Promote the Gun, Uplift the Second Amendment

reply to post by Thunda


yeah an ak- 47 is more purpose built. i'm so gonna buy one so i can use an ak-47 instead of a machete to open watermelons. i love recreational gun use and am glad i live where i do today. everybody should follow more of an alaska or idaho model for gun/ human interface. the environment is right for any rifle, be it assault or hunting purposes, open carry is accepted and i saw a man with his family in a supermarket and he had a really nice .45 in his belt. he even looked humble and somewhat happy

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
reply to post by Thunda

 

...and i saw a man with his family in a supermarket and he had a really nice .45 in his belt. he even looked humble and somewhat happy

That's just it! Most CWP holders, as well as those who are still allowed to carry openly, are very humble and generally content! It's the gentleman's way! And as long as you don't threaten him or his, he will remain that way...!

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


don't i know it. even without a cwp it's still okay for open carry where i live. every around my neck of the woods walks softly, carries a .45 with the happy days song stuck in their head

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
reply to post by Thunda

 

yeah an ak- 47 is more purpose built. i'm so gonna buy one so i can use an ak-47 instead of a machete to open watermelons. i love recreational gun use and am glad i live where i do today. everybody should follow more of an alaska or idaho model for gun/ human interface. the environment is right for any rifle, be it assault or hunting purposes, open carry is accepted and i saw a man with his family in a supermarket and he had a really nice .45 in his belt. he even looked humble and somewhat happy

Riiiight- dont even know whether thats meant to be a joke or you genuinely believe any of that? Gun/human interface? That would be a trigger......
The day I think its normal to see a guy with his family in the supermarket with a '45 in his belt is the day I acknowledge society has truly failed.

reply to post by Thunda

The day I think its normal to see a guy with his family in the supermarket with a '45 in his belt is the day I acknowledge society has truly failed.

"Normal" is quite a relative term...There truly exists in parts of the wilderness, including much of Alaska, a lethal threat to a man and his family while traversing the distance from the supermarket doors to their nearby conveyance! And in that very real scenario, a .45 is probably the most minimal protection said man could carry!

Were he to strap on his weapon of choice, I imagine it would be quite difficult to navigate the store without needing clean-up on aisle 4!!!

Perhaps you should do a little more research or try considering that life worldwide, may just be a bit different in some places, than it is where you live...

jus' sayin'

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


Really? Gosh, its sounds so dangerous- so, has mankind only recently started living in this terrible place, where you need a minimum of a '45 to go to the supermarket? No? How did he get by in the past? And what are these terrible threats you need to arm yourself to the teeth for? Bears? Wolves?

The talking heads like Rush Limbaugh are not giving wings to the core root of the matter.
Too many people debating the pros and cons of the subject. When really it should not be up for debate. The whole game plan of our unhonorable leaders is to take away our means of defending ourselves so they can have their way with us. I wish multitudes of people would call up Rush and get that point across.
Rush is nothing but a paid talking head. There to keep you informed and a pressure release valve. People can vent listening to him and they are lauled into the belief that they have an avenue there to fight. It is a fatal error.
If he was truly a patriot he would use his bully pulpit to arouse the people and bring them together.
Our unhonorable leader will enact a gun ban and wait and see how many just give them up. This will weaken us to a further degree. There is always that bunch who cowar to any decree because they are afraid to break the law. The they will go another step until they can use the un troops to do the rest. yes there will be a war and many will die but they believe they can prevail. People better get their heads out of the s**t bucket and learn how to come together. You have no choice other than defeat. This is what I believe.

Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt

 

Really? Gosh, its sounds so dangerous- so, has mankind only recently started living in this terrible place, where you need a minimum of a '45 to go to the supermarket? No? How did he get by in the past? And what are these terrible threats you need to arm yourself to the teeth for? Bears? Wolves?

"Danger" is quite a relative term...Some may consider it dangerous to stand on the edge of a subway platform, or to thumb through a large book with reckless abandon. But, those who actually live in one of the many, vast wilderness areas of the States and Alaska, as well as other remote regions of the world, are all too aware of the threats that exist there.
A mere man is no match for an angry bull moose, an injured grizzly or hungry polar bear! Such things actually reside in close proximity to man, in some parts of the globe. And man's constant desire to explore his world, expand his domain and conquer his surroundings, assure that he will occasionally cross paths with just such creatures!

SO....Being prepared, is merely due diligence. And, not the straw that led to society's demise, as you so tongue-in-cheekedly, put it...

reply to post by Thunda


they got by in the past with the gun they had before the .45 banning guns is a bad solution to a bad problem. if guns are banned, then we will be as defenseless as the victims of recent events. compared to a lot of ancient civilizations, we are kind of young we are aware that civilizations in the past have had rulers of gross malcontent who have set certain patterns that when followed, lead to the enslavement of their subjects. banning citizen self defense is not natural, practical, and nowhere in the animal kingdom does a being unable of defending itself thrive independently. as humans we have put fire and steel to use in order to shape humanity into what it is today. weather evolution has become stagnant with much malevolent acts, or if some sort of adaptation of creating similar or more dynamic defenses against larger forces could we evolve from being attacked so easily not by further lowering your defenses.

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


I was being sarcastic- I have lived in Alaska, Vermont, Toronto, Cape Town, Central London, Rome and many other places- I have never once needed to carry a '45 to a supermarket and, barring the zombie apocalypse, I hope I never will.

People bang on about the 2nd amendment, but the most lethal firearm of the time was a flintlock- times change and we now have assault rifles- Im not for a total gun ban, but there is no reason a civilian needs an assault rifle- end of story.

Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt

 

I was being sarcastic- I have lived in Alaska, Vermont, Toronto, Cape Town, Central London, Rome and many other places- I have never once needed to carry a '45 to a supermarket and, barring the zombie apocalypse, I hope I never will.

People bang on about the 2nd amendment, but the most lethal firearm of the time was a flintlock- times change and we now have assault rifles- Im not for a total gun ban, but there is no reason a civilian needs an assault rifle- end of story.

edit on 18-12-2012 by Thunda because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2012 by Thunda because: (no reason given)

I beg to differ!

A civilian's need to own one, or a hundred "assault" rifles, exists as long as our government continues to own them! Or, even worse, one of the many private police forces, that now exist in, and/or are being operated out of this country!
And THAT, my friend, IS A FACT!!!!

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


Its not a fact, its an opinion, and to be honest, if you think civilians with assault rifles could somehow stand up against these people if they chose to start throwing their weight around, then you are living in dreamland. They would simply isolate you, brand you as terrorists, and wipe you out.

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt

 

I was being sarcastic- I have lived in Alaska, Vermont, Toronto, Cape Town, Central London, Rome and many other places- I have never once needed to carry a '45 to a supermarket and, barring the zombie apocalypse, I hope I never will.

People bang on about the 2nd amendment, but the most lethal firearm of the time was a flintlock- times change and we now have assault rifles- Im not for a total gun ban, but there is no reason a civilian needs an assault rifle- end of story.

edit on 18-12-2012 by Thunda because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2012 by Thunda because: (no reason given)

I beg to differ!

A civilian's need to own one, or a hundred "assault" rifles, exists as long as our government continues to own them! Or, even worse, one of the many private police forces, that now exist in, and/or are being operated out of this country!
And THAT, my friend, IS A FACT!!!!

I don't understand. Don't you think your country will rise up if you had a dodge leader? Do you not think members of the military who control said weapons will have the same view of the country.

You make it sound like if you have a bad government the members of the public who man there positions are going to follow what they tell them. Get real.

You only have to look at recent countries that have had issue, people in power rebel against.

Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt

 

Its not a fact, its an opinion, and to be honest, if you think civilians with assault rifles could somehow stand up against these people if they chose to start throwing their weight around, then you are living in dreamland. They would simply isolate you, brand you as terrorists, and wipe you out.

NO. Sorry. In dreamland, I, and those who share my fevent defense of our way of life, would have already corrected issues such as these.
But, unfortunately, we live in this reality. Where the greedy and the power-hungry are making strides at every turn, to subjugate and rule us.

Have you ever been to a Zoo, and viewed an animal such as a lion, or tiger, who was once free to roam the wilds? But after realizing that he or she, is now captive, just lies around lifeless and lethargic, a shell of the greatness that it once was? That is what those who aspire to control us, can't wait to accomplish.

But as long as we retain our freedom, our voracity remains intact. And those cowards would not dare approach us directly with their plans...

This is the reality that we live in!

reply to post by tdk84

I will refer you to the bathing frog... and the slowly boiled pot of water...

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


Right, so if you and your band of ideologists had "already corrected issues such as these", then why do you need the guns?

You would rather compare yourself, teary eyed, to a 'proud lion', wandering free (with his assault rifle) across the veldt which he defends........


"But as long as we retain our freedom, our voracity remains intact. And those cowards would not dare approach us directly with their plans..." Meethinks too much 'Braveheart' and not enough reality- who do you think these 'cowards' are that are coming to 'take your freedom'?

To be honest, it all has a very hollow ring, and seems like grand words to stop people taking your toys away.

Right, so if you and your band of ideologists had "already corrected issues such as these", then why do you need the guns?
we have explained why we need the guns to you and still are. the aformentioned issues we corrected are perpetual

You would rather compare yourself, teary eyed, to a 'proud lion', wandering free (with his assault rifle) across the veldt which he defends........"
we compare ourselves to other humans who have harnessed fire and steel solely because we hold knowledge of fire and steel


"But as long as we retain our freedom, our voracity remains intact. And those cowards would not dare approach us directly with their plans..." Meethinks too much 'Braveheart' and not enough reality- who do you think these 'cowards' are that are coming to 'take your freedom'?

"To be honest, it all has a very hollow ring, and seems like grand words to stop people taking your toys away."
your reasons for taking away the weapons we use seem to be provincial, inward, and inapplicable to this end of the hemisphere where territory

GoOfYFoOt:

I will refer you to the bathing frog, and the slowly boiled pot of water...

Hmm, can I refer you to what would really happen?

If you put a frog into pan of boiling hot water, the chances are you would kill it by scalding immediately...it would not jump out. Put it into a pot of water that is slowly being heated, and it has a greater option for jumping out as it starts to feel uncomfortable and begins to sense the danger. Peace.

America has a HUGE number of level headed law abiding, child loving, retired and bored people who would love to give some of their time guarding our schools free of charge. They are bored anyway. I see no reason to not tap into that vast resource.

I am for gun ownership.
I think that its a fantastic deterrent for would be invaders, whether China or a crack head.

Have you heard the stat that gun owners in the US are the most powerful force on earth?
If we are talking purely conventional war & say the Chinese Army invaded.
They wouldn't stand a chance against US citizens. I think we could miss
our mark 9 out of 10 times and still have more guns and ammo. Not to mention owners
that are extremely proficient with them. Our government knows this fact.
They ain't coming for your guns.

It takes 200,000 troops
to secure 1,000,000 UNARMED civilians .
At 300,000,000 people,
even if we were unarmed, they couldn't do it.

All this, "They are gonna take our guns ! "
is the NRA letting you lobby for them.
The bigger the tradgedy the louder they get YOU to yell.
Let's think about it..

...It always amazes me how mad some gun owners get
when there is a mass slaying. They aren't mad at the shooter,
they are mad because what happened may effect them.
(though it never really has) Any gun owner want to tell me
how many guns Clinton or Obama have taken from you?
Having your guns physically taken and not being able to
buy an M-4 with an M-203 attachment are two TOTALLY different actions.