Texas poised to become 2nd state allowing concealed handguns on university campuses

[Bob Riebe]

http://www.startribune.com/nation/116564258.html
Things are getting back to the way they always should have been.

[Roamy]

absolutely - I would imagine a few Libyans would have loved to have our 2nd Amendment

[BDunnell]

http://www.startribune.com/nation/116564258.html
Things are getting back to the way they always should have been.

So, would you feel unsafe on a European university campus where this was not allowed?

[ArrowsFA1]

The familiar MAD doctrine: MAD assumes that each side has weaponry to destroy the other and if attacked for any reason can retaliate with equal or greater force.

[Mark]

Speaking as someone who works at a University, you can't really get a much safer place to be!

[BDunnell]

Speaking as someone who works at a University, you can't really get a much safer place to be!

My experience too. Though I'm sure certain individuals will now cleverly use Professor Google to find some links to horrific incidents at European universities that would without doubt have been prevented had everyone been armed in the name of freedom.

[ArrowsFA1]

America's endless romance with guns - http://t.co/omTYk9M

[Rollo]

Does anyone else think it's a good idea to allow a drunk 22 year old to be in possession of a handgun? Texas does.

[markabilly]

What are you worried about?? just don't go to texas but if you do, stay away from drunk 22 yo with guns....

[markabilly]

America's endless romance with guns - http://t.co/omTYk9M

Good words to live by: I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.


Odd ball article as it says guns are so seductive, with the usual underlying faulty premise that if we could just pass a few more laws these problems would go away yet gives examples of people (a marxist no less)using guns to protect themselves and the reasons this fundamental premise is so flawed:




I live in Los Angeles whose civic memory includes the 1992 Rodney King riots, when the police abandoned us to the looters. Gun sales rocketed, and the under-siege Korean American community armed itself to defend their businesses and lives. For some reason, the wild-hearted mobs stopped just short of an invisible drawbridge to my west LA district, but had they poured across La Cienega Boulevard, I'm not certain I wouldn't have emulated my Korean American neighbours.
Pragmatism sometimes overrules ethics.
Mikey Weinstein (http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/about/michael-l-mikey-weinstein/), an Air Force academy graduate and former Reagan White House lawyer, is under constant death threats – vandals routinely shoot out his windows – because he protests the pervasive Christian evangelical proselytising in the military. Whatever his private reservations, he keeps a 12-gauge shotgun in the house, and his daughter sleeps with a .357 revolver by her bed.
And I remember my late friend Jim Boggs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Boggs_%28activist%29), a scholarly radical African American autoworker in Detroit. On my last visit to his home in a tough neighbourhood, Jim insisted on walking me to a corner bus stop on the way back to my hotel. Just before leaving the house, he calmly reached behind a marble bust of Karl Marx on the mantelpiece to withdraw a fully loaded .38 Saturday Night Special. Holding the gun by his side, as we strolled down the street in broad daylight, he said, "Hey, I'm 100% for gun control. But I know this block. I'm no damn fool."

opps........................................

[ArrowsFA1]

opps........................................
MAD prescribes that no-one gives up their weapon(s) unilaterally in the hope or belief that others around them won't shoot, and will give up their own eventually.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

absolutely - I would imagine a few Libyans would have loved to have our 2nd Amendment

So the Libyan rebels would all have guns, as do those who support the current regime.

Yeah that sounds great.

[AndySpeed]

That's one less place to consider for PhD study then...

[Roamy]

So the Libyan rebels would all have guns, as do those who support the current regime.

Yeah that sounds great.

actually I have now heard most of the protesters do in fact have guns.

[Rollo]

How long will it be before someone on a University campus in Texas shoots a bunch of people?

"Place Bets Now! Bet. Bet. Bet. You'e got to be in it to win it!"
- Banzai

[AndySpeed]

Am I allowed to point a concealed big gun at Texas? Only fair isn't it...

[Eki]

Wouldn't it also be fair to let North Korea and Iran have nukes?

[Bob Riebe]

Does anyone else think it's a good idea to allow a drunk 22 year old to be in possession of a handgun? Texas does.
Based on what proofs?

[Bob Riebe]

Am I allowed to point a concealed big gun at Texas? Only fair isn't it...
What are you so afraid of, besides your shadow.

[BDunnell]

What are you so afraid of, besides your shadow.

Being shot by someone who really ought not to be in possession of a gun, perhaps? Just a thought.

[Rollo]

Based on what proofs?

Based on... this:
http://www.startribune.com/nation/116564258.html
Texas is preparing to give college students and professors the right to carry guns on campus,

You're the one who posted the dang article. Who do you usually expect to find on university campuses? Old Age Pensioners? Toddlers?

[Zico]

There is a time and place for carrying guns, going to Uni isn't or at least shouldn't be one of them. If you feel it is or should be.. it speaks volumes on how messed up you.. or your country is.

Bottom line.. :/

[markabilly]

Here you guys are, bashing away about a place where you do not live, and maybe never visited, all worried about people you do not know, and wanting to save them from themselves.

Funny, I just read somewhere that Texas is twice the size of Germany.

Let us see, Texas has had no wars in the last 100 hundred years fought inside the state. Meanwhile mostly in france, germany, poland, the eastern part of europe, an area about four or five times larger than texas, in the last hundred years has seen 50 to 60 or more million dead as a result of all types of inhumanity.

Yes we sure need you guys to be telling us what to do with guns and drunk punk-ass 22 year olds.

Not a thousnad, not ten thousand, not a hundre thousand, but
MILLIONS, as in 50,000,000 people, men, women and children.

[Bob Riebe]

Based on... this:
http://www.startribune.com/nation/116564258.html
Texas is preparing to give college students and professors the right to carry guns on campus,

You're the one who posted the dang article. Who do you usually expect to find on university campuses? Old Age Pensioners? Toddlers?Showm me what this has to do with 22 year old drunks.
If you do that, in most states, you lose the right to concealed carry, at least for awhile.

[Bob Riebe]

Being shot by someone who really ought not to be in possession of a gun, perhaps? Just a thought.That really amounts to a paranoid fear of firearms.

[Bob Riebe]

There is a time and place for carrying guns, going to Uni isn't or at least shouldn't be one of them. If you feel it is or should be.. it speaks volumes on how messed up you.. or your country is.

Bottom line.. :/
Tell that to the unarmed students, and faculty shot by murdering gunmen.

[Bob Riebe]

America's endless romance with guns - http://t.co/omTYk9MEuropes paranoid fear of armed civilians.

[Bob Riebe]

So the Libyan rebels would all have guns, as do those who support the current regime.

Yeah that sounds great.Using such silly analogies, so would the general populace of North Korea. It might sound like a real good idea to them.

[Bob Riebe]

Wouldn't it also be fair to let North Korea and Iran have nukes?That is an absolutely asinine statement which has to relation to the topic at hand.

[Rollo]

Show me what this has to do with 22 year old drunks.

You've never been to University, have you?

[Rollo]

That is an absolutely asinine statement which has to relation to the topic at hand.

The difference is only of scale. The principles which drive your reason for wanting "Second Amendment rights" are identical to North Korea and Iran wanting to have nuclear weapons.

[Bob Riebe]

The difference is only of scale. The principles which drive your reason for wanting "Second Amendment rights" are identical to North Korea and Iran wanting to have nuclear weapons.
We were given Second Amendment Rights by the founders of our country, that statement is incredibly stupid.

It was written to protect from our own government should it try to dissolve the Constitution.

[Bob Riebe]

You've never been to University, have you?
In the one I graduated from, it would get you expelled and sadly nowadays arrested. No firearm necessary.

Your statement shows a level of narcissistic arrogance. Stop admiring your-self in the mirror.

[DexDexter]

Here you guys are, bashing away about a place where you do not live, and maybe never visited, all worried about people you do not know, and wanting to save them from themselves.

Funny, I just read somewhere that Texas is twice the size of Germany.

Let us see, Texas has had no wars in the last 100 hundred years fought inside the state. Meanwhile mostly in france, germany, poland, the eastern part of europe, an area about four or five times larger than texas, in the last hundred years has seen 50 to 60 or more million dead as a result of all types of inhumanity.

Yes we sure need you guys to be telling us what to do with guns and drunk punk-ass 22 year olds.

Not a thousnad, not ten thousand, not a hundre thousand, but
MILLIONS, as in 50,000,000 people, men, women and children.

Actually you do since most Texans (for the moment) are of European descent, so they have the genes for violence so be careful with the guns. :rolleyes:

[ArrowsFA1]

The principles which drive your reason for wanting "Second Amendment rights" are identical to North Korea and Iran wanting to have nuclear weapons.

...that statement is incredibly stupid.
I disagree. The principle is the same, and that is the desire to defend oneself against a potential attacker.

[Retro Formula 1]

Here you guys are, bashing away about a place where you do not live, and maybe never visited, all worried about people you do not know, and wanting to save them from themselves.

Taking an objective look at this, you are quite correct. In fact, it is impossible to argue against your logic.

America is a democratic country that has the right to define it's own destiny. Some people may agree with arming students and some disagree but it is Americas right to decide within itself what it chooses to do.

Personally, I disagree with what the people of Texas have chosen but that is merely an opinion. I have no more right to dictate Texan policy than you have of forcing other Countries to choose their political path.


Funny, I just read somewhere that Texas is twice the size of Germany.

Let us see, Texas has had no wars in the last 100 hundred years fought inside the state. Meanwhile mostly in france, germany, poland, the eastern part of europe, an area about four or five times larger than texas, in the last hundred years has seen 50 to 60 or more million dead as a result of all types of inhumanity.

Yes we sure need you guys to be telling us what to do with guns and drunk punk-ass 22 year olds.

Not a thousnad, not ten thousand, not a hundre thousand, but
MILLIONS, as in 50,000,000 people, men, women and children.

This is just bollox. You make a good point to start with and then some meaningless rhetoric based on irrelevant statistics. If you want to retract it then fine otherwise we can discuss the naiveity of the rest of the post.

[Rollo]

In the one I graduated from, it would get you expelled and sadly nowadays arrested. No firearm necessary.
Your statement shows a level of narcissistic arrogance. Stop admiring your-self in the mirror.

Let's open this up to actual real-world experience:
How many people who went to uni on this forum, know of at least an example of drunkeness on campus?
Moreover how many universities have more than one bar on campus?

[Mark in Oshawa]

All I know is this. This paranoia about armed Americans does also fly in the face of reality. I have been to more US States than just about anyone on this forum (46 of the 50) and never ONCE have I felt unsafe knowing that Americans are armed. The only places that looked dodgy are ironically the states and US Cities that have the most restrictions on gun ownership (Newark, Detroit, Chicago, Washington DC, New York). So figure that one out......

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Funny, I just read somewhere that Texas is twice the size of Germany.
.

Population of Texas = 24million.

Population of Germany = 80million.

doh

[Bob Riebe]

I drank lots an Uni, did alot of stupid pranks, had a lot of sex, got a degree, but never felt there was something missing like not being allowed to carry a concealed handgun around with me on campus. What a crackpot law this is... lol :p
Tell that to the relatives of people killed by campus shooters.
Of course self-centered people only think of them-selves.

[Bob Riebe]

All I know is this. This paranoia about armed Americans does also fly in the face of reality. I have been to more US States than just about anyone on this forum (46 of the 50) and never ONCE have I felt unsafe knowing that Americans are armed. The only places that looked dodgy are ironically the states and US Cities that have the most restrictions on gun ownership (Newark, Detroit, Chicago, Washington DC, New York). So figure that one out......
Remember Mark, you are speaking to people who seem to be of the mind that if they do not want one, neither should anyone else and others especially- should not be allowed one- as it makes the deniers paranoid.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Tell that to the relatives of people killed by campus shooters.
Of course self-centered people only think of them-selves.

Yeah, I'm sure if you went to the victims of Derrick Bird they would advocate more open gun laws :rolleyes:

[Bob Riebe]

Yeah, I'm sure if you went to the victims of Derrick Bird they would advocate more open gun laws :rolleyes:
Wrong country.
----------------------------------------------
Here is one for you: http://www.machinegunshoot.com/machine_gun_shoot.html------ they actually allow women and children in, plus they have an open flea market where if you have the money and time to fill out the paper work, you can actually buy a machine gun and other destructive devices.

This is the night shoot, marvelous---http://www.knobcreekshoot.com/images/more/TracerTimeLapses.jpg

[AndySpeed]

I would rather the gun laws didn't get to the point where I felt that I would need to carry a concealed weapon around to use. Because if I did find myself in such a situation where I might need to use it I'm not sure I'd want to live with the knowledge that I may have killed someone afterwards.

I won't hesitate to defend myself - I just would not want a gun-on-gun situation as the consequences are so heightened.

Let them fight with their fists.

[BDunnell]

Europes paranoid fear of armed civilians.

Perhaps because we have no need for civilians to be armed. I cannot think of a single situation in which I would have considered it necessary or beneficial.

[BDunnell]

That really amounts to a paranoid fear of firearms.

I have no fear of firearms at all, because the likelihood of encountering one in the possession of someone who may do you some damage with it is tiny.

[BDunnell]

Your statement shows a level of narcissistic arrogance. Stop admiring your-self in the mirror.

Ah, the old 'narcissistic arrogance' line. Nice to see that one re-appearing again after such a long absence. I am waiting for 'a legend in your own mind' to come up next. Its appearances have been sorely missed.

[BDunnell]

We were given Second Amendment Rights by the founders of our country, that statement is incredibly stupid.

I have in front of me a document in which an expert on human factors in aircraft accidents states that those of what he describes as an 'aggressive personality type', and I quote, 'Will frequently attack others’ inputs as “stupid”.' Interesting, I thought.

[BDunnell]

Population of Texas = 24million.

Population of Germany = 80million.

doh

I must say I find it quite... er, 'interesting' whenever markabilly posts on a subject that has even a little to do with education.

[markabilly]

Speaking of 'Will frequently attack others’ inputs as “stupid”.' , we now get five examples in a row


Perhaps because we have no need for civilians to be armed. I cannot think of a single situation in which I would have considered it necessary or beneficial.

Oh how quickly you conveniently forget...I can only think of atleast 5,000,000 to 70,000,000



I have no fear of firearms at all, because the likelihood of encountering one in the possession of someone who may do you some damage with it is tiny.

Same here. Indeed, here that likelihood is even smaller....because given your laws, only the really nasty types have guns, unless you want to include your miltary and police


Ah, the old 'narcissistic arrogance' line. Nice to see that one re-appearing again after such a long absence. I am waiting for 'a legend in your own mind' to come up next. Its appearances have been sorely missed.

:rolleyes:


I have in front of me a document in which an expert on human factors in aircraft accidents states that those of what he describes as an 'aggressive personality type', and I quote, 'Will frequently attack others’ inputs as “stupid”.' Interesting, I thought.

Now, I could be trolled into responding with a personal attack here, such as good to see you are trying to do a little self diagnosis but I promsed Mark I would be a good boy and be reeeeeeaaaallll sweeeeeet, so I will not say the obvious.


I must say I find it quite... er, 'interesting' whenever markabilly posts on a subject that has even a little to do with education.

well, why do't you go ahead and man up, and just say stupid, instead of 'interesting"?

Indeed, I was referencing land size, but here there is old Texas, about 30% in pop. size, but has not even scored its first million in the last 100 years, but then there is Germany, racing far ahead with 50 or 60 million dead it can easily claim responsibility for within its terroritorial borders (expanded as they were by invasions into other countries).

Why, on a percentage basis, Texas ought to be able to point to and take credit for atleast 15 million dead civilains, killed for the glory of whatever within its borders

And a governor who has yet to announce that he wants to do any wholessale, all into one, destruction of cultural differences from paranoia over the differences

Yes sir, poor ole Texas is really dragging far behind, stuck in the back woods and swampy back waters.... :rolleyes:

But man oh man, let us worry about that 22 yo drunk with a gun some 3,00 plus miles from where you live.

Amen, bro, and pass the kool aid.

[BDunnell]

Speaking of 'Will frequently attack others’ inputs as “stupid”.' , we now get five examples in a row

Where in any of my posts did I use the word 'stupid'?



Oh how quickly you conveniently forget...I can only think of atleast 5,000,000 to 70,000,000

Please explain what you mean by that comment.



well, why do't you go ahead and man up, and just say stupid, instead of 'interesting"?

Because calling someone else 'stupid' is the preserve of people on these forums whose example I would rather not follow. It's rude and unnecessary.



Indeed, I was referencing land size, but here there is old Texas, about 30% in pop. size, but has not even scored its first million in the last 100 years, but then there is Germany, racing far ahead with 50 or 60 million dead it can easily claim responsibility for within its terroritorial borders (expanded as they were by invasions into other countries).

Your constant references to Germany, purely, it would seem, on the grounds that I happen now to live there, would be getting increasingly tiresome if they were worth taking seriously.

[AndySpeed]

Oh how quickly you conveniently forget...I can only think of atleast 5,000,000 to 70,000,000

I'm a British citizen and I've never been in a situation where I thought I could do with a gun. I'm either completely useless at detecting danger or there's just no need.

Millions more people would agree. I'm also sure there are many (not all) who have lost loved ones in crimes who would also agree. It sets a dangerous precedent and we don't want it.

I feel sorry for you guys in Texas. You've gone so far down the 'tunnel' you can't turn back. You've lost all perspective on what life without your guns would be like, so you see the only answer as increasing their prevalence. A sorry state of affairs indeed.

[Dave B]

I feel sorry for you guys in Texas. You've gone so far down the 'tunnel' you can't turn back. You've lost all perspective on what life without your guns would be like, so you see the only answer as increasing their prevalence. A sorry state of affairs indeed.
This is my view too, and the reason why I no longer get drawn into these threads (unless this counts :p ). It's an ingrained cultural difference that neither "side" will ever truly comprehend, more akin to a religion or at least a cult. If Texans are happy with their lot then bully for them, if not then America's a big enough country that they can move away from it. I guess the flipside of being the so-called Land of the Free is that you accept this also means the freedom to blow one another's brains out. I'm content to leave them to it, and happy that there's a flippin' great big ocean between us and them. :s

[markabilly]

This is my view too, and the reason why I no longer get drawn into these threads (unless this counts :p ). It's an ingrained cultural difference that neither "side" will ever truly comprehend, more akin to a religion or at least a cult. If Texans are happy with their lot then bully for them, if not then America's a big enough country that they can move away from it. I guess the flipside of being the so-called Land of the Free is that you accept this also means the freedom to blow one another's brains out. I'm content to leave them to it, and happy that there's a flippin' great big ocean between us and them. :s

feeling is mutual as to your side of the ocean, and then some. And in the last 25 years, i have not carried a gun anywhere, and never felt the need for it.

[BDunnell]

feeling is mutual as to your side of the ocean, and then some.

A feeling based on nothing but the ignorance you make plain every time you post.

[BDunnell]

I'm a British citizen and I've never been in a situation where I thought I could do with a gun. I'm either completely useless at detecting danger or there's just no need.

Millions more people would agree. I'm also sure there are many (not all) who have lost loved ones in crimes who would also agree. It sets a dangerous precedent and we don't want it.

I feel sorry for you guys in Texas. You've gone so far down the 'tunnel' you can't turn back. You've lost all perspective on what life without your guns would be like, so you see the only answer as increasing their prevalence. A sorry state of affairs indeed.

Excellent, well-written post, though I am sure you will be accused of 'narcissism' or some such later on.

[Bob Riebe]

Ah, the old 'narcissistic arrogance' line. Nice to see that one re-appearing again after such a long absence. I am waiting for 'a legend in your own mind' to come up next. Its appearances have been sorely missed.He is the one who said he feels superior to those from the left and right because of his superior stance from the center.
His opinion whether you like it or not.

[Bob Riebe]

I have in front of me a document in which an expert on human factors in aircraft accidents states that those of what he describes as an 'aggressive personality type', and I quote, 'Will frequently attack others’ inputs as “stupid”.' Interesting, I thought.
So, your point is, you are an expert?

[BDunnell]

So, your point is, you are an expert?

Merely quoting what an actual expert says, nothing more.

[ArrowsFA1]

Any chance of us getting back to the topic...which was what exactly :confused:

[Bob Riebe]

I'm a British citizen and I've never been in a situation where I thought I could do with a gun. I'm either completely useless at detecting danger or there's just no need.

Millions more people would agree. I'm also sure there are many (not all) who have lost loved ones in crimes who would also agree. It sets a dangerous precedent and we don't want it.

1I feel sorry for you guys in Texas. You've gone so far down the 'tunnel' you can't turn back. You've lost all perspective on what life without your guns would be like, so you see the only answer as increasing their prevalence. A sorry state of affairs indeed.
So then you and "millions" who are afraid of the bogey man.
These "millions" you are sure agree with you why, you are a seer with uncanny ablility?

Come out and say it, BDunnell did,--
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Europes paranoid fear of armed civilians.

Originally Posted by BDunnell
Perhaps because we have no need for civilians to be armed. I cannot think of a single situation in which I would have considered it necessary or beneficial. ---
you have a paranoid fear of firearms, and people who dare obtain them to defend them-selves.

[Bob Riebe]

Merely quoting what an actual expert says, nothing more.
Without regard as to whether the "expert" has any special skill or knowledge beyond the "expert" saying said same does.
Kind of like the "experts" the TV talking heads roll-out to mimic their opinions on a matter without regard to facts.

[BDunnell]

So then you and "millions" who are afraid of the bogey man.
These "millions" you are sure agree with you why, you are a seer with uncanny ablility?

Bob, is there anyone whose opinions you value as highly as your own? AndySpeed disagrees with you — so what? Why the need to make the sarcastic point about him being a 'seer with uncanny ability'?

There are people on these forums with whom I often disagree, yet can have a civil and reasoned discussion with. You, on the other hand, render this difficult at best. Looking at your contributions on other forums (a quick search for 'Bob Riebe' and 'rhetoric' did the trick) seems to bear out the notion that I'm not the only one, though perhaps the certainty with which you hold your views is explained by the certainty of your religious beliefs, as expressed elsewhere.

[Bob Riebe]

BDunnell, is there anyone whose opinions you value as highly as your own? .``

[Bob Riebe]

Bob, is there anyone whose opinions you value as highly as your own? AndySpeed disagrees with you — so what? Why the need to make the sarcastic point about him being a 'seer with uncanny ability'?

Because I do not speak as if I am speaking for "millions more" who I am "sure" agree with me.

[BDunnell]

Because I do not speak as if I am speaking for "millions more" who I am "sure" agree with me.

Whereas this: 'You just keep saying that, maybe eventually you will convince some how witty you are, until them keep them coming. Try posting something some time that has a point and is not grade school insult level, and maybe you will be taken seriously- oops my above response is awfully close to your rattle-babble style, ewwww, as Count Floyd would say-- that is really scary' — your fifth ever post on these forums — is entirely acceptable?

[Bob Riebe]

Any chance of us getting back to the topic...which was what exactly :confused: The fact that Texas has enough faith in its citizens to allow them to be armed in case another campus shooting spree is attempted.

[Bob Riebe]

Whereas this: 'You just keep saying that, maybe eventually you will convince some how witty you are, until them keep them coming. Try posting something some time that has a point and is not grade school insult level, and maybe you will be taken seriously- oops my above response is awfully close to your rattle-babble style, ewwww, as Count Floyd would say-- that is really scary' — your fifth ever post on these forums — is entirely acceptable?That has what to do with this thread, much less the post/poster I addressed? (acceptable ti me yes. Is your continually criticizing other posters, ignoring to whom they were speaking or the topic at hand, acceptable to you?)

If you are going to spend time looking up old posts, not related to the thread topic, you either have too much free time on your hands, or you have fetish for what I write.

[BDunnell]

If you are going to spend time looking up old posts, not related to the thread topic, you either have too much free time on your hands, or you have fetish for what I write.

It is obviously the latter. Charmed to know you noticed.

[Bob Riebe]

It is obviously the latter. Charmed to know you noticed.Hmmm--I am either flattered or flustered.

[BDunnell]

Hmmm--I am either flattered or flustered.

Be both!

[Garry Walker]

Perhaps because we have no need for civilians to be armed. I cannot think of a single situation in which I would have considered it necessary or beneficial.

You have lead a very lucky and sheltered life then.

[Rollo]

You have lead a very lucky and sheltered life then.

Me as well by the sounds of things.

[Retro Formula 1]

Sorry Gary but as Jeremy Kyle says, it's a full house :D

[anthonyvop]

Does anyone else think it's a good idea to allow a drunk 22 year old to be in possession of a handgun? Texas does.

Actually to posses a firearm under the influence of alcohol or drugs is a crime. So that law should prevent that from happening! LOL

[anthonyvop]

How long will it be before someone on a University campus in Texas shoots a bunch of people?

"Place Bets Now! Bet. Bet. Bet. You'e got to be in it to win it!"
- Banzai

Not sure, but I bet the over/under is set at Virginia Tech...You remember the Virginia Tech incident don't ya? That was when the ban of students possessing weapons on campus stop the wack job from killing 32 law abiding, gun control law protected people!

[anthonyvop]

I have no fear of firearms at all, because the likelihood of encountering one in the possession of someone who may do you some damage with it is tiny.

So there are no assaults, rapes, robberies and murders where you live? No crimes at all? Where is this Shang-Ri-La?

[GridGirl]

I'm European. I don't think our society would benefit from the ability or 'right' to carry a gun. Some of you formumers would think that there is obviously something wrong with me. Well after watching an episode of QI and a quick google I have managed to come up with a self diagnosis. Yes, today I declare myself a hoplophobic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia

:laugh: :p :laugh:

[schmenke]

Am I the only one who feels that the possession of firearms in a learning institute is somewhat of a contradiction? I’m sure I’ll get much rebuttal for saying this, but I can’t help but feel that firearms possession is the antithesis of education :mark: .

[Eki]

Am I the only one who feels that the possession of firearms in a learning institute is somewhat of a contradiction? I’m sure I’ll get much rebuttal for saying this, but I can’t help but feel that firearms possession is the antithesis of education :mark: .
Not if it's military education. We used to carry an assault rifle with us quite a lot, actually.

[Eki]

My brother used to have a gun in his hands when he patrolled past a school in Northern Ireland, does that count? ;)
Did he learn something?

[Eki]

Gaddafi opens up the weapons depots to the people and tells them to arm themselves:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12576427


He was shown speaking from the old city ramparts and urging the crowd to arm themselves and defend the nation and its oil against anti-government protesters who have taken control of large parts of the country.

"This is the people that brought Italy to its knees," he said, referring to the overthrow of Libya's colonial rulers. "I am amid the masses, and we shall fight, and we shall defeat them.

I hope he has enough arms for everybody. Yes, power to the people.

[Rollo]

Not sure, but I bet the over/under is set at Virginia Tech...You remember the Virginia Tech incident don't ya? That was when the ban of students possessing weapons on campus stop the wack job from killing 32 law abiding, gun control law protected people!

And had students been allowing to carry concealed handguns on university campuses then Seung-Hui Cho would have been perfectly allowed by law to have his guns on campus in the first place.

I take it that you approve of that?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Am I the only one who feels that the possession of firearms in a learning institute is somewhat of a contradiction? I’m sure I’ll get much rebuttal for saying this, but I can’t help but feel that firearms possession is the antithesis of education :mark: .

nope, maybe some people should be taught about guns in a formal education setting. Might make them realize it is a tool, just like a chain saw is or anything else.....

We don't need guns on campus unless of course someone brings one there bent on doing something evil with a gun. Then you hope someone sane has one.....

Not a big fan of the idea myself Schmenke, but guns are part of American society traditionally and will be 200 years from now. If everyone else has one, it would behoove one to maybe understand more about how they can be part of society and your life. In Canada, we don't have people with handguns save the cops and the crooks. Look how well THAT works in Toronto every summer....

[Eki]

nope, maybe some people should be taught about guns in a formal education setting. Might make them realize it is a tool, just like a chain saw is or anything else.....

We don't need guns on campus unless of course someone brings one there bent on doing something evil with a gun. Then you hope someone sane has one.....

Not a big fan of the idea myself Schmenke, but guns are part of American society traditionally and will be 200 years from now. If everyone else has one, it would behoove one to maybe understand more about how they can be part of society and your life. In Canada, we don't have people with handguns save the cops and the crooks. Look how well THAT works in Toronto every summer....
But do you believe that a situation where everybody, including the insane and the hotheads, has guns is safer than if as few as possible, including as few insane and hotheaded people as possible, have guns?

[Eki]

Not everyone in Northern Ireland is a terrorist maybe?
Then it counts as educational.

[anthonyvop]

And had students been allowing to carry concealed handguns on university campuses then Seung-Hui Cho would have been perfectly allowed by law to have his guns on campus in the first place.

I take it that you approve of that?

Actually Yes.

The law against having a concealed weapon on campus did nothing to stop him so why violate the basic human right of law abiding citizens with a law to is 100% ineffective?

Also if concealed weapons were allowed there was a chance that a law abiding student could have stopped him before the body count hit 32.

[anthonyvop]

But do you believe that a situation where everybody, including the insane and the hotheads, has guns is safer than if as few as possible, including as few insane and hotheaded people as possible, have guns?

I don't really care what is safer....it is immaterial. The right to posses a gun is a inalienable human right....not to be denied.

You could claim that you would be safer if you banned certain kind of speech but it wouldn't matter in a true free society where freedom of speech is sacrosanct.

You could ban cars and we would be safe from traffic injuries.
You could ban planes and we would be safe from Plane crashes.

The fact is Gun Ownership is a right. Those who want to take guns away want to violate my rights. Shame on you.

[Eki]

You could ban cars and we would be safe from traffic injuries.
You could ban planes and we would be safe from Plane crashes.

You would probably let anyone drive and fly without a license and training regardless of age, blood alcohol and disabilities (like 10 year old drunken blind kids strapped with explosives (shouldn't they be free to do so?)), and remove any airport security measures. After all, security doesn't mean anything to you. Do you approve any limits of freedom on anything for any reason, or is freedom the only thing that matters to you? The prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are not free, would you like them to be liberated?

[donKey jote]

'taffy rapists'
:eek: don't bleet whatever you do ! :uhoh: :s ailor: :dozey: :p

[donKey jote]

err bleat :arrows:

[markabilly]

Its not a human right but it is a legal right in your country. I don't feel the government in the UK are breaching my human rights because they don't allow me to own a handgun, why would I need one? I'm all for farmers and gamekeepers using them on private land to keep down pests, and for sporting occasions, but as a home owner I don't feel its a necessary item.

If it ever gets to a stage in the UK where you need to defend your house from evil do-er's like is suggested it is in the US, then I'd happily pay higher taxes so law enforcement can protect me if needed. If you've got children and your guns are legally required to be locked away, then the chances are they won't be to hand should a gang of 'taffy rapists' break into my house during the night anyway. Safe as. :s mokin:


I do not need nor keep a loaded firearm to protect myself and family. That is what all those carefully placed claymores take care of. And if those fail, I have a small thermonuke device in the attic wired up to a mobile phone, and all i need to do, is push one speed dial button and pow. Nobody gets away with nothing. Just got to be careful and not accidentally dial it by mistake

[BDunnell]

So there are no assaults, rapes, robberies and murders where you live? No crimes at all? Where is this Shang-Ri-La?

It certainly isn't free of crime, but in no way do I feel so threatened as to think that being armed would be of benefit.

[anthonyvop]

It certainly isn't free of crime, but in no way do I feel so threatened as to think that being armed would be of benefit.


That is you.....But then again Europe has a history of accepting surrender, capitulation and collaboration. In the USA the only people who accept it are Liberals.

[anthonyvop]

Its not a human right but it is a legal right in your country. :

No...It is an inalienable right. Your country violates it and you willingly accept it.

[anthonyvop]

You would probably let anyone drive and fly without a license and training regardless of age, blood alcohol and disabilities (like 10 year old drunken blind kids strapped with explosives (shouldn't they be free to do so?)), and remove any airport security measures. After all, security doesn't mean anything to you. Do you approve any limits of freedom on anything for any reason, or is freedom the only thing that matters to you? The prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are not free, would you like them to be liberated?


Eki.....You continue to fail to grasp basic logic.

If you actually believe that driving a car on a Publicly funded road or flying a plane over other people's property is the same as possessing a firearm on one's person or in their home then the Finnish Education system is a complete failure.

[BDunnell]

That is you.....But then again Europe has a history of accepting surrender, capitulation and collaboration. In the USA the only people who accept it are Liberals.

Such wise words.

[anthonyvop]

Such wise words.

The truth does seem to bother you.

[Roamy]

I don't know why we have any gun restriction except to felons - Got Gun - Pack It

[Rollo]

No...It is an inalienable right. Your country violates it and you willingly accept it.

Wrong.

The right to bear arms exists in the United States because of the operation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Amendments can be repealed.

[DexDexter]

The idea of amateurs carrying guns is very frightening to me. All sorts of stupid accidents will occur which will cause people to lose their lives. But the Americans can obviously do what they want but if the people feel that they need to carry a gun, the society has failed them since it's the job of the police &government to protect the people. We do have a lot of hunting weapons in this country and the vast majority of male adult population has extensive military training but for some reason I have never thought about carrying a gun in my pocket. Why should I?

[Eki]

Eki.....You continue to fail to grasp basic logic.

If you actually believe that driving a car on a Publicly funded road or flying a plane over other people's property is the same as possessing a firearm on one's person or in their home then the Finnish Education system is a complete failure.
Driving a car on a Publicly funded road or flying a plane over other people's property have often practical use, carrying a gun on on a Publicly funded road or on people's property rarely have practical or acceptable uses. In Finland, driving a car or flying a plane require expensive training, minimum age of 18 years a medical checkup before you can get a license. I think those should be the minimum requirements for gun ownership too.

[Eki]

BTW, does Texas also allow concealed knives, knuckle irons and axes on university campus, or is it just guns?

[Eki]

In York, it's legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow, except on Sundays. But on Sundays, you can go to Chester after midnight and shoot a Welsh person:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/hey-its-sunday-lets-go-kill-scotsman-archaic-british-laws-1


In Chester, you can only shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow inside the city walls and after midnight.
You may not shoot a Welsh person on Sunday with a longbow in the Cathedral Close in Hereford.
In Liverpool, it is illegal for a woman to be topless in public except as a clerk in a tropical fish store.
In London, companies may vote in local elections.
In York, excluding Sundays, it is perfectly legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow.

[BDunnell]

The truth does seem to bother you.

Yes, how stupid I am.

[Rollo]

In York, it's legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow, except on Sundays. But on Sundays, you can go to Chester after midnight and shoot a Welsh person:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/hey-its-sunday-lets-go-kill-scotsman-archaic-british-laws-1

No it isn't.

A Scotsman is a person and therefore killing them is a Common Law Offence with reference to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and the Homocide Act 1957.

The link you provided although it is a nice story, is a fib.

[anthonyvop]

Wrong.

The right to bear arms exists in the United States because of the operation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Amendments can be repealed.

No.....Some people believe it is a right granted by the 2nd amendment. In fact it is an inalienable right. No piece of paper can tell me if I can or cannot defend myself and my family.

[anthonyvop]

Driving a car on a Publicly funded road or flying a plane over other people's property have often practical use, carrying a gun on on a Publicly funded road or on people's property rarely have practical or acceptable uses. In Finland, driving a car or flying a plane require expensive training, minimum age of 18 years a medical checkup before you can get a license. I think those should be the minimum requirements for gun ownership too.

The idea that a person like you would have a say on whether I can posses a gun or not makes me throw up a bit in my mouth.
People like you just don't get it. You have grown up with and accepted fascism as a fact of you life that a true believer in liberty like me is a threat to your core.

[BDunnell]

No.....Some people believe it is a right granted by the 2nd amendment. In fact it is an inalienable right. No piece of paper can tell me if I can or cannot defend myself and my family.

And no law should ever be changed, or just that one?

[Eki]

No.....Some people believe it is a right granted by the 2nd amendment. In fact it is an inalienable right. No piece of paper can tell me if I can or cannot defend myself and my family.
Of course you can, not just with guns, there are ways to do it without guns.

BTW, do you often have to defend yourself and your family from a physical assault?

[BDunnell]

The idea that a person like you would have a say on whether I can posses a gun or not makes me throw up a bit in my mouth.
People like you just don't get it. You have grown up with and accepted fascism as a fact of you life that a true believer in liberty like me is a threat to your core.

Oh well.

[DexDexter]

The idea that a person like you would have a say on whether I can posses a gun or not makes me throw up a bit in my mouth.
People like you just don't get it. You have grown up with and accepted fascism as a fact of you life that a true believer in liberty like me is a threat to your core.

It's not about the right, it's about the need. Yours is a sad society if it functions so poorly that you feel you need to have a weapon (which you probably don't know how to use properly) in order to feel safe.

[markabilly]

Talk about a paranoid society. :eek:

No, it has to do with a "paranoia" that if you are not prepared and will not defend your freedom on a personal individual basis, then sooner or later, what limited freedom you have, will be taken from you.

That is the heritage of this country, as we did not have a real revolution, but had a developed an independance and reliance solely upon one's own individual self for survival. GB tries to start excercising control that appearred to threaten that independance.

In reaction to that percieved threat, individuals armed with their personal weapons that were an absolute necessity for survival, took arms and fought the British to a stand still. They proceeded to do the same in the War of 1812. While it may have taken a French army and navy to seal the deal, the Revolution was started, fought and kept alive by farmers and other civilains for years before then. Without these civilains, there would have been no Yorktown.

From the begininng of of colonial life, there was no "king" to provide any form of protection, and even at the time of the War of 1812, America was far more free, democratic and "progressive" than Great Britain. Meanwhile these ideals of freedome of speech, respect for individual rights, voting, et al, was something of a much slower, uneven evolutionary process in GB that at one point saw GB under the despotic and tyrannical rule of Henry the Eight, whose later descent into some of the worst abuses of power possible with plenty of torture and murder under the guise of a royal order......until the time of Queen Victoria, it seemed that Britain was under the thumb of a mean and nasty despot, one after another, even with Elizabeth more than willing to hang "traitors' who did not pay absolute obediance to the wiggle of her little finger.

Dump the heritage of these silly, dumb, inbred "royals" whose property wealth was sucked out of the hands of British citizens and continues to be so, even today, then come back and worry about life in the USA.

And then there are the practical situation of today, with out of control violence dominating many parts of the USA.

[Roamy]

BTW, does Texas also allow concealed knives, knuckle irons and axes on university campus, or is it just guns?

Never bring a ax to a gun fight !!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

From the begininng of of colonial life, there was no "king" to provide any form of protection, and even at the time of the War of 1812, America was far more free, democratic and "progressive" than Great Britain. Meanwhile these ideals of freedome of speech, respect for individual rights, voting, et al, was something of a much slower, uneven evolutionary process in GB that at one point saw GB under the despotic and tyrannical rule of Henry the Eight, whose later descent into some of the worst abuses of power possible with plenty of torture and murder under the guise of a royal order......until the time of Queen Victoria, it seemed that Britain was under the thumb of a mean and nasty despot, one after another, even with Elizabeth more than willing to hang "traitors' who did not pay absolute obediance to the wiggle of her little finger.

There has never been a king of 'GB' called 'Henry the Eight'.

[Eki]

And then there are the practical situation of today, with out of control violence dominating many parts of the USA.
And you don't think violence would get out of control more easily if everybody was armed? I do, since most of those who use impulsive violence don't much think about the consequences and there would statistically be more of them in arms.

Tendency to violence is at least partly genetic, so they can't easily control their behavior. Recently they found a gene mutation that increases the odds of violent behavior when drunk. It's more common in Finland than elsewhere. They studied a group of Finnish prisoners and a group of "normal" Finns, and found that the prisoners sentenced for violent crimes had that gene mutations seven times more often than the "normal" people.

[BDunnell]

There has never been a king of 'GB' called 'Henry the Eight'.

Yes, if we are to be given history lessons, they could at least be historically accurate.

[nigelred5]

The idea of amateurs carrying guns is very frightening to me. All sorts of stupid accidents will occur which will cause people to lose their lives. But the Americans can obviously do what they want but if the people feel that they need to carry a gun, the society has failed them since it's the job of the police &government to protect the people. We do have a lot of hunting weapons in this country and the vast majority of male adult population has extensive military training but for some reason I have never thought about carrying a gun in my pocket. Why should I?

There is something in this country called responsible ownership. I am far from what would be considered an amateur at owning or handling a firearm. I learned, as many in this country do, to properly handle and operate firearms at avery young age.
Many people in our country DO NOT feel or BELIEVE that it is the "JOB" of the police and government to protect them. That is an individual's responsibility.

One of the primary purposes of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the right and ability of the individual to protect THEMSELVES FROM a tyrannical government. I will NEVER assume the government is my primary source of protection from ANYTHING, nor will I ever believe is it their JOB to provide ME with ANYTHING.

I provide and protect MYSELF,and if I feel the best means of providing myself that protection as a law abiding citizen is through the possession of a firearm, that is my RIGHT and I will continue to do so.

[BDunnell]

There is something in this country called responsible ownership. I am far from what would be considered an amateur at owning or handling a firearm. I learned, as many in this country do, to properly handle and operate firearms at avery young age.
Many people in our country DO NOT feel or BELIEVE that it is the "JOB" of the police and government to protect them. That is an individual's responsibility.

One of the primary purposes of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the right and ability of the individual to protect THEMSELVES FROM a tyrannical government. I will NEVER assume the government is my primary source of protection from ANYTHING, nor will I ever believe is it their JOB to provide ME with ANYTHING.

I provide and protect MYSELF,and if I feel the best means of providing myself that protection as a law abiding citizen is through the possession of a firearm, that is my RIGHT and I will continue to do so.

So you do not believe in the rule of law?

[nigelred5]

Times change and move on. We longer need to fight our government on the battlefield and defend our homes/castles from 'Robin Hood' style characters with a Smith and Weston. Do you guys seriously sit and worry about your homes being invaded by criminals and defending yourself against government policies you don't agree with packing a piece under your beds?? Should the fourth horseman of the apocalypse ever show up and take away your freedom, I doubt a few landmines and a few carefully locked away guns will do you any good.

A simple 'yes' would have been efficient enough to confirm paranoia. I wasn't expecting something that convincing in response.. :eek: :p

Paranoia is an irrational fear. Protecting ones self from possible harm or uninvited intrusion in ones home is not irrational.

[BDunnell]

Paranoia is an irrational fear. Protecting ones self from possible harm or uninvited intrusion in ones home is not irrational.

Therefore, would you believe that, were I to live in a country where gun ownership was permitted to such an extent as it is in the USA, I would be 'irrational' were I not to invest in such a weapon as a means of protection?

Again, we come back to a point I have made many, many times before. I just do not get the notion of a fear of crime that is so deep-rooted as to make people think that gun ownership is even desirable, let alone necessary. I have never lived anywhere so dangerous as to even make me wish for a second that I could be armed. This includes South London, where, if one were to believe certain sections of the press, gun crime is everywhere. This is why many of us Europeans talk about paranoia in this regard. Those who argue in favour of gun ownership seem so afraid, so insecure.

[anthonyvop]

It's not about the right, it's about the need. Yours is a sad society if it functions so poorly that you feel you need to have a weapon (which you probably don't know how to use properly) in order to feel safe.

I have lived in other countries besides the USA. Dominican Republic, Costa Rica and Spain. And in every instance I possessed and carried a Firearm. Traveling throughout Europe during my time in Spain I always had my sidearm.
Never in the USA have I had to use it. In the other 3 I have had to draw it....So much for paranoia...

[Eki]

Paranoia is an irrational fear. Protecting ones self from possible harm or uninvited intrusion in ones home is not irrational.
In some Banana Republics without working law-enforcement and justice systems that fear could be classified as rational, but I'm sure in most parts of North America and Europe it's more or less irrational.

[BDunnell]

I have lived in other countries besides the USA. Dominican Republic, Costa Rica and Spain. And in every instance I possessed and carried a Firearm. Traveling throughout Europe during my time in Spain I always had my sidearm.

Was it legal for you to carry it 'throughout Europe'?



Never in the USA have I had to use it. In the other 3 I have had to draw it....So much for paranoia...

Tell us why you had to draw it in Spain, and what happened, otherwise I will be tempted to believe that this is just an example of your anti-European hyperbole and that the incident never actually occurred.

[markabilly]

There has never been a king of 'GB' called 'Henry the Eight'.

england, britain or whatever you want to call your chunk of the island, as in who cares. Read up on ole Henry, started off great and than slimed off into the deep end, really bad. One of the worst all time paranoid, crazy, grossly fat, despotic murderer....

[markabilly]

Do you guys seriously sit and worry about your homes being invaded by criminals and defending yourself against government policies you don't agree with packing a piece under your beds?? Should the fourth horseman of the apocalypse ever show up and take away your freedom, I doubt a few landmines and a few carefully locked away guns will do you any good.



I only worry about somone dialing a wrong number and opps. If that happens, well....."there goes the neighborhood"

Besides I do think a big part of it is all about defending heritage on both side. Still have not figured out, except for heritage, why you have not dumped all those royals in some garbage pit by now.....time to move on

And then of course setting aside the paranoia of your current leaders, one might ask, why are all of you so paranoid and/or insecure about law abiding people in a country several thousand miles away, owning guns....... is there such a fear of your fellow citizens? Not talking your criminal element, just regular citizens, no different than those members of the Swiss population keeping their machine guns, missles and grenades at home...? Strikes me a bigger fear/insecure factor is at play against gun ownership.

As in not trusting anyone

[BDunnell]

england, britain or whatever you want to call your chunk of the island, as in who cares.

It is with statements like that that you render yourself hard to take seriously on matters relating to anywhere other than the USA, because they prove that you know little about the countries in question. The distinction is important, and really not that difficult to get right.


Read up on ole Henry, started off great and than slimed off into the deep end, really bad. One of the worst all time paranoid, crazy, grossly fat, despotic murderer....

Yes, so?

[BDunnell]

Still have not figured out, except for heritage, why you have not dumped all those royals in some garbage pit by now.....time to move on

I quite agree, but I'm not about to lead a popular armed revolution against them.

[markabilly]

It is with statements like that that you render yourself hard to take seriously on matters relating to anywhere other than the USA, because they prove that you know little about the countries in question. The distinction is important, and really not that difficult to get right.

?
If you want to talk merits, fine, otherwise spare me the sly personal insults. As to the royals, yep, duck out on that one too.

[BDunnell]

If you wan to talk merits, fine, otherwise spare me the sly personal insults.

It wasn't meant in any way as an insult, but as a genuine point which I think you might be well advised to take on board.

[markabilly]

It wasn't meant in any way as an insult, but as a genuine point which I think you might be well advised to take on board.

i will leave form, grammer, insults and other trivial matters to you as you have a special talent for such things; and instead worry over substance rather than form. Speaking of such, I have had enough of trivial matters and shall now log out for the day. Have fun you'll

[BDunnell]

i will leave form, grammer, insults and other trivial matters to you as you have a special talent for such things; and instead worry over substance rather than form.

I am honestly not trying to insult you on this point; rather, to make you realise the problem I and, it seems, other more internationally-minded individuals here have with your views on other countries. This is very definitely a matter of substance, in that such errors make us doubt your depth of knowledge of nations other than the USA.

[Rollo]

I quite agree, but I'm not about to lead a popular armed revolution against them.

You don't need to. Cromwell did in 1642. Then after the restoration there was a thing called the "Glorious Revolution" as a result of which the Bill of Rights Act in 1689 was passed, limiting the power of the monarch and granting rule to the monarch only with the express consent of the parliament.
Then again markabilly doesn't appear to know this aspect of history.

[nigelred5]

I absoultely believe in the rule of law, and I abide by it, however a significant portion of society does not. Law in and of itself does not protect me, nor does it deter many.

Are you irrational for not choosing to use a firearm to protect yourself? Not at all, however that is YOUR choice, not mine. You can sit back and rely on the police to respond to your call for assistance after the fact. You admit, you have not lived anywhere where YOU felt the need to arm yourself. I have, and that was NOT irrational. The fact is, criminals have guns in this country and that will not change. I will therfore continue defend myself against that reality as I am allowed and fight for the right to do so where it is currently restricted. I do not accept that I should sit back and allow that to occur and merely rely on police to react to an event after it has happened.

I'll be clear here, I am not a proponent of totally unregulated gun ownership,


The discussion is about the right and freedom to do so if one should so choose. There are many places in this country where that need to protect ones self IS a distinct reality, as unfortunate as that may be. There are many places where break-ins, physical assult, etc, is an every day occurence.

There are also many places in this country where the ability of law enforcement to provide "protection" from those that do not choose to abide by the law is not immediate or timely. In general, we are not a "police state". In many jurisdictions, the extent and presence of law enforcement is deliberately minimal BECAUSE there is an expectation and or a desire of the populace to provide a level of self-protection. MANY people abhorr such a government presence, and hold little faith in the governments' ability to provide that protection in the first place. Personally, I tend to fall in the middle.

[nigelred5]

In some Banana Republics without working law-enforcement and justice systems that fear could be classified as rational, but I'm sure in most parts of North America and Europe it's more or less irrational.

It is not. PERIOD. I live here, you do not. I see what happens where people cannot defend themselves in this country. They frequently die. It is fact. Within walking distance of the US capitol, not the wilderness of Alaska.

I have two close relatives that were car-jacked at gunpoint by A repeat violent offender in Houston. Their assalant IS dead. My family members are not. They defended themselves with a legally carried firearm. The LAW did not defend them. AM I biased? You're effin right I AM and in this country I have a RIGHT to be, just as I have a RIGHT to defend myself.

[BDunnell]

It is not. PERIOD. I live here, you do not. I see what happens where people cannot defend themselves in this country. They frequently die. It is fact. Within walking distance of the US capitol, not the wilderness of Alaska.

I have two close relatives that were car-jacked at gunpoint by A repeat violent offenders in Houston. Their assalant IS dead. My family members are not. They defended themselves with a legally carried firearm. AM I biased, you're effin right I AM and in this country, I have a RIGHT to be, just as I have a RIGHT to defend myself.

This is all symptomatic, surely, of a much wider malaise. Still, gun crime exists in both my home country, the UK, and the country where I currently live, and still I would consider it an over-reaction to possess a gun.

[nigelred5]

This is all symptomatic, surely, of a much wider malaise. Still, gun crime exists in both my home country, the UK, and the country where I currently live, and still I would consider it an over-reaction to possess a gun.

I do not.

[BDunnell]

I absoultely believe in the rule of law, and I abide by it, however a significant portion of society does not. Law in and of itself does not protect me, nor does it deter many.

Again, this tells me there are wider societal problems at play, and I consider it genuinely sad that you feel this way — not, absolutely not, because one would wish to live in a police state, but because if you really feel the need to be armed, this is something to worry about, not to celebrate as a demonstration of 'freedom' as many seem to do.


You can sit back and rely on the police to respond to your call for assistance after the fact.

Yes, though frankly this doesn't concern me for one moment, because the possibility of a situation arising where being armed would be an advantage is statistically extremely remote, and given that it's a risk I'm prepared to run.


I will therfore continue defend myself against that reality as I am allowed and fight for the right to do so where it is currently restricted. I do not accept that I should sit back and allow that to occur and merely rely on police to react to an event after it has happened.

And I would never be prepared to live somewhere where those means were replaced by gun-wielding civilians. Frankly, the attitudes displayed on this board tells me that those most enthusiastic about gun ownership (and I don't, yet, include you in this category) are the sort of individuals I would least like to mete out justice as they saw fit.


In general, we are not a "police state". In many jurisdictions, the extent and presence of law enforcement is deliberately minimal BECAUSE there is an expectation and or a desire of the populace to provide a level of self-protection. MANY people abhorr such a government presence, and hold little faith in the governments' ability to provide that protection in the first place. Personally, I tend to fall in the middle.

In general, neither are those nations in which gun ownership is not permitted in this way police states. Do you consider them — the UK, France, Germany, etc — to be? I do hope you won't say 'yes' based purely on the fact that we don't have widespread gun ownership. I think what we do in Europe is have a healthy disregard for the authorities at the same time as having a stronger disregard for the notion of gun-wielding civilians dispensing justice as they see fit.

[BDunnell]

I do not.

So you believe we would all be better off being armed in Europe?

[Eki]

I provide and protect MYSELF,and if I feel the best means of providing myself that protection as a law abiding citizen is through the possession of a firearm, that is my RIGHT and I will continue to do so.
That's where we differ. I feel it's my RIGHT that the government protects me and provides me with a safety net if things go bad and I will continue to do so.

[Rollo]

I have lived in other countries besides the USA. Dominican Republic, Costa Rica and Spain. And in every instance I possessed and carried a Firearm. Traveling throughout Europe during my time in Spain I always had my sidearm.

Did you sit through the psychological testing in Spain to get your FAC? I take it that you also had a European Firearms Pass (which you always carried) and had the weapon proofmarked.

[markabilly]

Theres also nothing that irks Brits more than people from other countries referring to the UK as 'England'. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if your geography is not up to scratch, but next time you meet a Welshman or a Scot don't call him English. ;)

why? Do i Need a gun or else, gonna get my old broke down butt beat???

[Brown, Jon Brow]

why? Do i Need a gun or else, gonna get my old broke down butt beat???

They will come at you like a buzzard! There can be no greater insult.

[markabilly]

You don't need to. Cromwell did in 1642. Then after the restoration there was a thing called the "Glorious Revolution" as a result of which the Bill of Rights Act in 1689 was passed, limiting the power of the monarch and granting rule to the monarch only with the express consent of the parliament.
Then again markabilly doesn't appear to know this aspect of history.


did not discuss that period, nor intended. But now that you mention it, you do not seem to know this aspect of history, as to the common beginngs of the right to keep arms, as there was the same movement at the time, though limited, to "permit" englishmen, (protestants only of course) to keep weapons to protect aganist the reassertion of power of monarches....did not matter as the royalist types still managed for while afterwards to get the upper hand and keep the mob and anarchists (those who were not royalty worshippers) in place..
even Blackstone,regarded private arms as the only solid means by which people might vindicate their rights if their other rights were suppressed.....(1 Blackstone 139 et seq.)

as to the justification to keep weapons to be used against the government, by english people (protestants of course)


But all those privileges of the People, considered in themselves, are but feeble defences against the real strength of those who govern. All those provisions, all those reciprocal Rights, necessarily suppose that things remain in their legal and settled course: what would then be the recourse of the People, if ever the Prince, suddenly freeing himself from all restraint, and throwing himself as it were out of the Constitution, should no longer respect either the person, or the property of the subject, and either should make no account of his conversation with the Parliament, or attempt to force it implicitly to submit to his will?--It would be resistance . . . the question has been decided in favour of this doctrine by the Laws of England, and that resistance is looked upon by them as the ultimate and lawful resource against the violences of Power


J. De Lolme, The Constitution of England 227 (New York 1793). (D'Israeli later referred to De Lolme as "the English Montesquieu.)


time flies by and sooner or later some prince may come along, and ........

oh well i waste my time here, and really need to be doing other things.

[markabilly]

They will come at you like a buzzard! There can be no greater insult.

dam, :eek:

hope they dont group up more than six at a time; else i will need one of them big clip guns that holds 40 rounds...goona need several of them European Firearms Passess and FACs also someone to take the shrink test,....Maybe I could get eki to take it for me....if he can get away from his job at taco bell

[BDunnell]

did not discuss that period, nor intended. But now that you mention it, you do not seem to know this aspect of history, as to the common beginngs of the right to keep arms, as there was the same movement at the time, though limited, to "permit" englishmen, (protestants only of course) to keep weapons to protect aganist the reassertion of power of monarches....did not matter as the royalist types still managed for while afterwards to get the upper hand and keep the mob and anarchists (those who were not royalty worshippers) in place..
even Blackstone,regarded private arms as the only solid means by which people might vindicate their rights if their other rights were suppressed.....(1 Blackstone 139 et seq.)

as to the justification to keep weapons to be used against the government, by english people (protestants of course)



J. De Lolme, The Constitution of England 227 (New York 1793). (D'Israeli later referred to De Lolme as "the English Montesquieu.)


time flies by and sooner or later some prince may come along, and ........

oh well i waste my time here, and really need to be doing other things.

I don't think you do waste your time here as a rule — however, your bringing into this discussion a period of English history so far in the past adds no relevance whatsoever, for, let's face it, things have moved on somewhat. Comparisons with the time of Henry VIII are largely irrelevant in the modern world, just as the principles laid down by the Founding Fathers ought to be ripe for reassessment at the very least, rather than the reverent genuflection afforded to them even now in some quarters.

[markabilly]

I don't think you do waste your time here as a rule — however, your bringing into this discussion a period of English history so far in the past adds no relevance whatsoever, for, let's face it, things have moved on somewhat. Comparisons with the time of Henry VIII are largely irrelevant in the modern world, just as the principles laid down by the Founding Fathers ought to be ripe for reassessment at the very least, rather than the reverent genuflection afforded to them even now in some quarters.

tell that to the jews lined up against the wall in the warsaw ghetto.

tell that to the chinese about to get run over by the tanks in the square

tell that to the moslems about to be shot in serbia when it was cleansing time iin the 1990's

tell that to people trying to escape east germany in 1989


and tell that to the english people the next time a charles I or a charles II shows up and there is no Cromwell to keep him in his place.....odd how the royalists dug his dead body up and chopped off his head.

[Rollo]

did not discuss that period, nor intended. But now that you mention it, you do not seem to know this aspect of history, as to the common beginngs of the right to keep arms, as there was the same movement at the time, though limited, to "permit" englishmen, (protestants only of course) to keep weapons to protect aganist the reassertion of power of monarches....did not matter as the royalist types still managed for while afterwards to get the upper hand and keep the mob and anarchists (those who were not royalty worshippers) in place..
even Blackstone,regarded private arms as the only solid means by which people might vindicate their rights if their other rights were suppressed.....(1 Blackstone 139 et seq.)

as to the justification to keep weapons to be used against the government, by english people (protestants of course)

May I remind you of the wording of the law?

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
- Bill of Rights Act 1689.

The right exists but there are qualifiers on that right. Specifically to do with the operation of the law, and since both English Statue and Common Law has evolved, then the rule of law also changes to evolve with society.
There have of course been several changes in law following the Bill of Rights 1689, including "night poaching" acts as well as the Pistols Act 1903 and four subsequent Firearms Acts. All of which define what is "suitable to conditions" and "allowed by law".

What this actually says is that British Law has tried to keep up to date with society, whereas American law has not. Consequently the UK has homocide rates by firearms of 4% that of the United States. If anything, all you've successfully proven is the failure of American law to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare".

[Eki]

tell that to the jews lined up against the wall in the warsaw ghetto.

tell that to the chinese about to get run over by the tanks in the square

tell that to the moslems about to be shot in serbia when it was cleansing time iin the 1990's

tell that to people trying to escape east germany in 1989
OK, I'm convinced, the US in 2011 is like Poland in 1941, East Germany in the 1970s, China in 1989 and Bosnia in 1993. Doesn't make me want to visit the US any time soon. Maybe Hondo should write an open letter to foreign nationals in the US.

[BDunnell]

tell that to the jews lined up against the wall in the warsaw ghetto.

tell that to the chinese about to get run over by the tanks in the square

tell that to the moslems about to be shot in serbia when it was cleansing time iin the 1990's

tell that to people trying to escape east germany in 1989

Your use of these instances as comparisons is another example of what I said earlier about your perspectives on foreign affairs. Don't for one moment suggest that I would be anything other than deeply respectful and supportive of such movements as you list. Your suggestion that I am not merely on the grounds that I do not agree with your views on gun laws is insulting and utterly inaccurate. So too, I'm afraid, is your knowledge of history. How many of the people who escaped East Germany for the West did so as a result of their possession of personal weapons? The comparison does not hold up, and your hyperbolic references to these events as a means of backing up your support for US gun laws is, I would suggest, disrespectful to those involved. I don't think the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, the protesters in Tiananmen Square, the Bosnian Moslems (your mention there of Serbia is incorrect — you mean Bosnia, where the Serbs were doing the ethnic cleansing; no wonder a BBC correspondent reported that a counterpart at one of the US networks had been instructed to keep his reporting of the Balkans wars simple in order not to confuse the viewers back home) and the East Germans were fighting for freedom in order to be able to possess weapons lest they have to do it all over again. Freedom does not only come, and is not only desired, in the sense in which the notion is treasured by the American right.



and tell that to the english people the next time a charles I or a charles II shows up and there is no Cromwell to keep him in his place.....odd how the royalists dug his dead body up and chopped off his head.

But, no matter how much I dislike the Royal Family, this is simply never going to happen, so is not something worth worrying about unless one is perpetually scared of what the future may hold.

[markabilly]

May I remind you of the wording of the law?

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
- Bill of Rights Act 1689.

The right exists but there are qualifiers on that right. Specifically to do with the operation of the law, and since both English Statue and Common Law has evolved, then the rule of law also changes to evolve with society.
There have of course been several changes in law following the Bill of Rights 1689, including "night poaching" acts as well as the Pistols Act 1903 and four subsequent Firearms Acts. All of which define what is "suitable to conditions" and "allowed by law".

What this actually says is that British Law has tried to keep up to date with society, whereas American law has not. Consequently the UK has homocide rates by firearms of 4% that of the United States. If anything, all you've successfully proven is the failure of American law to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare".

No, it means your average (insert whatever englander) has no meaningful right whatsoever, because its government does not trust its citizens and knows what is best for them.
If you are happy, then so be it. Persoanlly I could care less, as long as no one in my family gets their butt shot off trying to protect you guys on some future date.

and I have thoroughly gone through what a meaningless mess your stats are and how they are so meaningless in the other closed thread.

it still amazes me the overly wrought paranoia, fear and insecuirty that is expressed here over americans owning guns by others who have them outlawed in their country, who still have crime issues, and live thousands of miles away, and who are naive enough to think that just cause you have had no such threats in the last few years (again thanks to the USA playing world cop) that it will continue to be such for some infinite future time.

[markabilly]

bottom line, you englanders keep doing the bowing and scraping to the royals "with the reverent genuflection afforded to them even now in some quarters."

And I will do the same with the founding fathers and their principles.

meanwhile, try to relax from the overly wrought paranoia, fear and insecuirty that is expressed here over americans owning guns by you guys who have them outlawed in their country, who still have crime issues, and live thousands of miles away, and who are naive enough to think that just cause you have had no such threats in the last few years (again thanks to the USA playing world cop) that it will continue to be such for some infinite future time.

I would say "pray" but some of you being atheists, well just keep hoping it will remain that away and that many years from now, you will die an old man, sleeping your beds, without some harness strapped to your back and such

[BDunnell]

it still amazes me the overly wrought paranoia, fear and insecuirty that is expressed here over americans owning guns by others who have them outlawed in their country, who still have crime issues, and live thousands of miles away, and who are naive enough to think that just cause you have had no such threats in the last few years (again thanks to the USA playing world cop) that it will continue to be such for some infinite future time.

Never heard of successive US governments funding the IRA, the organisation responsible for the greatest numbers of deaths on UK soil since World War Two, have you?

[BDunnell]

bottom line, you englanders keep doing the bowing and scraping to the royals "with the reverent genuflection afforded to them even now in some quarters."

And I will do the same with the founding fathers and their principles.

What on earth do you mean by 'you Englanders'? This, beyond all doubt, proves your level of knowledge of countries other than your own. Some people do, you're quite right. Many, including myself, are supremely indifferent to the whole thing and would not mourn were they to suddenly cease to exist. You, though, seem to have taken fully on board the notion — shared by many of your countrymen — that we all adore the Royals and are obsessed with their every move. Like a fair few Americans, in fact, if you haven't noticed.

[markabilly]

Like I said, just try to breathe and relax from the overly wrought paranoia, fear and insecuirty that is expressed here over americans owning guns by you guys who have them outlawed in their country, who still have crime issues, and live thousands of miles away, and who are naive enough to think that just cause you have had no such threats in the last few years (again thanks to the USA playing world cop) that it will continue to be such for some infinite future time.

I would say "pray" but i recall you being an atheist, well just keep hoping it will remain that away and that many years from now, you will die an old man, sleeping your beds, without some harness strapped to your back and such other places

[BDunnell]

Like I said, just try to breathe and relax from the overly wrought paranoia, fear and insecuirty that is expressed here over americans owning guns by you guys who have them outlawed in their country, who still have crime issues, and live thousands of miles away, and who are naive enough to think that just cause you have had no such threats in the last few years (again thanks to the USA playing world cop) that it will continue to be such for some infinite future time.

Yes, 'like you said' indeed. Did you even deign to read what I wrote before about the USA's role in propping up IRA violence for many years, or did this mysteriously pass you by because it doesn't fit with your pre-conceived notions? In this instance, your nation was far from 'playing world cop'. It was supporting a terrorist organisation which was responsible for far more loss of life on British shores than any current threat has yet achieved. For many, the fear of IRA violence was genuine — far more so than is the fear of gun crime you seem desperate for us Brits to have instilled in us to the point where we all need to go around armed.



I would say "pray" but i recall you being an atheist, well just keep hoping it will remain that away and that many years from now, you will die an old man, sleeping your beds, without some harness strapped to your back and such other places

Yes, being a rational person rather than one who believes in what are in effect myths and legends, I am indeed an atheist.

[BDunnell]

Did you sit through the psychological testing in Spain to get your FAC? I take it that you also had a European Firearms Pass (which you always carried) and had the weapon proofmarked.

The fact of us having received no answers to our questions on this matter suggests, as I thought might be the case, that anthonyvop's possession of a firearm on his travels 'throughout Europe' is an invention for his rhetorical purposes. If he didn't do as you say, surely an offence was committed?

[markabilly]

The fact of us having received no answers to our questions on this matter suggests, as I thought might be the case, that anthonyvop's possession of a firearm on his travels 'throughout Europe' is an invention for his rhetorical purposes. If he didn't do as you say, surely an offence was committed?

no like me, he probably got bored and went to sleep

[markabilly]

Never heard of successive US governments funding the IRA, the organisation responsible for the greatest numbers of deaths on UK soil since World War Two, have you?

no, amazing. i had no idea that "succesive us government (were) funding the IRA". Me, I fund my IRA every year, as much as those IRS folks will let me.

You got some valid link to these actions of the USA government funding all these revolutionaries who might be attacking and killing?? or is this some paranoia........ :confused:


Besides I thought you were saying you all are so asleep and safe over there, and had no worries like I , old paranoid, was mentioning....... :rolleyes:

But I had forgot about your friends who had greatly discriminated against the catholics in Northern Ireland, oppressing them and turning them into second class citizens for hundreds of years.....who once again, to protect themselves from oppresion after the 1968 failure of your government to treat them on an equal basis and negiotate fairly.....took arms to protect themselves with a result of one big bloody mess, but in the absence of those actions, would still be living with their noses to the ground

well, you don't need a weatherman,
to tell you which way the wind blows,
esp when you been seeding the whirlwind....

but like i said,




Like I said, just try to breathe and relax from the overly wrought paranoia, fear and insecuirty that is expressed here over americans owning guns by you guys who have them outlawed in their country, who still have crime issues, and live thousands of miles away, and who are naive enough to think that just cause you have had no such threats in the last few years (again thanks to the USA playing world cop) that it will continue to be such for some infinite future time.

I would say "pray" but i recall you being an atheist, well just keep hoping it will remain that away and that many years from now, you will die an old man, sleeping your beds, without some harness strapped to your back and such other places


i could care less, if you prepare yourself for harsh winters that may be a coming to visit you as long as I don't have to see my breathen dying for it.....and at my age, I doubt that I will live long enough to see such. But you might
:D

Just don't want you imposing your views here n this country, not one bit of them

[anthonyvop]

Did you sit through the psychological testing in Spain to get your FAC? I take it that you also had a European Firearms Pass (which you always carried) and had the weapon proofmarked.

Nope....My rights supersede anything that some silly European politicians can come up with.

[markabilly]

Oh, my scary stuff, as it seems your british government was far more involved in doing its share of supporting murders of catholics than the american was in trying to arm the IRA...




The British government was aware of large-scale collusion between security forces and loyalist paramilitaries from as early as 1973, according to documents revealed today (Tuesday) in The Irish News.
The files show Downing Street knew that significant numbers of soldiers were linked to loyalist paramilitaries, but failed to act.
The collusion file contains a detailed report on 'Subversion in the UDR' – including estimates of the numbers of soldiers linked to loyalists – while intelligence documents show how more than 200 British army rifles and sub machine guns were passed to loyalists.
This is the first time evidence has emerged to show, not only the scale of collusion, but also that government was aware of it early in the Troubles.
The documents reveal that military intelligence:


estimated 5-15% of UDR soldiers were linked to loyalist paramilitaries[/*:m:l59xvbgi]
believed that the "best single source of weapons, and the only significant source of modern weapons, for Protestant extremist groups was the UDR"[/*:m:l59xvbgi]
feared UDR troops were loyal to 'Ulster' rather than 'Her Majesty's Government'[/*:m:l59xvbgi]
knew that UDR weapons were being used in the murder and attempted murder of Catholics[/*:m:l59xvbgi][quote:l59xvbgi]
Against this background it is significant that as the Troubles unfolded, the government went on to increase, rather than decrease, the regiment's role in areas of high tension in Northern Ireland.

The files date from August 1973 – and in the two years that followed UDR members took part in the Miami showband massacre, and were linked to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings that killed 33 people.
The UDR – or Ulster Defence Regiment – was formed in 1970 to replace the disgraced B Specials police reserve, but nationalists came to see it as a carbon copy.
The new regiment, which was the largest in the British army, recruited exclusively in Northern Ireland and eventually became almost 100% Protestant.
It was merged with another military unit in 1992 to form the Royal Irish Regiment – but it also attracted controversy and its Northern Ireland battalions are now being disbanded.
While the new documents concentrate on the UDR, they also include files that show senior political figures making disturbing references to wrong-doing within the ranks of the RUC. The Irish News has had exclusive access to the documents and over two days of special reports will reveal the content of the files which – for the first time – form a paper trail stretching from murder on the streets of Belfast, to decision making at No10 Downing Street.
The UDR saw 257 members and former members killed by republican paramilitaries, and in today's coverage a UDR veteran recalls her memories of death and terrible injury.
On the new intelligence files, she says that if the British government knew of wrongdoing, "they should have done something".
The new documents were discovered by campaigners probing allegations of security force collusion in the murder of their loved ones.
The son of one victim recounts uncovering the collusion files, and tells The Irish News: "It was quite alarming to find that the British government at the highest level knew, as they put it themselves, that there was 'subversion within the UDR'.
"They knew that it went as far as getting guns for loyalists, and involvement in murder."
May 3, 2006

[/quote:l59xvbgi]
http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/irish_news/arts2006/may2_subversion_colluson_UDR.php

[anthonyvop]

Was it legal for you to carry it 'throughout Europe'?

I have the right to defend myself as I see fit anywhere I am. Any law created is non-applicable



Tell us why you had to draw it in Spain, and what happened, otherwise I will be tempted to believe that this is just an example of your anti-European hyperbole and that the incident never actually occurred.

3 drunk douche bags attempted to intimidate myself and a lady friend while leaving a nightspot. 3 against 1 aren't very good odds. My "Little Friend" tilted the odds in my favor.

[anthonyvop]

This is all symptomatic, surely, of a much wider malaise. Still, gun crime exists in both my home country, the UK, and the country where I currently live, and still I would consider it an over-reaction to possess a gun.

Great, Fine....Whatever floats your boat......But remember...You ain't me. I have obligations you cannot grasp.

[Rollo]

The fact of us having received no answers to our questions on this matter suggests, as I thought might be the case, that anthonyvop's possession of a firearm on his travels 'throughout Europe' is an invention for his rhetorical purposes. If he didn't do as you say, surely an offence was committed?

With reference to the two answers he's posted:

Nope....My rights supersede anything that some silly European politicians can come up with.

I have the right to defend myself as I see fit anywhere I am. Any law created is non-applicable.

Mr Vop is either a liar or a criminal; by his own admission.

[anthonyvop]

With reference to the two answers he's posted:



Mr Vop is either a liar or a criminal; by his own admission.

How am I a criminal? Any law that restricts the ability of a person to protect themselves is a Violation of Human rights and so must not be respected.

If a Jew at Auschwitz attacked a Nazi guard and tried to escape would they have been a criminal?

Was Rosa Parks a Criminal?

George Washington?

Jose Marti?

Lech Walesa?

[Rollo]

How am I a criminal? Any law that restricts the ability of a person to protect themselves is a Violation of Human rights and so must not be respected.

No. As a visitor to another country, you agreed either with the conditions of your visa or other permits of entry to abide by the applicable laws of those countries. In this case Spain and the other European countries you visited, and the EU itself.

You are not the rule of law. You do not have the authority to break the law.

[Roamy]

You know what pisses me off is that only glock makes a suitable 10mm conceal carry pistol. The problem with that is I guess glock's only have the trigger safety and many people have shot themselves in the leg when pulling out their glock. Now Smith and Wesson makes a great pistol call the M&P but they don't make a 10mm . So I am down to the fact if I get a glock I won't carry it chambered or I just get the smith and wesson 8 shot 357 mag revolver and just go with that. If you happen to shoot yourself in the leg with a 10mm you would probably bleed to death before they got you to the hospital. But with either weapon they may break in but they ain't breaking out!! Also I have decided for fly fishing in Grizz country you just have to take the 8 shot 12 gauge pump and a friend. Grizz are just too hard to bring down if they are on a charge. Oh well decisions decisions - Ok EKI which type of sling shot are you looking at ??

[Tazio]

Concealed firearms allowed on college campuses?

I'm against it



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7cry-4pyy8&feature=related

[BDunnell]

Nope....My rights supersede anything that some silly European politicians can come up with.

So you are admitting you committed a criminal offence?

[BDunnell]

Great, Fine....Whatever floats your boat......But remember...You ain't me. I have obligations you cannot grasp.

To the readers of the South Florida Motorsports Report, I know.

[BDunnell]

How am I a criminal? Any law that restricts the ability of a person to protect themselves is a Violation of Human rights and so must not be respected.

If a Jew at Auschwitz attacked a Nazi guard and tried to escape would they have been a criminal?

Was Rosa Parks a Criminal?

George Washington?

Jose Marti?

Lech Walesa?

Tony, would you expect me to obey the laws of the land on a visit to the USA? I hope so.

You have now admitted to being nothing more than a common criminal. You are also seeking to compare yourself with Rosa Parks and George Washington on the grounds that you went around Europe with an illegal firearm and once brandished it in Spain when some drunken people tried to harass you. Words honestly fail me.

[BDunnell]

What on earth has this got to do with guns and dare I say the modern world???

Women also don't throw themselves in front of race horses anymore.. Theres just no need.

Yes, but according to markabilly, they had better be ready to do so again in case the vote gets taken away from them by some tyrant at an indeterminate time in the future. It really is nonsense.

[GridGirl]

What happened to this thread over the weekend. I don't know whether to laugh, call the police or just call a doctor for some forum members. This thread should be closed. :)

[BDunnell]

What happened to this thread over the weekend. I don't know whether to laugh, call the police or just call a doctor for some forum members. This thread should be closed. :)

Maybe there will be some further revelations of criminal behaviour? Who knows?

[Eki]

If a Jew at Auschwitz attacked a Nazi guard and tried to escape would they have been a criminal?

If a Muslim at Guantanamo Bay attacked an American guard and tried to escape, would he be a criminal?

[BDunnell]

If a Muslim at Guantanamo Bay attacked an American guard and tried to escape, would he be a criminal?

A very good point. But you know what another person's answer will be...

[DexDexter]

There is something in this country called responsible ownership. I am far from what would be considered an amateur at owning or handling a firearm. I learned, as many in this country do, to properly handle and operate firearms at avery young age.
Many people in our country DO NOT feel or BELIEVE that it is the "JOB" of the police and government to protect them. That is an individual's responsibility.

One of the primary purposes of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the right and ability of the individual to protect THEMSELVES FROM a tyrannical government. I will NEVER assume the government is my primary source of protection from ANYTHING, nor will I ever believe is it their JOB to provide ME with ANYTHING.

I provide and protect MYSELF,and if I feel the best means of providing myself that protection as a law abiding citizen is through the possession of a firearm, that is my RIGHT and I will continue to do so.

Ok, the problem with individuals protecting themselves is that they are not up to the task in hand, they need training to be able to use guns in a safe way if there is such. If you don't have proper military or police training you will cause more harm than good to yourself in the end.

[BDunnell]

If you don't have proper military or police training you will cause more harm than good to yourself in the end.

And even then it's far from guaranteed, as many unfortunate incidents show — but still better than nothing, and far superior to a situation in which people who are clearly far too impressed with the power possession of a gun affords them are allowed to keep such weapons.

[DexDexter]

Tony, would you expect me to obey the laws of the land on a visit to the USA? I hope so.

You have now admitted to being nothing more than a common criminal. You are also seeking to compare yourself with Rosa Parks and George Washington on the grounds that you went around Europe with an illegal firearm and once brandished it in Spain when some drunken people tried to harass you. Words honestly fail me.

I think he made up the whole story. At least over here it would have been headline news and would have caused a massive police operation. A Cuban or whatever showboating a gun.

[BDunnell]

I think he made up the whole story. At least over here it would have been headline news and would have caused a massive police operation. A Cuban or whatever showboating a gun.

I am tempted to agree. It is hard to imagine he was able to carry an illegal firearm on his travels around Europe, or whatever it was he said, without detection. Either way, his behaviour — whether actually having done this or concocting such a tale — indicates to me that he is maybe not the right sort of person to be in possession of a gun.

[Retro Formula 1]

This thread has become a bit of a joke as a member pointed out.

At the beginning, I said it was up to Americans to decide their own Laws in their own Country no matter how distasteful non-Americans find that but then we have claims by either a sanctimonious, barbaric criminal or a compulsive, attention seeking liar that whether they happened or not, undermine everything that member has, or will say on this forum.

I hope Anthony is just a liar and a member on this forum hasn't just admitted walking around Europe carrying and brandishing a concealed weapon.

[BDunnell]

At the beginning, I said it was up to Americans to decide their own Laws in their own Country no matter how distasteful non-Americans find that but then we have claims by either a sanctimonious, barbaric criminal or a compulsive, attention seeking liar that whether they happened or not, undermine everything that member has, or will say on this forum.

I hope Anthony is just a liar and a member on this forum hasn't just admitted walking around Europe carrying and brandishing a concealed weapon.

I agree with all aspects of your comments, not least the bit about Americans having the right to decide their own laws. We may not agree with them, we may argue against them in debate, but they have that right. As do we. And as for the rest of your remarks, I am in complete accord.

[Tazio]

Just curious I know a woman that carries pepper spray when she is out and about. I constantly remind her that it's good for two things.
Thwarting an assault, and have it taken away from her and getting it turned against her.
Do citizens in the UK carry pepper spray?

[markabilly]

Guess I need to add to that list, Tell that to the catholics in Northern Ireland, when the Ulster Defence Regiment (and before that, "the special police") came knocking on their door....... :rolleyes:

[markabilly]

I agree with all aspects of your comments, not least the bit about Americans having the right to decide their own laws. We may not agree with them, we may argue against them in debate, but they have that right. As do we. And as for the rest of your remarks, I am in complete accord.

Then just leave the subject alone, instead of engaging with overly wrought emotionalism........and the further actions of engaging in slander per se, as accussing someone who is not a public figure, of being a liar and a criminal is actionable for damages, as well as the comments about not being the right sort of person to be carrying a gun.

Time to close it down, has come for sure. I am gone, anyway.