It's hard not to think of guns these days . . .

@plainoldme,

i have no problem with long guns, farmers need to protect livestock, and hunting is a rural way of life

why anyone outside of the military needs to own anything resembling a machine gun i will never understand

as for handguns, i see no need to own one, i think the problem with the second amendment is it's led to this point where people feel they need guns to protect themselves, if you can own a gun, people will make guns, the more guns that are made, the more guns are available to fall into the hands of criminals, then more people feel they need to own guns to protect themselves, and so it goes

the sad fact to me is a nation who fears it fellow citizens enough to feel they need to be armed

3 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

At 63, I have never been in a situation where I needed a gun.
As I just told orally, I can see carrying a folding shopping bag.
I do and I often need it. I carry a mechanical pencil and often need it.
Ditto my small notebook. A gun?

Its better to HAVE a gun and not NEED it,
than it is to NEED a gun and not HAVE it.

plainoldme wrote:

Only a paranoid thinks s/he needs a gun!

Is it a true statement that only paranoids become victims of violent crime ?

plainoldme wrote:

Why would it be dumb?
It's the equivalent of carrying a crutch in case one will need it some day.

That 's a clever retort; I like it.

I don 't believe it, but I like it.

1 Reply

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

why anyone outside of the military needs to own anything resembling a machine gun i will never understand

A compact submachinegun can be a very fine home defense weapon.

djjd62 wrote:

as for handguns, i see no need to own one, i think the problem with the second amendment
is it's led to this point where people feel they need guns to protect themselves,

Its a Bill of RIGHTS, not a bill of needs.

I don 't need to vote, either.
I don 't need to express my opinions.

David

1 Reply

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

One night, 2 criminals broke down their front door.
They entered her home, shot Mrs. Gonzalez twice,
and shot her husband as he lay harmlessly 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 is possible that the criminals might
have allowed Mrs. Gonzalez’ 5 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 just shot both of their parents.

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 continued until all the children were dead. That gun was the
INSTRUMENT OF LIFE for the Gonzalez family.

After hospitalization, the Gonzalezes 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.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

i slept through the night, only getting up once to use the bathroom

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Congratulations !

0 Replies

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

i have no problem with long guns, farmers need to protect livestock, and hunting is a rural way of life

why anyone outside of the military needs to own anything resembling a machine gun i will never understand

People don't own machineguns because they need them. They own machineguns because it is fun to shoot tin cans with them.

djjd62 wrote:

as for handguns, i see no need to own one,

Long guns are too difficult to carry around all the time.

Self defense events are rare, and if you rely on a long gun for defense, you may well find that a self defense event is occurring at a time when your long gun is out of reach.

Handguns can be carried in a holster even at times when a long gun will be out of reach, and when a self defense event occurs your handgun might be the only thing you can get your hands on.

That's the reason that police officers carry a holstered handgun all the time instead of always carrying a long gun.

Someone posted this picture on one of the A2K gun threads recently. (I don't remember, but it may have even been this thread.) The picture illustrates quite clearly the problem that can happen if you rely only on a long gun.

http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/129130078330247893.jpg

It is true though that if you have a viable choice between a handgun and a long gun when you need to defend yourself, go with the long gun. It will almost always be the better choice.

djjd62 wrote:

i think the problem with the second amendment is it's led to this point where people feel they need guns to protect themselves, if you can own a gun, people will make guns, the more guns that are made, the more guns are available to fall into the hands of criminals, then more people feel they need to own guns to protect themselves, and so it goes

the sad fact to me is a nation who fears it fellow citizens enough to feel they need to be armed

"Need to be armed" is not a valid issue for Americans. We are free people, and we have the right to be armed. The only issue is whether a given American "chooses to be armed".

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

djjd62 wrote:
why anyone outside of the military needs to own anything resembling a machine gun i will never understand

A compact submachinegun can be a very fine home defense weapon.

Yes, but the problem is, a semi-auto assault rifle tends to be even better than a submachinegun for self defense.

Bursts from a submachinegun have a greater chance of sending stray bullets through a wall than aimed shots from a rifle. In a self-defense situation, collateral damage needs to be kept to an absolute minimum.

And rifle bullets have infinitely greater stopping power and ability to penetrate body armor.

I can't think of any self defense situation where given a choice between "picking up a submachinegun" and "picking up a semi-auto assault rifle", the submachinegun will be the better choice.

0 Replies

i guess i should feel lucky that i've always felt safe where ever i've lived, at least form 2 legged attackers, if i ever move up north i'd definitely get a rifle of some type

0 Replies

@djjd62,

I see no need to own a handgun either. I don't understand how anyone can stand up and say guns are needed. Aren't they embarrassed in the least?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

No thanks! I will stick to crutches.

Unless there are people I haven't seen for quite some time who changed over the years, I can think of only one person I ever knew who owned a gun. He was a drug dealer.

No one needs a gun. A food processor. Yes. A gun? No!

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

People don't own machineguns because they need them. They own machineguns because it is fun to shoot tin cans with them.

Let's see, are those the same people who think family reunions are dating services?

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

Quote:

People don't own machineguns because they need them.
They own machineguns because it is fun to shoot tin cans with them.

plainoldme wrote:

Let's see, are those the same people who think family reunions are dating services?

U represssionists are endlessly conflating (in error) possession of guns,
with sex. Possessors of guns do not have any mixed ideas about them;
possession of guns is unrelated to sex.
Thay remain independent issues.

In many years and decades of joining in conventions of supporters
of our 2nd Amendment rights, I have NEVER seen any sexual issue
taken up in discussion, neither formally, nor informally, nor even in humor in those conventions.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

U represssionists are endlessly conflating (in error) possession of guns,
with sex. Possessors of guns do not have any mixed ideas about them;
possession of guns is unrelated to sex.
Thay remain independent issues.

Thank you for telling me what I wrote.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Quote:

U represssionists are endlessly conflating (in error) possession of guns,
with sex. Possessors of guns do not have any mixed ideas about them;
possession of guns is unrelated to sex.
Thay remain independent issues.

plainoldme wrote:

Thank you for telling me what I wrote.

U said DATING SERVICES.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

I see no need to own a handgun either.

Yes, but you aren't really bright enough to be making such determinations. All you are capable of doing is vomiting bigoted stereotypes.

plainoldme wrote:

I don't understand how anyone can stand up and say guns are needed.

And like all ignorant bigots, what you don't understand, you want to ban.

How humanity ever managed to advance to civilization with people like you polluting the gene pool is a miracle.

plainoldme wrote:

Aren't they embarrassed in the least?

Nope. But then, we aren't ignorant bigots.

plainoldme wrote:

No one needs a gun. A food processor. Yes. A gun? No!

You don't have any say over what other people need.

plainoldme wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
People don't own machineguns because they need them. They own machineguns because it is fun to shoot tin cans with them.

Let's see, are those the same people who think family reunions are dating services?

The inverse correlation between bigotry and intelligence sure is strong.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

No thanks! I will stick to crutches.

Unless there are people I haven't seen for quite some time who changed over the years,
I can think of only one person I ever knew who owned a gun.
He was a drug dealer.

No one needs a gun. A food processor. Yes. A gun? No!

That is like saying that no one needs a spare tire in his trunk.
Guns are emergency equipment.
So long as NO emergency arises, one does not need emergency equipment.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

That wasn't a remark about sex . . . it was about the intelligence and the cultural sophistication of gun proponents.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

If someone like you thinks I am dumb, then it is a complement. How can anyone who has no idea what the word bigot mean judge the intelligence of others? How can anyone who needs a gun to feel safe, who sees imagined danger in every shadow value peace, harmony, intelligence, adulthood, civilization, culture, understanding, education and anything else of value?

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

That wasn't a remark about sex . . . it was about the intelligence and the cultural sophistication of gun proponents.

In other words, it was an ignorant bigoted stereotype.

plainoldme wrote:

If someone like you thinks I am dumb, then it is a complement.

No. Not really.

plainoldme wrote:

How can anyone who has no idea what the word bigot mean judge the intelligence of others?

I don't share your rather extreme ignorance. That allows me to understand the meaning of words.

plainoldme wrote:

How can anyone who needs a gun to feel safe, who sees imagined danger in every shadow

No surprise that all you are capable of is even more bigoted stereotypes.

1 Reply

It's hard not to think of guns these days . . .

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know