ABC Special to Dismiss Idea of Using Guns for Self Defense?

Originally posted by MrAnonUK
I'm sorry to inform you of this, but you in no way entered into the second world war through any concern for my home nation.

Strange then that American volunteers served with you from the outset, we gave you 50 destroyers for free, and kept your nation fed and supplied with raw materials throughout the entire war.

For a nation with only selfish thoughts uppermost in our mind, we really did quite well by you I would say.

Mention of that conflict has absolutely nothing to do with this debate, I was merely discussing an issue posted on internationally accessible forums.

I can well understand your desire not to bring history into the equation, since it is directly relevant to the ownership of firearms for personal (and national) protection. Your country was unarmed, and you were literally begging us for donated weapons, how relevant to the discussion would you like to get?

The nonsensical notion is derived from the fact that many condone the use of firearms with nonsensical counter arguments, If I was to receive a valid argument I'd be the first to accept I am wrong as your issues are of no concern to me, merely of interest.

Quite what is nonsensical about wanting a handgun to kill the intruder that is trying to murder your family while they sleep in their beds at 3am is beyond me. Is that not simple and sensible enough for you?

Via the agenda of a liberal media, just typical of a nation which has so many people that must label everything. You clearly have no clue of my supposed agenda as I had no premeditated agenda other than that of stating my view on this issue. And more importantly, how you view my input as having any impact on your politics is quite beyond me.

Then why not be clear, exactly what is your agenda, and where do you stand personally on the issue of firearms ownership for the purpose of self defence?

Read my initial posts, I comprehend the struggles a nation would face with withdrawal. I was pointing and laughing at the poor replies

You are familiar with the concept of arrogance I assume?

but it would seem you was (sic) incapable of restraint or contemplation when reading a contentious post.

If by "incapable of restraint" you actually mean "challenging elitist liberal garbage", then yes.

"We never got the memo," oh my friend we've had plenty of those. Just we've had plenty more lessons to learn from throughout our long history. We've past our infancy...

Ah yes, the thinly veiled "you juvenile Americans and your teenage nation" jibe. Personally, and from direct observation, I would say that the UK did indeed step out of its infancy straight into senile dementia. That's probably why our cities are now clogged with British emigrees who are desperate to escape the social paradise your hoplophobic ways have created.

reply to post by Retseh


I agree with you that the people who go through all the training to acquire a CCW are not the silly putty brained people that the authorities would like you to believe. They are highly trained and motivated to protect not just themselves, but you as well if lives are in danger.

The logic that a firearm will only get you killed if you try to protect yourself with it is flawed due to the fact that by having a weapon, you now have a chance to survive instead of no chance to survive before.

You have just increased your odds of survival and increased the threat's odds of death at the same time.

This is not rocket science, but the authorities would like you to believe that you are just too stupid to know what is good for you.

I don't buy it. Not for a second. We all have a right to self defense.

Also:
AnonUK, I am still waiting for a reply to my post. I am interested to see how you consider human rights to be antiquated and not needed in your progressive society/world.

reply to post by xman_in_blackx


Be sure to check back as often as you can, I'm taking a lot of time out to write a detailed response to your question. It could be up anytime in this week so just keep on taking time out to check.

Hint is in a previous post.

Originally posted by Retseh
Strange then that American volunteers served with you from the outset, we gave you 50 destroyers for free, and kept your nation fed and supplied with raw materials throughout the entire war.

And I said rightly that we're of course thankful for the help, I don't think you gave us anything for free though did you. I may be wrong their but please prove that point as I always thought we paid eventually.

Yes your nation HELPED keep us fed and supplied, which we are thankful for but you was just the first port of call that thankfully accepted our request for assistance.

Originally posted by Retseh
For a nation with only selfish thoughts uppermost in our mind, we really did quite well by you I would say.

I never once said you was being selfish, I merely said you did not enter the war through any concern for my nation. You entered the war due to Pearl Harbor not due to the fact you showed great loyalty to your allied nations.

Originally posted by Retseh
I can well understand your desire not to bring history into the equation, since it is directly relevant to the ownership of firearms for personal (and national) protection. Your country was unarmed, and you were literally begging us for donated weapons, how relevant to the discussion would you like to get?

Literally begging? no, we was wise enough to realise that a giant was sleeping and could help bring the war to an end. You seem to suggest we was dependant on your acceptance, we was not. You was the first we asked and thankfully you accepted and aided the UK.

You cannot "well understand," as I have no desire to ignore history. I merely comprehend the point of 'we need weapons for defence in case of war' is a pointless argument, seeing as historically they would have helped ,yes, but in a modern war your pistols would do nothing but result in your hastened death.

Originally posted by Retseh
Quite what is nonsensical about wanting a handgun to kill the intruder that is trying to murder your family while they sleep in their beds at 3am is beyond me. Is that not simple and sensible enough for you?

I never said that specific point is nonsensical, just that many of the arguments are nonsensical primarily due to the clear reduction that would ensue should a nation have a far greater amount of arms readily available. I also mentioned multiple times this would be incredibly to resolve.

Originally posted by Retseh
Then why not be clear, exactly what is your agenda, and where do you stand personally on the issue of firearms ownership for the purpose of self defence?

I already answered my agenda :S

Originally posted by Retseh
You are familiar with the concept of arrogance I assume?

An arm for an arm, an eye for an eye. My initial submission did not contain if the remotest amount of arrogance, looking back at it I feel it was very polite and merely stating my views. I respond in the manner in which I was questioned.

Originally posted by Retseh
If by "incapable of restraint" you actually mean "challenging elitist liberal garbage", then yes.

Elitist? You really need to consider more deeply that on forums people have and will stand for conflicting views.

"Challenging" Yes I was.
"Elitist" There you go with the labelling again.
"Liberal" Same as above, but I assure you I'm far from liberal.
"Garbage" Fair opinion.

Originally posted by Retseh
Ah yes, the thinly veiled "you juvenile Americans and your teenage nation" jibe. Personally, and from direct observation, I would say that the UK did indeed step out of its infancy straight into senile dementia. That's probably why our cities are now clogged with British emigrees who are desperate to escape the social paradise your hoplophobic ways have created.

Where does this direct observation come from please. The remark was not directed to "juvenile americans" as you assumed, merely toward a young nation that inevitably faces many trials has clearly shown by this very case.

Desperate to escape social paradise, now that is good. Believe me the large majority of British citizens would much prefer to be governed by our laws, which may I note are largely similar to your own nations. The majority of British go to America to take advantage of the exchange rate, beautiful weather and equally developed nation, nothing more, nothing less.

"That's probably why our cities are now clogged with British emigrees who are desperate to escape the social paradise your hoplophobic ways have created." And you accuse me of being elitist?



[edit on 14-4-2009 by MrAnonUK]

reply to post by MrAnonUK



Mr Anon UK,

I have to go along with Retseh on his position that the Uk was woefully unprepared for war. I have one exception to Retseh's post.

This happened in Two World Wars ..not one. We aided the UK both times with our production capabilities. Also Russia and other nations when their armaments industries lacked the capacity.

We are not subjects of a Sovereign here. Our form of government is very different from the UK and other nations who have the Feudal Traditions of a Sovereign.

Our Charter of Government includes Rights gauranteed under our Charter.
Yes our form of Government has a history which goes back to England but it differs considerably.

We as Bloody Yanks resent the intrustion or inference that we should be like other nations ..particularly like the UK. We have no interest in such doings and do not find the English form of government behind a Sovereign to be suitable to us.

We are not interested in privileges granted by a sovereign. We like our rights just fine. This is where our thinking/beliefs takes different roads and rapidly.

We also dont agree with the continental model as there are those of us who know enough history to understand that there was wholesale genocide on the continent during the 1990s and most of the nations twiddled thier thumbs including the fabled United Nations. It took a nation like ours to bring the participants to the table for serious talks.
Hence we do not appreciate the people in the UK or on the Continent speaking to us about morality and higher forms of thinking and beliefs.
We are not impressed with the UK nor the continental belief systems simply based on this rememberence of what happened in the 1990s on thier own back doorstep and among "unarmed peoples."

Thanks,
Orangetom

Gun-o-phobes, please admit to yourself that your feelings are based on little more than a fear of the unknown - because you'll also have to admit that you really know nothing about this subject. You have no experience other than your fear.

I'll offer you two possible solutions. First find a friend that legally owns firearms and ask them to take you to a range. There you can see for yourself what it is like to actually hold and safely shoot a weapon. You might even find you enjoy it. Many former gun-o-phobes have changed their minds completely after such an experience. You can also sign up for a gun safety class if no friend is available. This, of course, assumes that you live in a country that hasn't taken away your rights.

Failing that, I will suggest that you seek out professional help to learn how to not project your fears onto other people.

I guarantee that the first choice will be a lot more enjoyable.

How do I know all this? I was a gun-o-phobe once myself ...



[edit on 4/23/2009 by centurion1211]

I don’t own any guns. But I’m still window shopping. Have I ever fired one , yes. More times than I care to remember in the big sand box. If you were in the military in the last 5 years you know what I’m talking about.

I would hate to see the right to bear arms taken away from us. But what scares me is our country becomes an open door for an invasion from any country looking to pick a fight. I’m sure the enemies of the U.S. in WW2 and now just might have thought at some time or another to land on our beaches, but decided not to. Why ? because, the people of the U.S.A have the right to bear arms.

Sure the landing might go well, just the landing. Get 25 miles in to the mainland U.S. your stopped by 1 million people bearing arms on a landing of 10,000. And that’s just a small section of the U.S. Take away our right to bear arms and we will lose hands down. Street fighting and the martial arts are not going to save your ass. You need fire power. The U.S Armed forces can not cover every beach head. This is why the second amendment was written. For those who don’t like firearms get some training, you might need it someday. As for the ABC Studio Jocks " wake up" I rest my case.

Retired U.S. Army Officer.

reply to post by secretagent woooman


What ? Your statement has very little merit if any at all.

Here is a real life situation for a person with a CCW. This happened last month. A women being stabbed a number of times at a Wal-Mart deli counter by her ex boyfriend, She would have died.

A person with a CCW opened fire on the assailant . The stabber was killed. Yes, this happened in a Wal-Mar. The police investigated the shooting, and the CCW person was cleared and thanked by the police. There was no way she would have lived without the help of a fellow citizen with a CCW.
This is a very true story. I even spoke to the police officer about this situation before applying for CCW. It just so happens this officer was the person that was on the scene. The officer said to me “ Without that person there at the Wal-Mart with the CCW this women would have died. There is way no way I could have respond that fast.”

The point is, the people with a CCW ‘s have very excellent training.



[edit on 5-5-2009 by SJE98]

secretagent woooman,

From page 1 of this thread.

As desperate as a lot of people are now they are losing inhibitions about seriously injuring or killing someone else while robbing them so fighting back probably is not the best option in all cases.

I think you went to public school and never quite got over the television education levels. Think about what you are saying here.

If people are losing the inhibitions about killing someone while robbing them dont you think it is best to use ones possible death as a starting point?? THe realization that your life is worth less than your property??
This means a willingness to fight for your life....not roll over and show your belly like a submissive dog

Under the auspucies of someone killing you for your property due to lessening inihibitions...what exactly do you think would be the best options
here?? I ask this particularly under the time constraints of being robbed...or other criminal activity?? Inquiring minds want to know?
Notice I did not say..wait for the constabulary, a lawyer, or the ACLU to show up.

The only reason I could think of by which a person would roll over and show ones belly is to protect someone else they consider more valuable than they. And people have done this in these situations...sometimes at the cost of their lives. This is a difficult judgement call but people have done it and I know of people who have done this ..without remorse.

Think about what you post. Not all of us out here are emotional train wrecks who live for our next emotional release or drama session in movies or television. Not all of us out here live second hand vicarious lives.
Some of us do put our lives on the line regularly for our hard earned moneys. For we know what are risks and dangers.

Thanks,
Orangetom