This is why we should all have the right and the possesion of a firearms.

Originally posted by Rocky Black
Elderly NYC Couple Viciously Attacked During $18 Robbery
January 26, 2011 8:56 AM


NEW YORK (CBS/AP) – New York City police said an 81-year-old man and his wife were severely beaten during a robbery in the lobby of their apartment building.

Notice how they were beaten and not shot?
...exactly.

Originally posted by Beyond Creation
At risk of being on the receiving end of 'a can of whoop-ass' , may I ask the proud firearm bearing Americans..

When you forefathers slaughtered masses of innocent indigenous Native Americans, how can you possibly consider this introduction of firearms as a 'defence' ?
Peace

first, i would suggest you ask a fair question if you expect any reasonable response.
i don't do cans of 'whoop-azz', i own a gun. (well, a few)
cans of whoop-azz tend to 'spill' all over ya and i really have more important things to do

When you forefathers slaughtered masses of innocent indigenous Native Americans, how can you possibly consider this introduction of firearms as a 'defence' ?

well, my forefathers were entertainers so i guess you'd be assuming a bit much with that one.
and, i'm pretty sure we haven't traced all the way back to when caveman discovered fire ... after that, it was a human thing.

oh, btw ... 'indigenous Native Americans'??? ... just a bit short on history aren't ya?
star for you IF you can tell us (without Wiki) who produced and fired the first black powder weapon.
OR the name of the current long-shot record holder, where the shot occurred and the home country of the shooter. I'd offer a bonus but only have 1 star to give ... here's the bonus question for anyone anyway.
The current long-shot record holder used ammo from another to accomplish the distance, who's ammo?

Originally posted by Cocasinpry

Originally posted by Rocky Black
Elderly NYC Couple Viciously Attacked During $18 Robbery
January 26, 2011 8:56 AM


NEW YORK (CBS/AP) – New York City police said an 81-year-old man and his wife were severely beaten during a robbery in the lobby of their apartment building.

Notice how they were beaten and not shot?
...exactly.

your point exactly? had they been carrying themselves, perhaps no robbery would have been attempted.
IF they had been carrying, they certainly had Good reason to fire.
No elder should be subject to such nonsense, at any time.

so, based on your empty response ... one is left to presume that you agree guns are necessary to maintain safety not otherwise provided by the State. --> correct ??

This criminal apparently wasn't carrying a gun, yet, it didn't deter his INTENT to harm them, did it? Given all of the above, how is it again that guns are responsible for violent crime?

reply to post by TedHodgson


You seem to be under the impression that we live in a perfect society where everyone has equal, just morals. We don't. If every gun in the world were destroyed, we'd all be shooting lasers in a matter of years. You preach your anti-gun rhetoric, and portray gun owners are irresponsible and dangerous. Thats not the case. Every gun owner i know is much calmer and relaxed than most people. I know some comment on a forum isn't going to change your mind, but think of it this way. When someone is running at you with a knife, would you rather be yelling "stop", or would you rather have a 9 millimeter in your hand?

Originally posted by awfitz
reply to post by TedHodgson

 

You seem to be under the impression that we live in a perfect society where everyone has equal, just morals. We don't. If every gun in the world were destroyed, we'd all be shooting lasers in a matter of years. You preach your anti-gun rhetoric, and portray gun owners are irresponsible and dangerous. Thats not the case. Every gun owner i know is much calmer and relaxed than most people. I know some comment on a forum isn't going to change your mind, but think of it this way. When someone is running at you with a knife, would you rather be yelling "stop", or would you rather have a 9 millimeter in your hand?

hey cooooool ... i just realized, maybe all this is the segway for light-sabers

reply to post by Honor93


Ok, I'll agree to ask fair questions if you agree to ask straight-forward ones.

oh, btw - I'm not here to collect stars.



Peace

Originally posted by Beyond Creation
reply to post by Honor93

 

Ok, I'll agree to ask fair questions if you agree to ask straight-forward ones.

oh, btw - I'm not here to collect stars.



Peace

which question is not 'straight forward' enough for you?

who produced and fired the first black powder weapon? (ie: gun)
who is the current "long-shot" record holder?
which is his "home" country?
in which country did the 'long-shot' occur that set the record?
and, which country supplied the ammo to accomplish the record?

silly and irrelevant questions can be asked by all ... difference is, mine have verifiable answers.
so please, i indulged you, now return the courtesy. --> provided the OP does not object ... no derail intended.
stars don't matter to me either but to some they do ... if it is no incentive to you, so be it.
quality conversation is my objective, care to participate?

Originally posted by samhouston1886
reply to post by Beyond Creation

 

I should be ashamed to hope that a criminal or killer would pick the
hope of an anti gun individual instead of mine?

You don't know who I am or where I am from?

Who I am or where I am from should not matter to you nor is it any of your business, the fact that you mentioned it tells me that you are a bit off, a stalker type perhaps?

I have nothing to be ashamed of, your kind seem to think that you can deprive us of our only means of defense while setting the conditions that will propel firearms ownership into something only the rich and politically connected can have.

The gun control lobby is insidious in the way that they claim to want "tighter controls" but really work towards a total ban on firearms for the "peasants".

If a killer where to visit the guys house and by chance bypass the home of an unarmed individual who wanted lawful self defense but was unable to attain it due to unreasonable gun laws (like in NYC) then so be it, I would see it as nothing more than a big old example of irony.

Just so you know, I have carried everyday for 14 years without incident, on duty, off duty and as a civilian, perhaps your antigun fervor comes from the understanding that you are not stable enough for gun ownership?

''Who I am or where I am from should not matter to you nor is it any of your business, the fact that you mentioned it tells me that you are a bit off, a stalker type perhaps?''

I mentioned it by saying '' I don't care who you (think) you are and where you're from..'' as I feel that regardless of who you are or where your from, saying '' I really wish that criminals go to your home when they are in the mood to kill instead of the home of some poor sap who was disarmed by politicians who were enabled by useful idiots just like you.''- is bang out of order. Also, what you are suggesting is that his life is worth less than somebody with whom you are in agreement. For this, at least, you should be ashamed.

How you have drawn a conclusion that my disregard for who you are or where you're from infers that I am a stalker, defies logic.

Don't flatter yourself dear!




Peace

reply to post by Rocky Black



LOOOOOOOOOOOVEEEEEEEEEEEE

Kerry there is a good reason you were not elected.

Because your a communistic traitor. I have read all about you and your political flip flopping .

is about time your were removed from office for being against the constitution of the GREAT UNITIED STATE OF AMERICA.



Whoa. What's all this? All Kerry did was to suggest banning high capacity magazines. That's all. Nothing else. Regular magazines would still be OK. Calm down friend. Take it easy. It's OK not to like dems but be good enough to try to understand an issue before running off to Limbaugh Land.

Thanks.

ps... The Kerry you so despise was in Vietnam the same time I was. He was in combat. He did get shot at. He had the courage necessary to defend our country. Now let's see.... Bush? Nope. He ran off to DC to hide behind his daddy's desk. Cheney? Nope. He got lots of deferments. Strange it is how the one guy who served and put his life on the line get's hassled and called names when the arch-types of US conservatism (bush and cheney) did absolutely nothing when they were called. I do not understand how this works. Maybe you can explain it to me.

JPS Vietnam '67 and '68 Cua Viet River Ops...veteran and patriotic liberal just like Geo. Washington.

ps.... I own guns and a regular magazine is all I need. Why? I'm a good shot that's why. Now you just met a liberal who is willing to defend his home with a gun. Big surprise huh? I'm also in my seventies and not about to be pushed around by a punk.

reply to post by Honor93


Due to the amount of unexpected contumacy I'm receiving, I'm inclined to pass on your offer, however, if you would be kind enough to expand the purpose of your questions into an understandable permise, I may particpate.


Thanks


Peace

reply to post by trailertrash

so, what is the point in limiting magazines?
that does nothing to address any problem currently experienced.

and, which do you believe a law will achieve?
a. -- they "won't be available" OR b. -- they "won't be sold legally"?

do you really think that if i already own one that i would voluntarily relinquish it? and if i do own one, how would you know anyway? do tell, what will the 'law do' to protect us?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by trailertrash

 

so, what is the point in limiting magazines?
that does nothing to address any problem currently experienced.

and, which do you believe a law will achieve?
a. -- they "won't be available" OR b. -- they "won't be sold legally"?

do you really think that if i already own one that i would voluntarily relinquish it? and if i do own one, how would you know anyway? do tell, what will the 'law do' to protect us?

There is no point really. This is the foolish and reactive kind of thing politics brings. The best course is to take it all with a grain of salt (understand it) and then forget it. You are right. Existing long mags will never be collected. The whole thing is a farce. So, why do we get excited and react in such crazy ways when we know human nature?

Better to kick back and relax and know in advance that human beings act like stoops sometimes.

Hey I'm going to have a beer and clean my Ruger. Later.

Originally posted by Beyond Creation
reply to post by Honor93

 

Due to the amount of unexpected contumacy I'm receiving, I'm inclined to pass on your offer, however, if you would be kind enough to expand the purpose of your questions into an understandable permise, I may particpate.


Thanks


Peace

you're 'receiving' contumacy?? how does one do that?
[careful now, i do know the definition ... better look before you answer]

your reluctance to participate in basic conversation doesn't surprise me.
your total lack of response to any questions posed speaks volumes.

why do you need to understand a premise before answering any of the simple, basic questions posed ?
they are 2nd grade level questions with only ONE answer.

i find it odd that'd you'd decline such a simple exercise but typical of the deflective techniques employed by those who have no argument. *** carry on ***

reply to post by Honor93


I understand 'contumacy' to mean 'stubborn resistance' , however, this is not a thread on semantics.

I have responded, otherwise, why do you keep addressing me?

As you've declined my request to ''expand the purpose of your questions into an understandable premise'' I will decline to ''participate in basic conversation'' .

As you know the answers to your questions, you've nothing to learn from them, so I can only presume you intended for me to learn something, yet it requires me to perform ''a simple exercise'' in answering questions that, with your refusal to expand, remain irrelevant.

You're quite correct in saying I have no argument, because I've still no idea to what I'm opposing. Deflective indeed!

Pick a fight with somebody who has the time to jump through your hoops.


Good day.

Originally posted by Beyond Creation
reply to post by Honor93

 

I understand 'contumacy' to mean 'stubborn resistance' , however, this is not a thread on semantics.

I have responded, otherwise, why do you keep addressing me?

As you've declined my request to ''expand the purpose of your questions into an understandable premise'' I will decline to ''participate in basic conversation'' .

As you know the answers to your questions, you've nothing to learn from them, so I can only presume you intended for me to learn something, yet it requires me to perform ''a simple exercise'' in answering questions that, with your refusal to expand, remain irrelevant.

You're quite correct in saying I have no argument, because I've still no idea to what I'm opposing. Deflective indeed!

Pick a fight with somebody who has the time to jump through your hoops.


Good day.

i keep addressing you because you keep asking questions, yet, offering no answers.
your definition of coutumacy is lacking ... stubborn resistance to authority is more complete or in your case, a willful exhibition of said resistance ... again, hardly something one 'receives', as you claim.

if you continue talking lies and partial truths, i have good reason to continue addressing your nonsense. you want me to stop? why don't you set an example and lead the way?

i didn't decline ... i asked WHY you need to understand a premise? (again, a question you refuse to answer)
you 'declined to participate', yet, here you are ....

i may have nothing to learn from my questions but many others on this board do ... shame on you for denying them the opportunity to learn something

actually, it's called 'courtesy' ... a concept i am now convinced is totally foreign to you.
i indulged your irrelevant questions, courtesy dictates that you do same.

pick a fight???? a you freaking trolling?
YOU asked irrelevant questions which more than i answered.
YOU opened this can of worms ... don't run away when you're asked to eat them.
YOU are the only one who refuses to participate ... yet, i am the one 'deflecting'???
strange comprehension you've got there. perhaps a professional could help you out with that.

Just out of interest and honest bravado free answers only please, who out of all the people that are defending the rights to carry a firearm has actually been in a situation where they felt threatened and that they actually needed a firearm?

regardless of your stance it should be interesting to see some figures!

reply to post by Truth_Hz


I have used the "presence" of a firearm many times. I have not yet needed to discharge one in defense, thank God. One such instance was new years eve 5 years ago. A man and his GF S/O whatever ran their car into might front yard. Both were obviously drunk. They got out of the car and the man began beating the dog squeeze out of the woman. I do believe he would have killed her had I not intervened. I yelled at him to stop, He completely ignored me like I wasn't even there. I know he heard me I have a big mouth. When I rapped my Winchester 12 guage on the hood of his car he was suddenly all ears, sober, and very cooperative, it was like magic. Anyway, cops showed up, he went to jail, chick went to the hospital, cops actually said "thanks".

I used to travel a lot, and have helped many strangers on the side of the road. Something I probably would be reluctant to do without protection. I firmly believe guns are a catalyst for far more good than evil. Simply because there really are more good people than evil.

I forget who said it but there is a quote that goes something like: "Violent, evil men are held at bay by the violence of good men more ruthlessly applied." Unfortunately that is the way the real world is. If it hurts your feelings, I'm sorry. Luckily for you there are enough good men willing to do violence on your behalf that you can remain blissfully unaware. In a perfect world anyone would be able to buy any weapon they could dream of, but no one would dream to own any, or even need to. We don't live in that world.

reply to post by Binder


Exactly the kind of intelligent, well thought out response I was after.

I don't agree with the necessity of guns in society as I am from England, I've had my fair share of scraps and trouble but none have ever required the need for a firearm to be involved. I've witnessed knife crime first hand but have always felt safe walking around the streets of all the cities in which I've lived (and I've lived in some of the worst in the UK)

Although we have firearms units within our police force the majority are only armed with batons and pepper spray as they have no real need for guns. I see a lot of people arguing the fact that if a criminal wants to get a gun he/she will easily get their hands on one and this is simply untrue over here. The fact that firearms are illegal means that there are a huge amount less in circulation, whereas in the US there are so many legal guns in circulation it will be a lot easier for criminals to obtain them.

reply to post by Truth_Hz


I guess I don't think of them as an absolute necessity either. They are quite a convenience though. In the example I gave above I am quite sure I could have subdue the guy by hand if I had to, but at greater risk to self, and it would have required harming him. I grabbed an effective tool, and firmly tapped the hood of his car with it to politely inform him that force was no longer a viable option, and that reason would prevail in the situation. He agreed.

So I would place guns in the category of end wrenches. prybars, blow torches, planes, trains, and automobiles. Can we live without them? Sure. But, they sure are convenient. Any of the items I mentioned in the list above can be deadly either by accident, or by design. I think a politics of fear has brought about the feeling, or need for some societies to ban or control certain tools. Cars kill many more people than guns. Yet we wouldn't dream of completely ridding our society of them. We do require testing, and licensing that shows proof of our competence with them.

I think an education, and testing program very similar to obtaining a driver's license would work well. Once you have your driver's license no one regulates what kind of passenger car you can own, how many, or how fast it can be made to travel. You are limited in the size of vehicle you can drive without further education, and testing to ensure competence with a larger, and inherently more dangerous vehicle. If we had a state firearms license program that required demonstration of competency on the use, care, safety, operation, and maintenance of firearms, not just one type, but all the major types, rifle, shotgun, revolver, semi-auto, etc... Then you had to show basic proficiency in the use, and care of all of them before receiving your license. And of course a back ground check to ensure you aren't in trouble with the law, or just got out of the mental ward. Once you have your license, that's all that should be required to purchase, own, open carry, carry concealed, anything, just like owning a car. If you commit a crime with a gun you get your enhanced prison sentence, and then you can never own a firearm legally ever again. If you obtain a firearm illegally you go back to prison again for a long, long time. If you commit a crime with a gun again, you go away for life.

I believe it should be a policy of great freedom, but with that comes great responsibility. Basically have a license backed up by really good education. With that license you can buy any gun you want, as many as you want. If you do evil, or stupid things with one of those guns, you forfeit all those freedoms forever.

reply to post by Honor93

The first gun (blunderbuss type) was probably made in china which is where gunpowder was invented. The long distance record for a sniper shot is from Canada and it was in Afghanistan and he uses US made ammo. The Indians (misnamed by Columbus because he was basically lost when he landed in San Salvadore - thinking he was in India) or "indigenous native americans" where here first and we basically invaded them (worse exploitation tho was in Mexico by the conquistadors).....we came for spices and trade and stayed for silver and gold.