Thomas wrote:Every once in a jubilee year, I agree with you, cjhsa. Our constitution here in Germany proclaims a right to resistence when our government turns tyrannical. But it remains moot about how the people are supposed to resist after our government has disarmed them. I much prefer the nuts-and-bolts approach of your Second Amendment.
Never served the country but wanting to shoot Merckle, ts, ts.
And while the 2nd isn't about hunting, it sure makes it a lot easier and more fun!
http://www.myspace.com/shemanenugent
Walter Hinteler wrote:Never served the country but wanting to shoot Merckle, ts, ts.
What makes you think I didn't serve my country? And what makes you think I want to shoot Adolf Merckle, a successful pharmaceutics entrepreneur?
I see conspiracies all over the sites.
(And I'll get you with YOUR next typo!!!)
"Hunting" with the Nugents.
Now that looks like fun!
Thomas wrote:McTag wrote: Seemingly, having a firearm is a mark of maleness and "you're not a proper man without a gun".
I once heard in a different context that the gun industry's fastest growing clientele is (sub-) urban women who buy guns for personal self-defense. Assuming this is true, would you say those women are worried about their maleness too?
Growing from what to what? And yes, maybe they are.
cjhsa wrote:"Hunting" with the Nugents.
Now that looks like fun!
Maybe if you ask nicely, Ted will adopt you. Then you could tag along!
thomas :
i don't want to repeat all the stats you show .
it does seem to me that most americans don't seem to think that they need to keep a gun in the house - 61 % don't keep one in the house . those 61 % are probably not quite as noisy as the 38 % with guns . i think it's the old story that most people just want to live peaceful lives , and they are just hoping that the other 38 % won't use their guns against them .
as far as the campaign contributions are concerned , imo a few million $ strategically placed can do wonders :wink: .
"Do you have a gun in your home?"
.
Yes No No
Opinion
% % %
10/11-14/04 38 61 1
i probably have met mostly the americans that belong to the 61 % - for which i'm truly thankful !
hbg
McTag wrote:In the US, there are roughly 17,000 murders a year, of which about 15,000 are committed with firearms. By contrast, Britain, Australia and Canada combined see fewer than 350 gun-related murders each year. And it's not just about murder. The non-gun-related suicide rate in the US is consistent with the rest of the developed world. Factor in firearms, and the rate is suddenly twice as high as the rest of the developed world.
Children are affected particularly hard. An American youth is murdered with a firearm every four and a half hours on average. And an American youth commits suicide with a firearm every eight hours.
Would it be better if they were killed with knives instead?
McTag wrote:Gun-control advocates argue they manage to carry out their murderous fantasies only because firearms give them the means to do so.
People who try to ban guns need to be dragged off to Guantanamo and tortured.
It isn't necessary to use bigoted language here.
This, after advocating for extradition and torture. It bends the mind...
The issue for most has never been that they wanted a gun, Hamburger. The issue for most has always been being secure in the knowledge that should they need one, they can go buy or borrow one. This fundamental right is the center of the Second Amendment debate. I know some, and there are probably many members and financial supporters of the NRA who are not gun owners for whatever reason.
The sweet little old lady who teaches a Sunday School class may very well have a concealed carry license and a big, testosterone laden construction worker may prefer fishing equipment to hunting equipment, or, if like my husband, hunts with a camera. You can't tell by looking. It doesn't show.
hamburger wrote:why should firearms be "concealed" ?
if people are carrying firearms openly displayed , at least it would give me a chance to stay away from them .
since the police carry their firearms openly , what would be wrong with having citizens carry their firearms openly too ?
i see the words "founding fathers" being dragged up often in these discussions ; i guess it refers to the "militia" in olden days that were ready to defend the country .
while i'm not absolutely sure , i wonder if it was their custom to carry their weapons "concealed" ?
any pix i've ever seen , the militia carried their guns quite openly .
usually they also wore some kind of uniform .
hbg
A modern militiaman would be armed with nothing less than an automatic rifle.
For as long as I can remember, New Mexico has allowed firearms to be carryed unconcealed anyplace where firearms are allowed. So if you want to go to work with a gun in a holster on your hip or a rifle slung over your shoulder, you can do that legally. (The boss might object though and it is considered impolite to flaunt your weapons here.)
It is the concealed carry law that went into effect though that is probably a greater deterrent. When the would be robbers, killers, etc. don't know where the guns are, they hesitate to start whatever uglies. Personally, I think when we allow principals and security personnel in school start carrying firearms, I think there will be far fewer plots to do mayhem in the schools too.
Almost all armed police officers who wear street clothes instead of uniforms though, carry concealed weapons here.
"...The boss might object though and it is considered impolite to flaunt your weapons here..."
just because the boss might object , it is better to carry a concealed weapon ?
perhaps afraid of the boss ?
apparently it is considered "impolite" to carry a weapon openly , but it seems it's not impolite to carry a concealed weapon - so one does not have the opportunity to avoid the weapon's carrier ?
interesting !
hbg
"...The boss might object though and it is considered impolite to flaunt your weapons here..."
just because the boss might object , it is better to carry a concealed weapon ?
perhaps afraid of the boss ?
apparently it is considered "impolite" to carry a weapon openly , but it seems it's not impolite to carry a concealed weapon - so one does not have the opportunity to avoid the weapon's carrier ?
interesting !
hbg
"...The boss might object though and it is considered impolite to flaunt your weapons here..."
just because the boss might object , it is better to carry a concealed weapon ?
perhaps afraid of the boss ?
apparently it is considered "impolite" to carry a weapon openly , but it seems it's not impolite to carry a concealed weapon - so one does not have the opportunity to avoid the weapon's carrier ?
interesting !
hbg
hamburger wrote:it does seem to me that most americans don't seem to think that they need to keep a gun in the house - 61 % don't keep one in the house .
That's fine. Nobody, not even cjha, wants to force them to own guns. What he wants -- and I agree with him -- is that the other 39% retain the right to keep one.
thomas :
... but i prefer to know who carries a firearm and might be a possible threat to my safety - would it not be an unarmed citizen's right to be able to tell ?
i know it isn't a right , but it certainly would be an advantage to be able to stay clear of such people .
(the argument that "knifes etc can kill too" , doesn't cut it with me .
not many 'knife throwers ' would be able to hit me from across the street , nor any fair distance .
imo an unarmed citizens would stand a better chance against a knife attacker than a gun toting person .
perhaps some people might think that being shot is better than being knifed .
well , i think differently.)
hbg
