had NOTHING to do with the NRA.
At NRA meetings, no one brings up the subject of any militia.
No one seems to care. Its not as if there were NRA SIGs about militia,
not that it wud mattter anyway.

What we DO discuss is fighting against discriminatory licensure
of the right of self-defense, (preferring "equal protection of the laws") or
against registration to tell police where to go to steal everyone's guns,
as a prelude to government taking over the country.

Neo is right about our distrust of government.
I'm a little perplexed that Neo seems to regard militia as important.

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

Are you suggesting that guns should be left unlocked in a home where children reside?
I hope you tell me I'm wrong. And what's with this lefties crap?
I'm talking as a human being and not a politician.

I did not infer that u were a candidate for political office.
I freely BELIEVE that u r a human being; I'd be very surprized if that were not the case.

Sadly, millions of human beings prefer authoritarianism &
collectivism over personal freedom. I heard that many Russians wept when Stalin died.

I favor personal freedom n individualism.

As to kids, I grew up with guns since the age of 8.
I felt rather insecure, home alone, until I acquired my first gun, at that age.
The other kids in my neighborhood in Phoenix, Arizona
older n younger than I was were well armed n we went target shooting a lot.

I advocate firearms safety training in the schools,
like driver's ed, or swimming. In the 5 years n 1 day that I resided
in Phoenix, no one ever complained of any person of any age
exhibiting bad manners with firearms; no trouble.
We were better behaved than the New York City Police Dept.
We never poured beer down hotel escalators n slid down, naked.
We never clowned around at anyone's birthday party n shot the birthday boy thru the head, as the NYPD did
(where I live).

More people were killed by Ted Kennedy's car, than by any of our guns.
Children have been robbed; children have been sexually violated,
children have been murdered. People of all ages have the natural,
and constitutional, rights of self-defense. Safety will be found in training.

U may disapprove, but they have the RIGHT to live ANYWAY.

The Carpenter children had the right to live,
but gun control "safe storage" laws prevailed instead.

I guess liberals will be GLAD that they cud not open the gun safe.

0 Replies

You may not have used those guns to kill, but people are killed every day from children who got hold of their parents unlocked guns. Some are accidents and some are not. Children are not responsible enough to be dealing with such a dangerous weapon and many adults out there aren't responsible enough to have guns either. There are a lot of angry people in this world and when you put a gun in their hands, people die. It would be nice if the world was filled with mostly people who are level headed, but the fact is that it's not and the more guns their are, the more people from them.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Having spent three years living in Baltimore, in the Butchers Hill/PAtterson Park area, I am familiar with violent crime. I have been mugged twice. The fist time, I gave the guys my wallet,and that was that. The second time, I was accosted by a drunk with a baseball bat. Again, I got away mostly unscathed. In neither incident would I have felt justified taking someone's life. I felt bad about the damage I inflicted on the chap with the baseball bat and his equally drunken friends.
In the entire time I lived there I never felt the need for a firearm. As I mentioned earlier, a skilled assailant can kill you with a knife or similar object in the time it takes one to access a pistol. In addition, a pistol is of little use against a smack on the noggin from behind. A better tool is a sense of awareness and a concerted effort to stay out of bad areas.

Such situations must be handled individually, as u judge them at the time,
but u shud not lose sight of the fact that some victims have had to
fight for their lives, n criminals don' t always make an appointment.

U say: "a skilled assailant can kill you with a knife or similar object
in the time it takes one to access a pistol. " That sounds more like a
deliberate murder than a robbery. Logically, the arguments that u
set forth above don't prove that u shud not be as prepared as possible.

U say: "In the entire time I lived there I never felt the need for a firearm."

There was a lady in Florida, Susan Gonzales, who feared n detested guns.
She requested her husband not to have any guns in their house, especially with their children there.

One night, 2 criminals broke down their front door.
They entered her home, shot Mrs. Gonzales twice, and shot her husband as he lay in his bed.
Franticly, she scrambled to get the OBJECT OF ABHORENCE:
her husband's 9 shot .22 caliber revolver.

She grabbed it up and killed one of the criminals. The other fled, after she shot him too.
Altho it cud be POSSIBLE that the criminals might have allowed Mrs. Gonzales' children to LIVE
(if they did not care that the children'd complain to the police and testify against them in court)
Mrs. G was not willing to confide the lives of her children to the discretion of the men who shot both of their parents.
We need to understand that this attack was STOPPED by the presence of an UNLOCKED gun in the home.
Without it, the murders of the parents and children probably would have contined until all the children were dead.
That gun was the INSTRUMENT OF LIFE for the Gonzales family.

After hospitalization, the Gonzales recovered from their wounds.
She became a public speaker in support of the right to keep and bear arms,
and takes her .38 Taurus revolver everywhere with her.

Wise is he who learns from his mistakes, but wiser is he who learns from the mistakes of others.

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

You may not have used those guns to kill, but people are killed every day from children who got hold of their parents unlocked guns. Some are accidents and some are not.
=======

MY RESPONSE:
If they wish to murder, they can do so by MANY means.
People (of ANY age) did not wait until guns were invented to start murdering.

As to accidents, safety training will suffice; it did.

=======

Children are not responsible enough to be dealing with such a dangerous weapon and many adults out there aren't responsible enough to have guns either.

=======

MY RESPONSE:
Regardless, they have the RIGHT of self-defense n to the means thereof;
i.e., government has never been granted authority to interfere.

=======

There are a lot of angry people in this world
and when you put a gun in their hands, people die.

=======

MY RESPONSE:
By that reasoning,
no one shud be allowed use of a hammer, a knife, nor a car.
Right ???

=======

It would be nice if the world was filled with mostly people who are level headed, but the fact is that it's not and the more guns their are, the more people from them.

=======

The citizens retained the right of deciding what armament to use,
the same as to decide their own religions.

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

Thanks for the link Neo.
I just can't figure out what the quality of life could be for people who live in so much fear.
It's sad really!

Admittedly, I was a little ill-at-ease until I acquired my first gun,
at age 8, but upon possessing it, n using it for target practice,
after safety instruction,
any such "fear" abated peacefully. never returned
(but thank u both for your concern)

0 Replies

Montana:

Find the article in "Rolling Stone" and check out "Public Eye". And it may give you a glimpse.

The problem is that they should be in fear of what the NRA's "Buddy" John Ashcroft is doing--but wait, he has the NRA "Seal Of Approval"

0 Replies

This whole thing about guns baffles me completely. Here in the UK the only people who have guns are the police, farmers for pest control (under strict licence) members of shooting clubs (who I believe have to leave the weapons at the club) and a handful of drug-dealers (who mainly use them to shoot each other in turf wars). I assume that the US is too far down the path of public gun-ownership to change now, but it's a real shame that you're all stuck with them forever. I hope the UK never has general public gun ownership.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

no deb, you just misread the entire point. Thats ok , were many time zones apart . i was the one that, in responding to Wilsos rant, stated that I didnt believe that Bill Brysons (an author) statements that evrything in Australia will kill you. So maybe wilso wasnt right on the money about his feelings about US. He sounded a bit colicky.

LOL Farmerman - I got the point all right - just havin' a little fun with you...

0 Replies

FREEDOM MARCHES ON !!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know