Self defense not a valid reason to own a firearm

a reply to: chr0naut

OK, so what do you have, besides miniature possums? Them pesky caterpillars? Yeah, I guess I'd shoot them too... not.

By the way, our possums also carry some pretty nasty diseases besides rabies, and they have these 3" long teeth that can slice through a tire like a hot knife through butter. Oh, and armadillos... they carry leprosy. Nice, peaceful critters that can turn a manicured yard into a miniature Grand Canyon, all the while turning everyone around into a leper, and all that contained in a nice, hard shell that you can shoot all day with those "little" pistols and never be noticed. I bet you don't have them either.

You just admitted that your situation is not in any way comparable to what happens in fly-over America. We have actual, sometimes dangerous, pests that do not sit quietly beside the bowl of food and water we put out for them... mainly because they can get food and water almost anywhere! We have an abundance of water here, and an abundance of food, for both herbivore and carnivore.

Sounds to me like you live in a city and just wanna call it something you wish it was.

In any case, I didn't get into this thread to insult... I got into it because I saw people who, as usual, are ignoring reality in favor of fantasy... sort of like what you're doing. You're scared of guns? Stay in New Zealand; problem solved. Here in the USA we have guns, we have a need for guns, we know how to effectively use guns, we are not scared of guns, and somehow we still have a growing, prosperous, and generally peaceful society outside the big cities. Given that, I think we'll just keep the guns.

Never know when we'll be invaded by New Zealand caterpillars or something...


TheRedneck

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

The weapons escalation occurred years ago and is so pervasive that you don't even seem to notice it.

Ahahahaha
Ahahahahaha Ahahahaha
So you are selling that Al Capone and his ilk didn't use tommy guns?

Wasn't that escalation in firearms?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

The weapons escalation occurred years ago and is so pervasive that you don't even seem to notice it.

Ahahahaha
Ahahahahaha Ahahahaha
So you are selling that Al Capone and his ilk didn't use tommy guns?

Wasn't that escalation in firearms?

They weren't illegal until 1934, so no, it was not.
Your "escalation " theory is unresearched, hot garbage.
Your throw it all at the wall and see what doesn't get called out and sticks is inadequate.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

OK, so what do you have, besides miniature possums? Them pesky caterpillars? Yeah, I guess I'd shoot them too... not.

By the way, our possums also carry some pretty nasty diseases besides rabies, and they have these 3" long teeth that can slice through a tire like a hot knife through butter. Oh, and armadillos... they carry leprosy. Nice, peaceful critters that can turn a manicured yard into a miniature Grand Canyon, all the while turning everyone around into a leper, and all that contained in a nice, hard shell that you can shoot all day with those "little" pistols and never be noticed. I bet you don't have them either.

Nope.

New Zealand is a number of Pacific Islands. Our wildlife reflects that. We have strict biosecurity controls on what animals and plants we allow into the country. It is a nice place to live. That is why I have chosen to leave my country of birth and reside here.

You just admitted that your situation is not in any way comparable to what happens in fly-over America. We have actual, sometimes dangerous, pests that do not sit quietly beside the bowl of food and water we put out for them... mainly because they can get food and water almost anywhere! We have an abundance of water here, and an abundance of food, for both herbivore and carnivore.

Sounds to me like you live in a city and just wanna call it something you wish it was.

I live in a location that is mostly dairy farms, however the suburban sprawl is reaching closer and farmland is being sold off and converted to suburbs at an alarming rate. I imagine in the next 25 years it could even reach as far south as here, although we are somewhat protected by river and coastline which make roading access for large populations problematic.

In any case, I didn't get into this thread to insult...

Let's see... You entered a thread about legislative moves in another country (on the 4th page of the discussions). Your every response in this thread has been to my posts only, and in most of them you have tried to insinuate that I am either telling lies or am ignorant. Clearly, you love this stuff and had every intention to try and 'win some points' by any means.

I don't mind lively debate, myself, but at least I try and not be insulting in the process.

I got into it because I saw people who, as usual, are ignoring reality in favor of fantasy... sort of like what you're doing.

No, I am honestly telling you about a situation which you have no experience of, and which is fairly typical around the world. But you are so laser focused on your argument that you have to try and deny what others are telling you.

You're scared of guns? Stay in New Zealand; problem solved.

After choosing the place and moving here, I intend to stay here, at least while things are so good (with some commute to the rest of the world at times).

The question is, if your situation is as you describe, why are you still there?

Here in the USA we have guns, we have a need for guns, we know how to effectively use guns, we are not scared of guns, and somehow we still have a growing, prosperous, and generally peaceful society outside the big cities. Given that, I think we'll just keep the guns.

Never know when we'll be invaded by New Zealand caterpillars or something...

TheRedneck

We do have public ownership of guns here in New Zealand. But we also have gun control. In a similar vein; just because you have car safety features and drivers licenses, doesn't mean you don't have cars. It's much the same with guns, in many countries.

What is interesting is the amount of emotive outcry that happens, primarily from posters located in the USA, every time they try and introduce safety features. These people even get upset when other countries try and introduce reasonable safety features (this thread is an example of that).

I have nothing, really, to fear from firearms. I have, in my youth, done some service in the Air Force, I have drilled with guns and once even came under fire (I wasn't in a 'plane at the time). I also have used guns in hunting and, as I have posted, have recently requested that a gun owning friend and neighbor assist me in animal control. I believe that I have a balanced and rational view of guns.

The USA has a gun problem - of that there can be no doubt. Maintaining and contributing to that situation, by people in that situation, does not appear to me to be balanced or rational.

The primary reason I am putting the video here, at the beginning he shows a video of a woman being car jacked with a gun in Atlanta, at the end he shows a video of a woman getting car jacked with knives in the UK.

I am sure someone will go NRA PROPAGANDA, don't care it doesn't invalidate the message that criminals with evil intent will still do evil things even without guns.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: chr0naut

South Africa, the U.S., Australia, Jordan, Spain, Mars, anywhere, the criminals are always going to be able to get guns. When you control what the law-abiding citizens get, the criminals rejoice.

Thank you, Suh, may I have another. That is true everywhere. The only equality is to allow the law-abiding citizen to protect themselves.

Sure, some criminals will always get illegal firearms - that is no reason to distribute them to all other criminals.

And weapons proliferation leads to tactical escalation, too.

When criminals get their asses shot off, it is not only a function of natural selection, but it inhibits criminal activity. Where I grew up, everyone was armed, considering firearms tools no more or less important than shovels or hammers. Want to guess how much crime there was there? When we had any, it was always imported.

Most nations of the world employ the same strategy. It's called mutually-assured destruction.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

The weapons escalation occurred years ago and is so pervasive that you don't even seem to notice it.

Ahahahaha
Ahahahahaha Ahahahaha
So you are selling that Al Capone and his ilk didn't use tommy guns?

Wasn't that escalation in firearms?

They weren't illegal until 1934, so no, it was not.
Your "escalation " theory is unresearched, hot garbage.
Your throw it all at the wall and see what doesn't get called out and sticks is inadequate.

The escalation happened when Tommy guns became available and criminals realized that they had a higher killing power than other firearms, and so they opted for the higher killing power option.

The change in easy availability has led to a situation where there aren't a lot of Tommy guns and other fully automatic firearms in the hands of criminals today. It shows that gun control works and de-escalates things.

This also explains why criminals don't usually carry RPG's today.

Without gun control legislation, things escalate. With gun control, they de-escalate. The proof is there.

a reply to: chr0naut

New Zealand is a number of Pacific Islands. Our wildlife reflects that. We have strict biosecurity controls on what animals and plants we allow into the country.

As I said, your situation does not compare with mine. I do not live on an island; the United States is not a series of islands. We have a much more diverse wildlife than you do, obviously, since there was no one prohibiting any critters from coming here for a few billion years until just recently. You had an ocean.

Your every response in this thread has been to my posts only, and in most of them you have tried to insinuate that I am either telling lies or am ignorant. Clearly, you love this stuff and had every intention to try and 'win some points' by any means.

I don't mind lively debate, myself, but at least I try and not be insulting in the process.

Are you denying that you have a history of insisting that gun control is necessary, no matter the conditions one lives under?

If you say yes to that one, I will call you a liar.

I am honestly telling you about a situation which you have no experience of, and which is fairly typical around the world.

Excuse me? "Fairly typical around the world"?

It sounds to me that it is you who have no experience about the situations you keep trying to address. Let me educate you on something: most of the world is not contained on small islands which have the ability to selectively import only species of animals they want. Most of the world is on continents, where animals lawlessly roam from one place to another as it suits their fancy. That is reality for most of the world; only a few have the ability to live in a carefully crafted environment.

I don't care that you have gun control; not my country. I don't care if South Africa wants gun control; not my country. What I do care about is when people from a "not my country" think they have all the answers to all the ills of society because of their specific circumstances. That is why I tend to respond to you: you, and those like you, have no idea of what it is you speak. You only speak to hear yourself speak apparently, and in the process provide fuel to those who would endanger people like me.

The question is, if your situation is as you describe, why are you still there?

Because I love this life. You would no doubt hate it; that's your prerogative.

Why are you living in a place without animal diversity?

What is interesting is the amount of emotive outcry that happens, primarily from posters located in the USA, every time they try and introduce safety features.

That's because this is not about "safety features." It is not about specific guns. It is not about background checks. It is about removing all guns from society, save from those who are promoting removing the guns. Now, if I meet someone on the street and we are both armed, I don't think twice about it. I have as much ability to defend myself as he does. But when he starts demanding that I disarm myself with no mention of disarming himself, suddenly I have a problem.

That is exactly what we in the USA are up against. The government is trying to disarm the public... not make the public safer, not prevent deaths, but simply to disarm the public. At the same time, every bill proposed, without exception, has allowed them and their security to continue to be armed. You really need to figure that out.

So yes, when anyone talks about restricting firearms in any way, the first reaction is that there's a hook in that bait. It comes from being hooked a few too many times.

The USA has a gun problem - of that there can be no doubt. Maintaining and contributing to that situation, by people in that situation, does not appear to me to be balanced or rational.

The only parts of the US with a gun problem are those where there is already strict gun control: the larger cities. There is almost no gun crime here, but almost everyone is armed. No one ever hears about that, because frankly, our government and our media are not interested in what happens out here in "flyover" America. They're only interested in the big cities, so that's all you ever hear about.

Unless you actually try to converse with people who live in "flyover" America... but that would require altering your perceptions.

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

Uh yeah,the way our bill of rights works is anything not mentioned to be fed jurisdiction is left up to individuals. In short anything we want to do short of infringing on anothers rights is legal even stuff not written about.

originally posted by: argentus

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: chr0naut

South Africa, the U.S., Australia, Jordan, Spain, Mars, anywhere, the criminals are always going to be able to get guns. When you control what the law-abiding citizens get, the criminals rejoice.

Thank you, Suh, may I have another. That is true everywhere. The only equality is to allow the law-abiding citizen to protect themselves.

Sure, some criminals will always get illegal firearms - that is no reason to distribute them to all other criminals.

And weapons proliferation leads to tactical escalation, too.

When criminals get their asses shot off, it is not only a function of natural selection, but it inhibits criminal activity. Where I grew up, everyone was armed, considering firearms tools no more or less important than shovels or hammers. Want to guess how much crime there was there? When we had any, it was always imported.

Most nations of the world employ the same strategy. It's called mutually-assured destruction.

How does anyone get shot if there are no guns to shoot them with?

The situation that you require guns to defend you from exists only because people are armed.

It is like a national Darwin award.

a reply to: chr0naut

What you are block-headedly failing to understand is that the bad guys will always be able to get the guns, regardless of the laws or penalties. ONLY (a conditional term, get that?) ONLY when law-abiding citizens are allowed the tools to protect themselves is the board level. It has always been so.

Care to guess where the highest incident of firearm-related injuries and murders occur in the U.S.? No Gun Zones. The criminals FLOCK to those zones. Get it now? Finally?

You may choose to live in an alternative world in which a magic stick can be waved and make all the bad guns go away, but that world doesn't have a base in reality. This is the world in which we all live and coexist.

Next you will want to take away all knives, hammers, rocks and sticks. Insanity.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

The weapons escalation occurred years ago and is so pervasive that you don't even seem to notice it.

Ahahahaha
Ahahahahaha Ahahahaha
So you are selling that Al Capone and his ilk didn't use tommy guns?

Wasn't that escalation in firearms?

They weren't illegal until 1934, so no, it was not.
Your "escalation " theory is unresearched, hot garbage.
Your throw it all at the wall and see what doesn't get called out and sticks is inadequate.

The escalation happened when Tommy guns became available and criminals realized that they had a higher killing power than other firearms, and so they opted for the higher killing power option.

The change in easy availability has led to a situation where there aren't a lot of Tommy guns and other fully automatic firearms in the hands of criminals today. It shows that gun control works and de-escalates things.

This also explains why criminals don't usually carry RPG's today.

Without gun control legislation, things escalate. With gun control, they de-escalate. The proof is there.

Once again you are full of crap.
Just let it go, you are ridiculous.
Tommy gun to ak is not escalation.
And gun control has not stopped criminals from getting aks.
Both are autos, you know like in the car jacking video above.

And thanks for using my original point about the rpgs.
Put a quarter in your ass cause you played yourself.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

New Zealand is a number of Pacific Islands. Our wildlife reflects that. We have strict biosecurity controls on what animals and plants we allow into the country.

As I said, your situation does not compare with mine. I do not live on an island; the United States is not a series of islands. We have a much more diverse wildlife than you do, obviously, since there was no one prohibiting any critters from coming here for a few billion years until just recently. You had an ocean.

Your every response in this thread has been to my posts only, and in most of them you have tried to insinuate that I am either telling lies or am ignorant. Clearly, you love this stuff and had every intention to try and 'win some points' by any means.

I don't mind lively debate, myself, but at least I try and not be insulting in the process.

Are you denying that you have a history of insisting that gun control is necessary, no matter the conditions one lives under?

If you say yes to that one, I will call you a liar.

I do not deny it. I have been very consistently advocating for tighter gun control.

That does not mean a gun ban, it means regulation, licensing and registration.

In the process, some people will be adjudged unfit to own and carry a gun - so be it - but those that have sufficient reason for ownership, have a clean slate, do not have psychiatric issues, and show reasonable responsibility of being likely to follow safety precautions, can legally own, and perhaps even open carry, a gun.

I am honestly telling you about a situation which you have no experience of, and which is fairly typical around the world.

Excuse me? "Fairly typical around the world"?

Yes, like the example in this thread where South Africa is implementing legislation that will limit access to firearms. Even in the USA, with its odd and civilly inconsiderate 2nd amendment, there is some limited gun control.

It sounds to me that it is you who have no experience about the situations you keep trying to address. Let me educate you on something: most of the world is not contained on small islands which have the ability to selectively import only species of animals they want. Most of the world is on continents, where animals lawlessly roam from one place to another as it suits their fancy. That is reality for most of the world; only a few have the ability to live in a carefully crafted environment.

I don't care that you have gun control; not my country. I don't care if South Africa wants gun control; not my country. What I do care about is when people from a "not my country" think they have all the answers to all the ills of society because of their specific circumstances. That is why I tend to respond to you: you, and those like you, have no idea of what it is you speak. You only speak to hear yourself speak apparently, and in the process provide fuel to those who would endanger people like me.

It is clear from your posts that you are already under significant threat. I wouldn't want to add to that.

The question is, if your situation is as you describe, why are you still there?

Because I love this life. You would no doubt hate it; that's your prerogative.

Why are you living in a place without animal diversity?

Ah, I see, some sort of masochistic motivation.

Here's an even better idea - go out and do genuinely adventurous things, in spectacular and diverse places, rather than subject yourself and your family to constant low-level stressors in an unchanging environment. It will be far better for everyone's health and well-being.

There is also a wide native biodiversity in New Zealand. Expecting it to harbor species from America is perhaps a little silly, though?

What is interesting is the amount of emotive outcry that happens, primarily from posters located in the USA, every time they try and introduce safety features.

That's because this is not about "safety features." It is not about specific guns. It is not about background checks. It is about removing all guns from society, save from those who are promoting removing the guns. Now, if I meet someone on the street and we are both armed, I don't think twice about it. I have as much ability to defend myself as he does. But when he starts demanding that I disarm myself with no mention of disarming himself, suddenly I have a problem.

Look at your situation critically. No one has, historically, disarmed everyone in the USA. Nor are they likely to.

The pro-gun lobby paints every attempt to improve public safety as some sort of extreme nonsense that hasn't happened, isn't happening, and won't happen. It is part of their 'warrior-hero defender of liberty' fantasy.

That is exactly what we in the USA are up against. The government is trying to disarm the public... not make the public safer, not prevent deaths, but simply to disarm the public.

Only some of the public.

At the same time, every bill proposed, without exception, has allowed them and their security to continue to be armed. You really need to figure that out.

I need to figure that out? There you have evidence that they simply aren't doing what you say they are! LOL.

So yes, when anyone talks about restricting firearms in any way, the first reaction is that there's a hook in that bait. It comes from being hooked a few too many times.

Not a once! You just contradicted yourself in subsequent sentences. LOL.

The USA has a gun problem - of that there can be no doubt. Maintaining and contributing to that situation, by people in that situation, does not appear to me to be balanced or rational.

The only parts of the US with a gun problem are those where there is already strict gun control: the larger cities. There is almost no gun crime here, but almost everyone is armed. No one ever hears about that, because frankly, our government and our media are not interested in what happens out here in "flyover" America. They're only interested in the big cities, so that's all you ever hear about.

Unless you actually try to converse with people who live in "flyover" America... but that would require altering your perceptions.

TheRedneck

But there is gun crime in those quiet little backwaters. I mean, if you partition off tiny little bits, you can truthfully say there has never been crime in this particular square foot.The crime-less country town BS is often touted, but substantially untrue.

Cities have more gun crime because they have more population and more guns.

And there is nothing to stop people from cities coming into your quiet backwater with guns and intention to do mischief. The automobile has meant we are all quite mobile these days.

And carrying all the firearms in the world isn't going to protect you if they get a shot off first, so isn't it sensible to ensure 'them bad kind' can't get guns in the first place?

And

“Sufficient reason for ownership”

IS and Will always be

“Self Defense”

a reply to: chr0naut

If there are no guns....

I can give you a link on how to make a 9mm, fully automatic, sub machine gun...out of mostly off the shelf plumbing supplies. Yes you will have to use a drill and file and other tools to make it. But you can make. And it was a Brit that wrote the instructions. It even tells you how to make the magazines and all the springs.

I can follow it because I was a machinist. Not everyone can nor should, but if you carefully follow the instruction...you will have your very own, highly illegal firearm.

There are also files out there that turn a standard AR 15 semi-auto to full auto, by using a 3d printer. Because it is super easy, I will be very vague about what it is and how it works. Because it is also super illegal to do that conversion.

But again let’s say (for sake of argument) every last gun is magically removed from the face of the earth. That even thinking of a gun is an automatic death penalty, no trial, no waiting in jail, just bang dead...well no that would take a gun. Thunk...hand crossbow bolt, dead.

Here is the thing about law breakers...they break the law. So having a gun is just breaking another law then. And they are going to find someone to make them one. Because a whole lot (way, way more than today’s legal market) of money will be made by making and selling guns...see also Amendment 18 prohibiting alcohol and money made bootlegging alcohol.

a reply to: chr0naut

some people will be adjudged unfit to own and carry a gun - so be it - but those that have sufficient reason for ownership, have a clean slate, do not have psychiatric issues, and show reasonable responsibility of being likely to follow safety precautions, can legally own, and perhaps even open carry, a gun.

So as long as I beg some idiot in a political office, spent my childhood locked in a monastery so I couldn't get in trouble, undergo psychiatric analysis, always do exactly as I am told, and haven't made anyone in law enforcement angry, I can hold a gun and *gasp* maybe even pull the trigger sometime under "proper" supervision?

Go, take that attitude, and stuff it. That's why people treat you with the disdain they do.

Yes, like the example in this thread where South Africa is implementing legislation that will limit access to firearms. Even in the USA, with its odd and civilly inconsiderate 2nd amendment, there is some limited gun control.

We were speaking of living situations. You just said you live on an island with strict import/export so there is little biodiversity, and claimed that was "typical of most people in the world." Now you want to change the context to legislation? How about sticking to the point? That's why people treat you with such disdain.

It is clear from your posts that you are already under significant threat. I wouldn't want to add to that.

But still, you do so by your rhetoric even when it is pointed out to you. That's why people treat you with such disdain.

Ah, I see, some sort of masochistic motivation.

Masochistic in my view would be living among an animal which regularly kills for sport alone, uses manipulation and deceit on a continual basis to achieve selfish results, and which cannot be trusted no matter the amount of training and domestication. In other words, cities filled with people.

Here's an even better idea - go out and do genuinely adventurous things, in spectacular and diverse places, rather than subject yourself and your family to constant low-level stressors in an unchanging environment. It will be far better for everyone's health and well-being.

Here's an idea: try to understand the situation before giving advice. I am quite happy here, and under less stress without people aggravating me than I have ever been. That's why people treat you with such disdain.

There is also a wide native biodiversity in New Zealand. Expecting it to harbor species from America is perhaps a little silly, though?

Biodiversity means an abundance of different creatures. You just got through telling me you didn't have many different animals because New Zealand ensures they don't sneak onto the island. Now which is it? Is New Zealand relatively sterile of undesirable life, or isn't it? That's why people treat you with such disdain.

Look at your situation critically. No one has, historically, disarmed everyone in the USA. Nor are they likely to.

Almost every other country, however, has disarmed the public, and typically just before being taken over by a tyrant dictator. Russia, Germany, most of Europe, China, Japan... the list is endless. So saying it hasn't happened is simply the same as saying that we are still free of complete tyranny... for now.

As to the likelihood of it happening here? Seems pretty likely when politicians are bold enough to state openly in a debate "YES! We are coming for your guns!" to thunderous applause.

But in your mind, apparently something that hasn't happened can never happen. That's why people treat you with such disdain.

The pro-gun lobby paints every attempt...

Do you really believe everything people believe is based on politics? I have fielded calls from the NRA (cold calls; I have never been a member) where I chewed them out and called them a bunch of political hacks for trying to spread propaganda. Not everyone is so entrenched with party politics as you. Some of us, despite what you may think, simply want to be left alone to live our life like our fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and so on. You think that we need to be controlled instead. That's why people treat you with such disdain.

There you have evidence that they simply aren't doing what you say they are!

And now the word twisting, as though you are unable to read simple English. That's why people treat you with such disdain.

But there is gun crime in those quiet little backwaters.

There are fire-breathing dragons in New Zealand!

See, I can say crap about things I don't know about as well. You have no concept of what my life is like (as evidenced by this exchange), yet you purport to know how much gun crime exists in this area. That's why people treat you with such disdain.

And there is nothing to stop people from cities coming into your quiet backwater with guns and intention to do mischief. The automobile has meant we are all quite mobile these days.

I beg to disagree. There is one thing: we are armed. Of course, that is the one thing you would like nothing better than to take away, so I can only assume you want crime in these sleepy little backwater places. Gotta get that equity with the big city, right?

You just made the single most definitive reason for a people to stay armed, and I would wager you think you did the opposite. If there are those who would harm me able and willing to come to me, I need some way to defend myself with at least equal firepower to theirs.

As for the first shot... yeah, they might get one off from a distance. They'd better be damn good at sniping, though, because as soon as a trigger is pulled in my direction, one or both of us will not leave under our own power. Maybe that's why you are so scared of guns... if I were constantly and purposely offending everyone around me ad nauseum as you seem eager to do, I think I might want to make sure that no one around me had a gun either.

That's why people treat you with such disdain.

TheRedneck

"Cities have more gun crime because they have more population and more guns."

Now that this a lot of BS.

Rural areas have many more firearms than cities per person.

Oh Bones, Bones, I'll play devils advocate because people on here have not got the slightest idea about S/A. For a start America is slowly going S/A route. Here is what's happening there and no matter how you ask foe data or figures you wont find any because TPTB doesn't want the world to know what's going on there. You wont like what I say and you'll all be calling me racist, but it is what it is.

Now S/A, it's not the whole population that they want to take the guns away from and that's the only point you should be concerned with. It's pure Black against White.
The situation:- the government have given their "permission" for "Blacks to take back what belongs to them". They do not care if the Whites are raped, tortured, killed in the pursuit of them getting their land back. If you look you'll find stories of farmers and their families where their children and wives were raped and killed in front of them and then tortured to death. That's the farmers.
Now in the cities and towns. Most white owned premises have high walls and barbed wire (and I mean most as most can't afford security guards) and they have to defend themselves. Now when you realise, in reality, that sooner or later the government backed gangs are gonna come for your property (and I'm not talking of a couple but a gang of 10, 12, 15,) what do you want to defend yourself with???

So what's the S/A governments solution of too many Black gang members being shot??? Why it's quite easy, take the guns off the Whites.
NOW you can start calling me racist, BBBUUUTTT, you aint there living on when will it happen not if.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

Uh yeah,the way our bill of rights works is anything not mentioned to be fed jurisdiction is left up to individuals. In short anything we want to do short of infringing on anothers rights is legal even stuff not written about.

If you don't have them as rights under law. You don't have them.

Speaking of ‘rights’

Thankfully, owning a gun is a ‘right’ that Americans DO have

That’s not gonna change. And it’s very upsetting to some