PDA

View Full Version : The National Rifle Association: What do you think about it?


"Sluggy"
Jun 13th, 2006, 10:44 AM
Since i know next to nothing abou it, i am pretty ignorant about it. All in all though, my attitude has changed. I'd love to own a weapon. Of course, I'd be fearful of where to keep it, and how to keep it out of reach of people, but they have guns now that won't shoot unless the gun recognizes your own finger printing, so it puts the owner in control.

For anyone living anywhere, the need to feel able to defend yourself is vital. And, if i lived in a rural setting, where law & order can be an hour away, wtf am i supposed to do to defend my family? And what about the farm animals? got to keep them safe too from the wolves. anyway, I'm down with guns now. I know what you are going to say... but the illegal market in guns exists anyway, the bad guys have guns, so why cant the good guys?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v454/FrogBurger/images4.jpg

LucasArg
Jun 13th, 2006, 11:02 AM
Well. Bowling for Columbine (The Oscar winner documentary) talks about this pretty much. You can rent it, I think it is a great movie.

Lord Nelson
Jun 13th, 2006, 01:32 PM
Well. Bowling for Columbine (The Oscar winner documentary) talks about this pretty much. You can rent it, I think it is a great movie.
The movie sucked. I hated how Moore badgered Charlton Heston an old man who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Charlton was never aggressive with Moore and politely told him to leave when Moore was being the nuisance that he is. He almost did the samething with Dick Clark but that guy was wise enough to run off.

meyerpl
Jun 13th, 2006, 01:42 PM
I own several firearms and firmly believe in the right to bear arms, but the NRA has adopted a political agenda that far excedes their original mission, an agenda that I strongly oppose.

Lord Nelson
Jun 13th, 2006, 01:53 PM
I own several firearms and firmly believe in the right to bear arms, but the NRA has adopted a political agenda that far excedes their original mission, an agenda that I strongly oppose.
well most organizations these days have political agendas so NRA is no exeption. You then don't like NRA vbecasue you don't share same political views as it. But you cannot say that it far excedes its original mission since every one else does it. Anyway I support NRA though I don't like to see guns sold in supermarkets if that really happens.

meyerpl
Jun 13th, 2006, 02:57 PM
I think by getting into the political arena to the extent they have, the NRA has watered down their effectiveness when it comes to promoting firearms safety and education. They have turned-off a number of firearms owners who would otherwise support the NRA.

griffin
Jun 13th, 2006, 03:13 PM
I hated how Moore badgered Charlton Heston an old man who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

I actually agree with you on this. 5 or 10 years prior, it would have been a fair "fight," but Heston's faculties had clearly declined.

That said, the NRA certainly had no qualms about using and exploiting an Alzheimer-riddled old gentleman for PR purposes, either, so I'm not sure that Moore's the only one who deserves a scolding on that account. And the rallies they staged in communities dealing with the aftermath of gun violence was also quite insensitive. I guess you're not interested in applying the same standard of conduct to the NRA and it's representitives?

The NRA has gone beyond it's orginal mission - that it's their right to do so, and that other organizations have done the same thing doesn't change that fact. I do appreciate that they still do SOME education and training, but to me it's far overshadowed by their zeal to oppose ANY form of fire arms regulation, not matter how reasonable.

Helen Lawson
Jun 13th, 2006, 04:34 PM
I get drunk too much to have a gun around the house.

samsung101
Jun 13th, 2006, 05:41 PM
The NRA is a good organization.

No group helps educate gun owners more, has more
gun safety classes of every kind, and promotes harsher
penalties for those who use or buy weapons illegally.

Bowling for Columbine is entertaining. It's a well done
Michael Moore opinion piece. Factual? Very questionable.
As with his other films, it is not hard to dissect it to find
the many flaws, and questionable expert testimony.

The infamous scene where he walks out w/a gun from
the bank. Staged. Didn't happen.

Charlton Heston who had Alzheimer's already when
filmed, was set up by Moore. Even those who don't like
Heston thought it was a cheap shot at old man who
was sick.

Just check out the NRA website, if you also check out
Bowling for Columbine. Get some perspective from John
Lott, the writer and scholar. Check out the best selling
book from a couple of years ago: Michael Moore Is A
Big, Fat, Stupid White Man. He spliced together separate
tv ads to create what he presents as real ads, and does
so w/o telling the audience.


Moore does make interesting, controverisal, and entertaining opinion pieces. But, they are usually
far from documetaries, which must be 100% factual.

Wigglytuff
Jun 13th, 2006, 05:48 PM
well, study after study has shown that guns used in violent crimes originate from legal owners. whether they use it themselves or their children sell them. plus the constitution was clear in its statement that the right to bear arms is not universal and was limited greatly. people who have guns in the home are more likely to cause harm to each other than an intruder. basicly, short of adding to number of deaths there is little merit to the this "right to bear arms" mess.

this is really about trigger happy madness. this is about bloodletting whether its planning to kill your wife and kids or some idiot with a small penis chasing after a 2 pound rabbit with a fucking ak47, this is and always has been about bloodshed. plain and simple. if this was not, why would they not use blanks or other non deadly forms of entertainment? but thats what makes it fun for these people, the blood. the chance at death whether their own, their kids, someone else's, or a bunny hopping around trying to get some greens. and the fact it leads to thousands of deaths a year means nothing to them. everytime small child dies from a stray bullet they are right them with their rally's talking about how little they care about human life as long as they get guns. its really sick. these are the very people that should never be let anywhere near a gun or even a butterknife. but there you have it.

tennislover
Jun 13th, 2006, 07:29 PM
they are disgraceful! :fiery: :fiery: :fiery:

SelesFan70
Jun 13th, 2006, 07:31 PM
Stay away from what's mine or have your face blown off!

:armed:

tennislover
Jun 13th, 2006, 07:32 PM
I own several firearms and firmly believe in the right to bear arms, but the NRA has adopted a political agenda that far excedes their original mission, an agenda that I strongly oppose.

:scared:

you know, here in Europe people is horrified from owning firearms.....
I think cultural approach is involved in this issue

griffin
Jun 13th, 2006, 07:38 PM
you know, here in Europe people is horrified from owning firearms.....
I think cultural approach is involved in this issue

Are you kidding me? I was hiking in Switzerland last fall, and saw hunters walking around active hiking trails carrying rifles. In fact, I think the Swiss are supposed to be some of the most heavily armed citizens on the planet.

Helen Lawson
Jun 13th, 2006, 07:45 PM
Are you kidding me? I was hiking in Switzerland last fall, and saw hunters walking around active hiking trails carrying rifles. In fact, I think the Swiss are supposed to be some of the most heavily armed citizens on the planet.

Hon, I don't think he means the neutral Swiss, but the peace-loving "lefties" of France, Belgium, etc.

miffedmax
Jun 13th, 2006, 07:48 PM
I think they should use the U.S. soccer team for target practice.

On the other hand, at least NOW we know where those WMD (Koller, Nedved, etc.) are.

Sally Struthers
Jun 13th, 2006, 07:48 PM
I own a small handgun and am a member of the NRA. A single girl's gotta protect herself :o

griffin
Jun 13th, 2006, 08:18 PM
Hon, I don't think he means the neutral Swiss, but the peace-loving "lefties" of France, Belgium, etc.

Puddin', he SAID Europe, and the last time I looked at a map... ;)

Wigglytuff
Jun 13th, 2006, 08:27 PM
:scared:

you know, here in Europe people is horrified from owning firearms.....
I think cultural approach is involved in this issue


i think living in a city has to do something with it. i live in new york city as you know, and most people would not own guns here even if it was easier. just last week a very cute little boy got killed by a stray bullet. I think in the city its clear that there is no reason that is not nefarious for a person to own gun. some people think that they can be used for protecting, but its more likely to cause you harm then anything. its not something that i think is cool or good or anything short of horrifying for us too.

NYC has some of the tightest gun ownership laws in the nation, and for this we are VERY proud. and as a result NYC is likely THE safest big city in the nation, and on of the safest all around places to be. but what pissed me off is that these trigger happy gun nut states, bring their guns HERE. and thats NOT cool. its clear they make NO effort to keep their madness to themselves. of this i will say about our mayor, he has made a promise and spent his own money to try to force those gun nuts states to keep their blood thirsty madness to themselves.

Mike gunnin' for NRA

His fortune could provide real ammo in tough battle

BY DAVID SALTONSTALL
DAILY NEWS CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF
Mayor Bloomberg is getting ready to spend his political capital - and quite possibly his own cash - to try to stop the flow of illegal handguns into New York from other states.
Bloomberg has been mostly mum on how he plans to wage his long-shot crusade, other than to say he hopes to build a coalition of big city mayors at the outset. Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles - all of which have seen increases in gun violence in recent years - are considered likely allies.

But the biggest wild card, experts say, is whether and to what degree Bloomberg chooses to use his fortune, estimated at $6 billion, to battle the National Rifle Association.

"I think money could make a huge difference," said Zach Ragbourn, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "If you get into a shouting match with the gun industry, you better have a big bullhorn - and that's the kind of thing money can buy."

The Brady Campaign became the No.1 lobbyist for handgun control in the United States by spending $238,000 to sway Congress since 2002. By comparison, the NRA has spent about $6.5 million since 2002 on lobbying Congress, federal filings show.

Both sums pale in comparison to the $80million Bloomberg spent this year on his own reelection, or even the $7.5million he spent to promote a single ballot question in the city in 2003.

"The mayor is looking at every resource at his disposal," said Bloomberg spokesman Ed Skyler, while declining to comment on whether the mayor will personally finance his bid to stop the spread of illegal guns.

If Bloomberg wants to glimpse the steep political hill he faces in trying to persuade red state America to be more like New York, he should visit Virginia's state capitol a week from tomorrow.

That's Lobby Day for the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a group that plans to bring scores of followers - all of them packing pistols - into the state General Assembly building to jawbone with legislators, many of whom favor a pro-gun agenda.

"I can guarantee a very safe room for Mayor Bloomberg if he decides to join us," chuckled Mike Stollenwerk, a member of the Virginia pro-gun group. "It'll be ideologically hostile, but otherwise a very polite forum for him and his security detail - although they'll probably be outgunned."

To say gun-rights advocates are aiming for Bloomberg - and vice versa - is an understatement.

Since the mayor announced in his inaugural address that he would fight for greater handgun controls in "every capital of every state that permits guns to flow freely across its borders," his words have echoed through Web site chat rooms both for and against handgun control.

A Daily News comparison of state laws shows New York's gun laws - and New York City's in particular - are among the most restrictive in the nation.

But even as New York has stiffened penalties for many gun crimes, the pro-gun tide has been rising, both in the Republican-controlled Congress and in conservative states like Virginia.

In 2004, for instance, Virginia's Democratic Gov. Mark Warner signed a bill stripping towns of the right to enforce stricter requirements than the state when it comes to issuing permits to carry a concealed gun.

The result is a state where no permit at all is now required to openly carry a gun, and where buying a firearm is basically as simple as buying a six-pack of beer, provided you don't have a criminal record.

It may also help to explain why 12% of all handguns used to commit crimes in New York City in the first half of 2005 were bought in Virginia - the most of any state, NYPD records show.

"Virginia is liberal in gun ownership, but our crime rate is very low," explained Jerry Thompson, 41, owner of Dominion Shooting Range Inc., a Richmond gun shop. "So we kind of thumb our nose at New York because gun laws are so restrictive there, but crime is higher."

In truth, the per capita crime rate was almost three times higher in Richmond than in New York City in 2004, according to the last full year of FBI data on major crimes.

Some ideas Bloomberg has already advanced in the city, and which could be replicated elsewhere, include hefty cash rewards for people who report illegal guns, and specialized courts that have increased sentences for illegal gun possession.

If the mayor plans to open his checkbook, the NRA has vowed to meet him head on in every state into which he ventures.

"We are just trying to figure out where he is going," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "Just using his words and taking them at face value, it seems like he is trying to enact New York City's laws in other states."

samsung101
Jun 13th, 2006, 08:31 PM
The NRA is just like any other lobbying group, from
unions to drug companies to trial lawyers to construction
companies to the Arab nations that pour millions into
Congress to keep it from drilling in ANWR, so as to keep
competition down - thru enviro. groups.

The 2nd Amendment is clear, and the NRA does fight
for that right to stay put.

Are there too many guns in America? Yes. But, the
NRA didn't put them there, and they didn't buy them.
Is America violent? Yes. But, the NRA didn't make
that happen. Some may even argue Hollywood and
big music promote violence and guns more than anything
the NRA could ever do.

Guns are all over the nation, even in liberal places
like Boston and LA and San Francisco. Criminals and
losers find ways to get them. The ATF is very small,
and has never been well funded by Congress. Local
agencies can't do that much.

Los Angeles has some of the toughest anti-gun laws
in the nation. It also continues to have one of the
highest crime rates in the nation, and most of the
guns involved in crimes are obtained through illegal
means. Ditto for San Francisco and Washington, D.C.,
also tough anti-gun cities.


What gun law will make a gang banger unable to
get a gun or rifle or bazooka? What gun law will
make life harder for the criminal/wannabe criminal
than it will be for a law abiding citizen looking for
some self-protection? If there is one group looking
out for the average law abiding citizen and the right
to own a gun, it's the NRA.------


Moore's short lived tv series before he was widely
successful was very good. Catch it on DVD.

meyerpl
Jun 13th, 2006, 09:14 PM
well, study after study has shown that guns used in violent crimes originate from legal owners. whether they use it themselves or their children sell them. plus the constitution was clear in its statement that the right to bear arms is not universal and was limited greatly. people who have guns in the home are more likely to cause harm to each other than an intruder. basicly, short of adding to number of deaths there is little merit to the this "right to bear arms" mess.

this is really about trigger happy madness. this is about bloodletting whether its planning to kill your wife and kids or some idiot with a small penis chasing after a 2 pound rabbit with a fucking ak47, this is and always has been about bloodshed. plain and simple. if this was not, why would they not use blanks or other non deadly forms of entertainment? but thats what makes it fun for these people, the blood. the chance at death whether their own, their kids, someone else's, or a bunny hopping around trying to get some greens. and the fact it leads to thousands of deaths a year means nothing to them. everytime small child dies from a stray bullet they are right them with their rally's talking about how little they care about human life as long as they get guns. its really sick. these are the very people that should never be let anywhere near a gun or even a butterknife. but there you have it.
So what's your bottom line: Are you pro-gun or anti-gun?

Wigglytuff
Jun 13th, 2006, 09:19 PM
So what's your bottom line: Are you pro-gun or anti-gun?
:lol: :lol:

i think that unless you have a valid an present reason to have a gun its wrong and dangerous. in the place where i live the laws reflect that. i dont care to change other peoples laws, but i do wish they would keep their guns in their states.

i am anti anyone around me having guns and dont visit places like florida were i can get shot for looking at someone funny.

Halardfan
Jun 13th, 2006, 09:23 PM
The gun worshipping thing is so far beyond may understanding...the normal average citizen should have ZERO right to own a gun...

So many issues are awful dilemma's and I can see both sides...take the death penalty for example...I think there are strong arguements on both sides of it.

Guns aren't anywhere near that category...outside maybe of a shotgun for a farmer or something like that...ban them all!

tennislover
Jun 13th, 2006, 09:23 PM
Are you kidding me? I was hiking in Switzerland last fall, and saw hunters walking around active hiking trails carrying rifles. In fact, I think the Swiss are supposed to be some of the most heavily armed citizens on the planet.

actually Switzerland is one of the weirdest place in the world ;)

I just meant that in Europe people usually don't find normal owning a firearm and above all to use it to defend themselves

in Europe people usually think that is up to police to defend citizens' safety
in the USA is a common idea that "you need a firearm to defend yourself and your family": that's almost totally foreign to European mentality

tennislover
Jun 13th, 2006, 09:26 PM
i think living in a city has to do something with it. i live in new york city as you know, and most people would not own guns here even if it was easier. just last week a very cute little boy got killed by a stray bullet. I think in the city its clear that there is no reason that is not nefarious for a person to own gun. some people think that they can be used for protecting, but its more likely to cause you harm then anything. its not something that i think is cool or good or anything short of horrifying for us too.

NYC has some of the tightest gun ownership laws in the nation, and for this we are VERY proud. and as a result NYC is likely THE safest big city in the nation, and on of the safest all around places to be. but what pissed me off is that these trigger happy gun nut states, bring their guns HERE. and thats NOT cool. its clear they make NO effort to keep their madness to themselves. of this i will say about our mayor, he has made a promise and spent his own money to try to force those gun nuts states to keep their blood thirsty madness to themselves.

good for NYC people!

tennislover
Jun 13th, 2006, 09:28 PM
I own a small handgun and am a member of the NRA. A single girl's gotta protect herself :o

:scared:

if you need to own it, clearly you live in a wild-jungle-like place.....

Justeenium
Jun 13th, 2006, 09:47 PM
I actually agree with you on this. 5 or 10 years prior, it would have been a fair "fight," but Heston's faculties had clearly declined.

That said, the NRA certainly had no qualms about using and exploiting an Alzheimer-riddled old gentleman for PR purposes, either, so I'm not sure that Moore's the only one who deserves a scolding on that account. And the rallies they staged in communities dealing with the aftermath of gun violence was also quite insensitive. I guess you're not interested in applying the same standard of conduct to the NRA and it's representitives?

The NRA has gone beyond it's orginal mission - that it's their right to do so, and that other organizations have done the same thing doesn't change that fact. I do appreciate that they still do SOME education and training, but to me it's far overshadowed by their zeal to oppose ANY form of fire arms regulation, not matter how reasonable.

Another criticism of Moore has to do with his editing of several Charlton Heston speeches. He juxtaposes Columbine pictures with footage of saying "from my cold dead, hands" and says that Heston held a rally ten days afterwards, then shows footage of Heston saying that he is refusing demands that he "don't come here" because "we're already here". Critics charge that this juxtaposition implies that Heston deliberately held a rally after Columbine. The NRA however cancelled all Denver events (except for an annual meeting required by the group's bylaws, which NRA officials say is enforced by a New York State law mandating that the Colorado event could not be cancelled).[11] The "cold, dead, hands" remark was from a different meeting a year later, and the "we're already here" remark was edited in from a different part of the speech, while Moore edited out lines where Heston says he is cancelling the events. [12] [13]

Conservatives also accuse Moore of misleading editing when he says "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally." He does not mention that the rally was eight months afterwards rather than immediate, nor that the rally was a "get out the vote" rally done at a time when Bush, Gore, and Moore himself were at rallies.[14] Moore also shows a web page saying "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was pronounced dead" which, critics charge, implies that Heston had the rally 48 hours after the shooting, when the full quote from the web page refers to Bill Clinton appearing on The Today Show, not to Heston. [15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_columbine#Accusations_of_editorialism

meyerpl
Jun 13th, 2006, 09:58 PM
Here's my bottom line: In the USA, some people don't like some of our freedoms, whether it's freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom from unreasonable searches, the right to reasonable bail, the right to an attorney for those accused of a crime, seperation of church and state, the right to bear arms, the right to privacy, private property rights, etc. etc. If you live in the USA, chances are somebody is going to exercise their rights and freedoms in ways you aren't going to like, be it publishing sexually explicit material, burning the flag in protest, owning firearms, espousing radical political beliefs, or whatever. Too bad. Living in a free country is a package deal, you take the good with the bad. Our founding fathers did not provide that Americans have the right not to be offended or be made to feel uncomfortable by somebody else's behavior.
I think a lot of these NRA activists are nuts too. If I was going to devote my energy to protecting a specific right, the right to bear arms would not be my choice, nonetheless, like it of not, it is our right as Americans. It is every bit as sacred as our freedom of speech, and when Americans start prioritizing our freedoms and fudging on the ones that may not be universally popular, we are abrogating our responsibility as citizens.

meyerpl
Jun 13th, 2006, 10:22 PM
actually Switzerland is one of the weirdest place in the world ;)

I just meant that in Europe people usually don't find normal owning a firearm and above all to use it to defend themselves

in Europe people usually think that is up to police to defend citizens' safety
in the USA is a common idea that "you need a firearm to defend yourself and your family": that's almost totally foreign to European mentality
I live in an area where people own more guns than cars. I have seven guns in my home, but I don't consider these firearms protection for my family. That's not what I own them for at all. I can't even tell you the last time I locked the door to my house. Nobody I know locks their doors. I can't think of the last time a gun was used in the commission of a crime in the town where I live. Guns aren't the problem, a violent culture is. I happen to live in a sparsely populated, northwoods community with a very low crime-rate, even though guns are ubiquitous. Michael Moore even makes this point in his movie when he contrasts Canadian culture, where guns are plentiful and violent crime is relatively rare, with the U.S., where guns are plentiful and violent crime is a serious problem.

meyerpl
Jun 13th, 2006, 10:39 PM
The gun worshipping thing is so far beyond may understanding...the normal average citizen should have ZERO right to own a gun...

So many issues are awful dilemma's and I can see both sides...take the death penalty for example...I think there are strong arguements on both sides of it.

Guns aren't anywhere near that category...outside maybe of a shotgun for a farmer or something like that...ban them all!
Funny, I think the death penalty in the U.S. is shameful.
BTW, I don't worship my guns any more than I do my fishing rods, skis or my canoe paddles. They're all sporting goods to me.

Americans consider our Bill of Rights something pretty close to sacred. We tend to feel very strongly that none of those rights should ever be abridged.

"Sluggy"
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:09 AM
The gun worshipping thing is so far beyond may understanding...the normal average citizen should have ZERO right to own a gun...

I tend to disagree with you. American Men must register for the draft and may have to use guns in wars. But we can't own guns prior to serving the country? that is ridiculous. In addition, crossbows, knives, malatov cocktails, cars and tons of other things can kill you just as quickly and more painfully than a gun. Yes all of them are basically legal if you use them responsibly.

Guns aren't anywhere near that category...outside maybe of a shotgun for a farmer or something like that...ban them all!

So only farmers should be able to own guns? That doesnt make much sense to me.

fifiricci
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:44 AM
I think that all the members of the NRA should be shot :lol:

fifiricci
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:48 AM
Americans consider our Bill of Rights something pretty close to sacred. We tend to feel very strongly that none of those rights should ever be abridged.

I respect that, but don't you think that some of this is pretty old hat now and just because its in the Bill of Rights, it isn't necessarily still right these days? I mean, in the UK in the 1500s it was apparently okay to burn protestants and catholics (either/or according to the vagaries of the time). But that didn't necessarily make it right, funny or clever.

I mean, don't you feel that you've moved on a bit now from the days of fear and loathing of the "uppity slaves" and "reds under the bed"? Or do you not? ;)

I can never understand who the average American citizen wants to shoot? I think its a concept that is completely alien to an ordinary Brit like me.

John A Roark
Jun 14th, 2006, 09:37 AM
Well, at least the 5th Circuit finally did away with the 'collective' nonsense when considering the 2d Amendment, and the NRA (of which I am a life member) was HUGE is spoiling that red herring for the anti-gunners.
The gist of it goes like this: if the words, "the right of the people" mean individual rights in the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments, then those words mean individual rights in the 2d as well. The preamble concerning 'a well-regulated militia' does not mean what the control freaks want it to mean, i.e. some sort of National Guard. In the language of the times, it meant a body of citizens who were familiar with firearms and knew how to shoot, because they'd had access to them unfettered by the Government.

And then there's the question of priorities, which Jefferson and Madison the rest of the ol' boys had pinned down, but we have since let slip: the 2d Amendment isn't about hunting--it's about keeping a renegade government in check. The 2d Amendment undergirds the rest of the Constitution--if the citizenry can't enforce it through their own will and their own power (which power the 2d guarantees), it's just another scrap of paper.

Halardfan
Jun 14th, 2006, 09:51 AM
IAmerican Men must register for the draft and may have to use guns in wars. But we can't own guns prior to serving the country? that is ridiculous. In addition, crossbows, knives, malatov cocktails, cars and tons of other things can kill you just as quickly and more painfully than a gun. Yes all of them are basically legal if you use them responsibly.

So only farmers should be able to own guns? That doesnt make much sense to me.

Why on earth is it ridiculous that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns...your notion that is has anything to do with the armed forces IS ridiculous...in Britain we have some of the strictest gun laws on the planet, but we still have armed forces that comapre reasonably with the American ones.

The farmers thing...what I m saying is that is certain very narrow circumstances owning a gun coul be allowed...a farmer protecting his livestock from wild animals perhaps...someone who lives in a grizzly bear inhabited forest perhaps :lol: ...but again, the average citizen under little threat for wild animals ;) no they should have no right to own a gun.

The trouble is guns are bound into the founding myths of the USA itself...an healthy measure of respect for the 'founding fathers' and some of their ideas is OK...but when things become 'sacred' it is a worry, I do think sometimes people see thse 'founding fathers' like Moses handing down the ten commandments, its almost a religious thing.

The fact is, I think they got some things right, I think they got some things wrong...on slavery for example, they were horribly wrong, and downright hypocritical.

Sometimes the American revolution is viewed as this defining moment in human history...as a Brit, I don't buy that! ;) Rather I see it as a broadly postive step in the right direction, among a fabric of positive steps in other countries around the world...from Oilver Cromwell and our civil war in Britain, to the French revolution...all had their horrors, their contradictions, but all advanced us that bit more on the road to freedom.

Ems__
Jun 14th, 2006, 09:59 AM
The movie sucked. I hated how Moore badgered Charlton Heston an old man who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Charlton was never aggressive with Moore and politely told him to leave when Moore was being the nuisance that he is. He almost did the samething with Dick Clark but that guy was wise enough to run off.

Heston is a world class asshole, particularly when cornered by Moore. Yes Moore is pushy and annoying but that movie was brilliant in every way. It is evident that the NRA have little or no moral conscience in their contribution to the fear and consumption campaign (as established in the movie).

America has the highest rate of firearm deaths in the world...I think that should sum it up.

"Sluggy"
Jun 14th, 2006, 10:01 AM
I can never understand who the average American citizen wants to shoot? I think its a concept that is completely alien to an ordinary Brit like me.

Take a good luck around our country. it is very large. We have wilderness state parks larger than many countries - not hard to imagine what dangers exist there including dangerously armed people, wild animals, rattlesnakes, etc. a gun can save your life.

John A Roark
Jun 14th, 2006, 10:13 AM
Heston is a world class asshole, particularly when cornered by Moore. Yes Moore is pushy and annoying but that movie was brilliant in every way. It is evident that the NRA have little or no moral conscience in their contribution to the fear and consumption campaign (as established in the movie).

America has the highest rate of firearm deaths in the world...I think that should sum it up.
Wah.

fifiricci
Jun 14th, 2006, 10:16 AM
not hard to imagine what dangers exist there including dangerously armed people

Ah and there's the rub!! If gun ownership was illegal, there wouldn't be hundreds of armed and dangerous people running around your country, they'd just be dangerous and all revved up with no gun to shoot! They'd have to think of a more imaginative way to kill you, like your famous Texas chain saw guy. So much more entertaining than mere shooting. Any idiot can point a gun and pull a trigger ;)

"Sluggy"
Jun 14th, 2006, 10:27 AM
Ah and there's the rub!! If gun ownership was illegal, there wouldn't be hundreds of armed and dangerous people running around your country, they'd just be dangerous and all revved up with no gun to shoot! They'd have to think of a more imaginative way to kill you, like your famous Texas chain saw guy. So much more entertaining than mere shooting. Any idiot can point a gun and pull a trigger ;)

But that's exactly it - there are hundreds of ways to kill a person - a gun is not necessarily even the most fullproof way.

controlfreak
Jun 14th, 2006, 10:45 AM
If I had to choose a weapon to defend my home I would choose a baseball bat every time. And I would expect the intruders to fully appreciate the irony of being painfully incapacitated and seriously - but not fatally - wounded, by a quintessentially American cultural symbol.

Justeenium
Jun 14th, 2006, 01:14 PM
Heston is a world class asshole, particularly when cornered by Moore. Yes Moore is pushy and annoying but that movie was brilliant in every way. It is evident that the NRA have little or no moral conscience in their contribution to the fear and consumption campaign (as established in the movie).

America has the highest rate of firearm deaths in the world...I think that should sum it up.
"brilliant"? what a sucker :lol: another one of Moore's sheep.

fifiricci
Jun 14th, 2006, 01:20 PM
But that's exactly it - there are hundreds of ways to kill a person - a gun is not necessarily even the most fullproof way.

Indeed, but its quick, requires no thought, planning or judgment and any dumb arsehole can use one, by all accounts ;)

"Sluggy"
Jun 14th, 2006, 01:27 PM
Indeed, but its quick, requires no thought, planning or judgment and any dumb arsehole can use one, by all accounts ;)

Yeah well just about every man has soemthing that can be used as a weapon, also takes no judgment to use or any thought process and any dumb arsehold can use one, but it can also be used for (re)productive means, but that doesn't mean they should be outlawed

Ems__
Jun 14th, 2006, 01:34 PM
"brilliant"? what a sucker :lol: another one of Moore's sheep.

Put your prejudice towards Moroe aside and tell me its not an objective, well done documentary that seeks to understand the reasons behind America's firearm obsession.

Philbo
Jun 14th, 2006, 01:55 PM
The movie sucked. I hated how Moore badgered Charlton Heston an old man who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Charlton was never aggressive with Moore and politely told him to leave when Moore was being the nuisance that he is. He almost did the samething with Dick Clark but that guy was wise enough to run off.

Oh Get over it.

Charlton Heston is the leader of a group of gun owners, who DELIBERATELY show up wherever a horrible massacre has just occurred, to hold a pro-gun rally in the face of parent grieving over 30 odd children being massacred at school.

The USA needs to wake up to itself and realise that guns do NOT protect people. All you had to do to realise this is look at the statistics of how many deaths from firearms are in america compared to the rest of the civilized world.

YOU AMERICANS ARE ADDICTED TO KILLING EACH OTHER AND ITS SAD!!!

I only wish Michael Moore harrassed Charlton Heston more. Heston is a joke.

Philbo
Jun 14th, 2006, 02:01 PM
From the Michael Moore website:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/
I've also been accused of making up the gun homicide counts in the United States and various countries around the world. That is, like all the rest of this stuff, a bald-face lie. Every statistic in the film is true. They all come directly from the government. Here are the facts, right from the sources:

The U.S. figure of 11,127 gun deaths comes from a report from the Center for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01facts/99mortality.htm). Japan's gun deaths of 39 was provided by the National Police Agency of Japan; Germany: 381 gun deaths from Bundeskriminalamt (German FBI); Canada: 165 gun deaths from Statistics Canada, the governmental statistics agency; United Kingdom: 68 gun deaths, from the Centre for Crime and Justice studies in Britain; Australia: 65 gun deaths from the Australian Institute of Criminology; France: 255 gun deaths, from the International Journal of Epidemiology.

Philbo
Jun 14th, 2006, 02:02 PM
11,127...

Doesnt that number just amaze and astound you americans? Cannot you see that you've been 'duped' into this thinking that owning a gun makes you safer?

It only increases the risk of being killed.

John A Roark
Jun 14th, 2006, 02:24 PM
Again, it's not even about personal safety. The 2d Amendment is purely political--always has been, always will be. So long there are those who think that gun ownership is bad--or, even worse, wrong--I want to have one to fight those very individuals when they start deciding that other of my rights are objectionable to them.
And a smart one like you, CF, probably only took a moment to extrapolate those figures into a percentage of the respective populations, hmmm?
And you are didn't take long to discern that many of those gun deaths were due to police action, accident, self-defense or suicide, either--not all of them were homicides.
'Cause I just know there isn't a non-objective bone in your body, right? :haha: :haha: :haha:

Wigglytuff
Jun 14th, 2006, 02:37 PM
Oh Get over it.

Charlton Heston is the leader of a group of gun owners, who DELIBERATELY show up wherever a horrible massacre has just occurred, to hold a pro-gun rally in the face of parent grieving over 30 odd children being massacred at school.

The USA needs to wake up to itself and realise that guns do NOT protect people. All you had to do to realise this is look at the statistics of how many deaths from firearms are in america compared to the rest of the civilized world.

YOU AMERICANS ARE ADDICTED TO KILLING EACH OTHER AND ITS SAD!!!

I only wish Michael Moore harrassed Charlton Heston more. Heston is a joke.

1-LN is not american or in america
2- your generalizations about all americans is sick and unreasonable.

Philbo
Jun 14th, 2006, 02:45 PM
And a smart one like you, CF, probably only took a moment to extrapolate those figures into a percentage of the respective populations, hmmm?


Well lets take my country, Im buggered if Im gonna look at all of the populations of the countries listed in the figures..

But my country, Australia has roughly 20 million people, and the year in question, we had 65 deaths.

America has 300 million, and 11, 127 gun related deaths..

So USA 15 times the population of Australia - yet if you multiply the guun related deaths in oz by 15 it comes to 975!!!

Less than 10% of the deaths in America.

The numbers are startling and tragic.

Keep livin in denial and sleep with your guns under your pillow. What a lovely, paranoid way to live lol.

Philbo
Jun 14th, 2006, 02:48 PM
1-LN is not american or in america
2- your generalizations about all americans is sick and unreasonable.

1) What is LN?

2) It was a generalisation jiggly - if you are one of the Americans who supports some type of gun control then I sincerely apologise.

If you are another of the paranoid idiots that think you need a gun to survive in the world, then you are the sick one.

Philbo
Jun 14th, 2006, 02:56 PM
And you are didn't take long to discern that many of those gun deaths were due to police action, accident, self-defense or suicide, either--not all of them were homicides.
:haha: :haha: :haha:


That does not explain the difference in the numbers. Police all over the world face the same type of problems the police in America face, accidents happen all over the world, people need to defend themselves all over the world, and every country has people committing suicide.

Your arguments are pathetic.

The reason the number is so high is because GUNS ARE SO PREVALENT! The police in america have to assume that if they do a house raid, the occupant will have a gun and therefore are more likely to shoot. If gun ownership wasnt as widespread, the police would not be as trigger happy.

Accidents? LOL This is your worst argument. In fact listing this PROVES MY BLOODY POINT!

Where else do you OFTEN hear about kids under 10 stumbling across their parents gun and killing their brother or sister as if it was a toy?

Again, if the gun wasnt in the house it wouldnt have happened.

Oh the denial is so sad..

Wigglytuff
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:00 PM
1) What is LN?

2) It was a generalisation jiggly - if you are one of the Americans who supports some type of gun control then I sincerely apologise.

If you are another of the paranoid idiots that think you need a gun to survive in the world, then you are the sick one.
Lord Nelson the guy you were quoting. hes a nut case, but hes not american or in america

"Sluggy"
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:04 PM
What you'll dont understand is, if guns were illegal, we'd just have a booming illegal gun market.

Once you have the largest military in the world, you're gonna have people that want to have guns, ie, vets, People who do ROTC, police officers etc. So instead of the STATE actually making money off the guns, you'll just have the money go to oversees organized crime organisations. While that isn't entirely bad, surely, it's not gonna be good for America's economy. Anyway... cant you guy crossbows in stores? They are just as deadly and perhaps more painful than guns, but not necessarily illegal.

OH, and Fireworks are legal througout europe, wassup wit dat?

John A Roark
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:08 PM
That does not explain the difference in the numbers. Police all over the world face the same type of problems the police in America face, accidents happen all over the world, people need to defend themselves all over the world, and every country has people committing suicide.

Your arguments are pathetic.

The reason the number is so high is because GUNS ARE SO PREVALENT! The police in america have to assume that if they do a house raid, the occupant will have a gun and therefore are more likely to shoot. If gun ownership wasnt as widespread, the police would not be as trigger happy.

Accidents? LOL This is your worst argument. In fact listing this PROVES MY BLOODY POINT!

Where else do you OFTEN hear about kids under 10 stumbling across their parents gun and killing their brother or sister as if it was a toy?

Again, if the gun wasnt in the house it wouldnt have happened.

Oh the denial is so sad..
The bottom line is: if you don't like it here, stay there.
We're happy with the way our country is set up.
And we run the show here, not you.
Wah.

fifiricci
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:09 PM
Oh Get over it.

Charlton Heston is the leader of a group of gun owners, who DELIBERATELY show up wherever a horrible massacre has just occurred, to hold a pro-gun rally in the face of parent grieving over 30 odd children being massacred at school.

The USA needs to wake up to itself and realise that guns do NOT protect people. All you had to do to realise this is look at the statistics of how many deaths from firearms are in america compared to the rest of the civilized world.

YOU AMERICANS ARE ADDICTED TO KILLING EACH OTHER AND ITS SAD!!!

I only wish Michael Moore harrassed Charlton Heston more. Heston is a joke.

Bra-bloody-vo! :worship:

Philbo
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:11 PM
What you'll dont understand is, if guns were illegal, we'd just have a booming illegal gun market.

Once you have the largest military in the world, you're gonna have people that want to have guns, ie, vets, People who do ROTC, police officers etc. So instead of the STATE actually making money off the guns, you'll just have the money go to oversees organized crime organisations. While that isn't entirely bad, surely, it's not gonna be good for America's economy. Anyway... cant you guy crossbows in stores? They are just as deadly and perhaps more painful than guns, but not necessarily illegal.

OH, and Fireworks are legal througout europe, wassup wit dat?

You make some decent points in your post. Gun Ownership and the right to own one is very deeply rooted in the psyche of a lot of americans, especially the types that you mentioned. Changing the culture would take decades to accomplish, but that doesn’t mean some attempt at sensible gun ownership laws shouldnt be implemented.

Look, Im not a supporter of total gun bans. I just think there should be some sensible middle ground, where buying a gun isnt like popping into K Mart to buy a new DVD player.

You know theres something DRASTICALLY wrong when a looney with a background of mental illness is able to walk into a gun store, purchase a gun and go out and muder his ex girlfriend for leaving him for someone else.

John A Roark
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:14 PM
The police in america have to assume that if they do a house raid, the occupant will have a gun and therefore are more likely to shoot. If gun ownership wasnt as widespread, the police would not be as trigger happy
Gotta love that circular reasoning.

Philbo
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:15 PM
The bottom line is: if you don't like it here, stay there.
We're happy with the way our country is set up.
And we run the show here, not you.
Wah.
LOL…

I'll take that as a victory. You cant come up with any reasonable argument so it’s the old 'if u don’t like it, u can get out' - spoken like the hick you undoubtedly are.

Halardfan
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:15 PM
OH, and Fireworks are legal througout europe, wassup wit dat?

:confused: :rolleyes:

A gun's central function is to kill what you point it at...a fireworks central purpose is to look nice with pretty colours and maybe make a big noise... :lol:

Wigglytuff
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:23 PM
What you'll dont understand is, if guns were illegal, we'd just have a booming illegal gun market.

that MIGHT happen, but as in NYC what WILL HAPPEN is that gun related violence will decrease. also i have never been a fan of the argument that something should not be made illegal because people will do it illegally.

1- its overly simplistic. with the exception of things for which humans can become chemically addicted, making something that is harmful has always and will always decrease the instance of use. such is the case with elephant ivory, endangered animals fur and skins. yes, sometimes a black market does form but the result is a decrease in use and instance and the reversal of the horror that began with before action was taken.

furthermore it ignores the source of the problem. the 1# provider of illegal guns to criminals are legal gun owners. plain and simple. which clearly shows that there is a problem with "legal" gun owners. and if they are suppling criminals with their murder weapons why not deal with the source?

2- that logic leads very easily to the argument that nothing should be illegal, because it will just lead to a black market. and thats just silly talk.

Philbo
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:26 PM
that MIGHT happen, but as in NYC what WILL HAPPEN is that gun related violence will decrease. also i have never been a fan of the argument that something should not be made illegal because people will do it illegally.

1- its overly simplistic. with the exception of things for which humans can become chemically addicted, making something that is harmful has always and will always decrease the instance of use. such is the case with elephant ivory, endangered animals fur and skins. yes, sometimes a black market does form but the result is a decrease in use and instance and the reversal of the horror that began with before action was taken.

furthermore it ignores the source of the problem. the 1# provider of illegal guns to criminals are legal gun owners. plain and simple. which clearly shows that there is a problem with "legal" gun owners. and if they are suppling criminals with their murder weapons why not deal with the source?

2- that logic leads very easily to the argument that nothing should be illegal, because it will just lead to a black market. and thats just silly talk.

Well said Jiggly!

"Sluggy"
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:37 PM
that MIGHT happen, but as in NYC what WILL HAPPEN is that gun related violence will decrease. also i have never been a fan of the argument that something should not be made illegal because people will do it illegally.

1- its overly simplistic. with the exception of things for which humans can become chemically addicted, making something that is harmful has always and will always decrease the instance of use. such is the case with elephant ivory, endangered animals fur and skins. yes, sometimes a black market does form but the result is a decrease in use and instance and the reversal of the horror that began with before action was taken.

furthermore it ignores the source of the problem. the 1# provider of illegal guns to criminals are legal gun owners. plain and simple. which clearly shows that there is a problem with "legal" gun owners. and if they are suppling criminals with their murder weapons why not deal with the source?

2- that logic leads very easily to the argument that nothing should be illegal, because it will just lead to a black market. and thats just silly talk.

You make very valid points, that are hard to refute. But I think in remote places, where police officers are at least a half hour away, where you have bears, dangerous criminals, and everything else under the sun, a person should be able to have a gun for protection. Rattlesnakes are a reality of life for many people, and a shotgun is pretty essential.

John A Roark
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:44 PM
LOL…

I'll take that as a victory. You cant come up with any reasonable argument so it’s the old 'if u don’t like it, u can get out' - spoken like the hick you undoubtedly are.


You lost--you're still yammering?
Shhh.

"Sluggy"
Jun 14th, 2006, 03:48 PM
Well said Jiggly!

By JP's own reasoning then, we shouldn't legalize prostitution, marijuana and other things, whose benign character is evident since these activities occur and function fine in other countries. And, I might add, women are much better protected engaging in prostitution in other countries.

By the way, what good would a baseball bat be to protect your wife and kids from a trespesser on a remote farm?

And I ask you JP, how comfortable would you be without a gun in a remote area were there a dangerous criminal on the lose, dangerous bears and mountain lions, poisonous snakes or just a gang of drunk men partying on your front lawn?

Philbo
Jun 14th, 2006, 04:02 PM
By JP's own reasoning then, we shouldn't legalize prostitution, marijuana and other things, whose benign character is evident since these activities occur and function fine in other countries. And, I might add, women are much better protected engaging in prostitution in other countries.

By the way, what good would a baseball bat be to protect your wife and kids from a trespesser on a remote farm?

And I ask you JP, how comfortable would you be without a gun in a remote area were there a dangerous criminal on the lose, dangerous bears and mountain lions, poisonous snakes or just a gang of drunk men partying on your front lawn?


LOL I find it a source of amusement how so many americans live their lives in fear. I dont blame you guys as your mass media and governemnt are masters at using fear to control the masses.

But dont you think you are being a little bit silly? Sure if you live on a remote farm in Dakota with rattle snakes being common, you may have an argument to own a gun, and in an evolved society with balanced gun ownership laws you could obtain one..

But the majority of gun related deaths are not occuring in remote wilderness areas, they are happening in urban areas where rattle snakes arent too common lol!

What do you mean by a group of drunk men partying on your lawn?

Should they be shot along with the rattlesnakes and polar bears and mountain lions and jaguars down the main street and all the other man eating monsters?

lakeway11
Jun 14th, 2006, 04:50 PM
what JP as their ilk don't realize that Hitler was a big fan of gun control...

meyerpl
Jun 14th, 2006, 05:52 PM
That does not explain the difference in the numbers. Police all over the world face the same type of problems the police in America face, accidents happen all over the world, people need to defend themselves all over the world, and every country has people committing suicide.

Your arguments are pathetic.

The reason the number is so high is because GUNS ARE SO PREVALENT! The police in america have to assume that if they do a house raid, the occupant will have a gun and therefore are more likely to shoot. If gun ownership wasnt as widespread, the police would not be as trigger happy.

Accidents? LOL This is your worst argument. In fact listing this PROVES MY BLOODY POINT!

Where else do you OFTEN hear about kids under 10 stumbling across their parents gun and killing their brother or sister as if it was a toy?

Again, if the gun wasnt in the house it wouldnt have happened.

Oh the denial is so sad..
Would you care to explain why Canada, where guns are also prevalent, has much lower numbers in terms of gun crimes and gun related deaths than the U.S.?
The problem in the U.S. is a violent culture, not guns. As I pointed out in an earlier post, I live in a small community in the northwoods that resembles Canadian culture more than American in many respects. I own seven firearms, which almost makes me anti-gun where I live. Virtually every man, woman and child I know owns guns; virtually everyone hunts. Yet, I can't remember the last gun related crime, let alone gun related death where I live. I can't remember the last time I locked the door to my house. Obviously, guns aren't the problem, people are.

lakeway11
Jun 14th, 2006, 05:59 PM
Would you care to explain why Canada, where guns are also prevalent, has much lower numbers in terms of gun crimes and gun related deaths than the U.S.?
The problem in the U.S. is a violent culture, not guns. As I pointed out in an earlier post, I live in a small community in the northwoods that resembles Canadian culture more than American in many respects. I own seven firearms, which almost makes me anti-gun where I live. Virtually every man, woman and child I know owns guns; virtually everyone hunts. Yet, I can't remember the last gun related crime, let alone gun related death where I live. I can't remember the last time I locked the door to my house. Obviously, guns aren't the problem, people are.


Switzerland is far better example.

Wigglytuff
Jun 14th, 2006, 06:11 PM
By JP's own reasoning then, we shouldn't legalize prostitution, marijuana and other things, whose benign character is evident since these activities occur and function fine in other countries. And, I might add, women are much better protected engaging in prostitution in other countries.

By the way, what good would a baseball bat be to protect your wife and kids from a trespesser on a remote farm?

And I ask you JP, how comfortable would you be without a gun in a remote area were there a dangerous criminal on the lose, dangerous bears and mountain lions, poisonous snakes or just a gang of drunk men partying on your front lawn?
this reply is going to incomplete, not have the best grammar or spelling because I am typing it on my cell phone. sorry about that.

ok now for the good part

bears lions tigers, oh my.
I spent a lot of time and money studying and trying to save wildlife , lol I am wearing my wildlife conservation tshirt right now. truth is bears and other wildlife are more scared of people then the other way around. given the chance a bear. wild cat will run away there are only two times when they may not. a mother protecting her very cute cubs or a bear or other wild animal that has been fed by people. in fact not to long ago there was a bear that was run up a tree twice by a very small house cat.

secondly most of these wild animals are endangered and I think shooting them with anything other than a tranqulizer gun is wrong. they vwere here first and we already us more than our fair share of reasources and land.

so no I would not shout a bear that came At me. nor would I feed one to the point where it thought coming at me was ok.

ok the mad rapist breaking into you house is hard one. that I think is far more serious. I was abused sexually as a child and would not want anything like that to happen to me or anyone.

I think like this. if its near impossible for me to have a gun its near impossible for him too. so chances are if its easy for me to have one he will without a doubt have one.

personally I would no doubt have two dogs a golden that sleeps in and a neo that sleeps out. I live in a big city and love It is someo.ne can it me they would be known by the sound of the going in the gate and trying to break the door or get past the gates on the windows. but in a rural area there would the dogs and the alarm system. not to mention at least one very angry very violent black lesbian. maybe two if I am lucky.

for some it might not be as good as a gun but I think the odds of something like this happening are remote enough that having two well trained dogs would make me feel very safe.

but for the record such things are unlikely to happen. I live in nyc and have for 19 years never had even the risk of break ins.

Wigglytuff
Jun 14th, 2006, 06:20 PM
I forgot to add that drunk parting on my lawn does not warrant a gun at all. for that just call the police. doesn't matter is they take two hours either because the drunk fools will still be there. this has happened to me here in new york and seriously its more stressful than a danger. they will leave when the police gets there. whether by force or of they own dxrunken free will.

griffin
Jun 14th, 2006, 06:28 PM
B
By the way, what good would a baseball bat be to protect your wife and kids from a trespesser on a remote farm?

And I ask you JP, how comfortable would you be without a gun in a remote area were there a dangerous criminal on the lose, dangerous bears and mountain lions, poisonous snakes or just a gang of drunk men partying on your front lawn?

Are you under the impression that urban knee-caps are more vulnerable to breakage than rural ones?

I realize you're just out to tweak noses here, but I actually DO spend a fair amount of time hiking in remote areas, and DID spend a lot of tiem on my uncle's farm as a kid. I worry far more about my car being broken into at the trailhead on the road than I do about attack on the trail itself (in which case me having a gun 10 miles away is pointless).

Bears? Wild beasties? Are you kidding me? A rancher does have a legitimate use for a rifle to keep wolves and other predators away from the farm stock, but the risk of animal attack to the humans involved is minimal.

The risk of an innnocent human bystander accidentally getting blasted by that rifle is somewhat less minimal. The risk of that firearm being stolen and used against one's family, or someone else's...

If one were truly concerned with the safety of one's family in a remote area, it would be far wiser to invest in a portable electronic defibulator to have on hand should someone have a heart-attack. It's far more likely to be needed, and far more likely to save a life if it is needed. Despite this, I'd bet they're pretty uncommon in rural households.

I actually do not object to hunting, and I've conceeded the fact that gun ownership is a fact of life in the US for cultural reasons (although feel is should be strongly and properly regulated). But the idea that guns on the whole do anything but provide a false sense of security is laughable.

meyerpl
Jun 14th, 2006, 06:32 PM
Well, at least the 5th Circuit finally did away with the 'collective' nonsense when considering the 2d Amendment, and the NRA (of which I am a life member) was HUGE is spoiling that red herring for the anti-gunners.
The gist of it goes like this: if the words, "the right of the people" mean individual rights in the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments, then those words mean individual rights in the 2d as well. The preamble concerning 'a well-regulated militia' does not mean what the control freaks want it to mean, i.e. some sort of National Guard. In the language of the times, it meant a body of citizens who were familiar with firearms and knew how to shoot, because they'd had access to them unfettered by the Government.

And then there's the question of priorities, which Jefferson and Madison the rest of the ol' boys had pinned down, but we have since let slip: the 2d Amendment isn't about hunting--it's about keeping a renegade government in check. The 2d Amendment undergirds the rest of the Constitution--if the citizenry can't enforce it through their own will and their own power (which power the 2d guarantees), it's just another scrap of paper.
This is the bottom line. :worship: :worship: :worship:


The Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of our democracy. Nobody gets to pick and choose which rights they like and which they don't and alter the rights of other Americans accordingly. If you're an American and you don't like guns; fine. Don't own one. The same goes for certain types of speech and forms of expression.

It isn't about living in fear, living in denial, wanting to shoot people or any of the other things being suggested in this thread. If you don't like guns, as an American, that's your right, and you have a right to express yourself on the subject until you're blue in the face if you wish. But you don't have the right to infringe on the right of other Americans to keep and bear arms. Sorry if that bothers you. People putting on white hoods, burning crosses and spewing hate speech bothers me, but I live in a county that respects freedom more than my feelings and what bothers me, and I'm goddamn glad I do.

griffin
Jun 14th, 2006, 06:42 PM
what JP as their ilk don't realize that Hitler was a big fan of gun control...

He was also a fan of mustaches. And he painted. Maybe we should ban artists with facial hair.

meyerpl
Jun 14th, 2006, 06:47 PM
Are you under the impression that urban knee-caps are more vulnerable to breakage than rural ones?

I realize you're just out to tweak noses here, but I actually DO spend a fair amount of time hiking in remote areas, and DID spend a lot of tiem on my uncle's farm as a kid. I worry far more about my car being broken into at the trailhead on the road than I do about attack on the trail itself (in which case me having a gun 10 miles away is pointless).

Bears? Wild beasties? Are you kidding me? A rancher does have a legitimate use for a rifle to keep wolves and other predators away from the farm stock, but the risk of animal attack to the humans involved is minimal.

The risk of an innnocent human bystander accidentally getting blasted by that rifle is somewhat less minimal. The risk of that firearm being stolen and used against one's family, or someone else's...

If one were truly concerned with the safety of one's family in a remote area, it would be far wiser to invest in a portable electronic defibulator to have on hand should someone have a heart-attack. It's far more likely to be needed, and far more likely to save a life if it is needed. Despite this, I'd bet they're pretty uncommon in rural households.

I actually do not object to hunting, and I've conceeded the fact that gun ownership is a fact of life in the US for cultural reasons (although feel is should be strongly and properly regulated). But the idea that guns on the whole do anything but provide a false sense of security is laughable.
I agree with everything in this post. My guns are of absolutely no use for protection in the event of an intruder, unless the culprit is willing to wait around while I retrieve a gun from one floor of my house, then go to another area of the house for ammunition. I live in an area where large predators are present. I was in my yard with bears present twice during the past week. The farthest thing from my mind was running to get a gun. The sudden movement would have startled the animal and caused it to flee.

meyerpl
Jun 14th, 2006, 07:07 PM
I respect that, but don't you think that some of this is pretty old hat now and just because its in the Bill of Rights, it isn't necessarily still right these days? I mean, in the UK in the 1500s it was apparently okay to burn protestants and catholics (either/or according to the vagaries of the time). But that didn't necessarily make it right, funny or clever.

No, I don't think any part of the Bill of Rights is "old hat".

meyerpl
Jun 14th, 2006, 07:09 PM
I can never understand who the average American citizen wants to shoot? I think its a concept that is completely alien to an ordinary Brit like me.
I like to shoot nursing students, but I suppose that precludes me from being "the average American".

fifiricci
Jun 14th, 2006, 07:56 PM
I guess we just have to accept that there are cultural differences here that no amount of arguing will overcome.

I just tend to s****** at some of you Yanks, coveting your firearms and quoting the Bill of Rights, like you are all still living in the wild west and John Wayne is gonna ride into town on his hoss any minute now or there are reds under the bed that are going to jump out at you and contaminate your way of life. It smacks of fear and panic always being just around the corner and of course I think your Governments have always encouraged that belief in their propaganda, cos it keeps you all well in check and voting Republican most of the time, because a fearful population is always easier to control and influence. ;)
Footnote: this post is intended to be flippant, so don't take it too seriously? :devil:

lakeway11
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:32 PM
He was also a fan of mustaches. And he painted. Maybe we should ban artists with facial hair.

i think even you can differentiate essentials from the fluff...

griffin
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:44 PM
i think even you can differentiate essentials from the fluff...

And I think even you can see the foolishness of rejecting something simply because someone ELSE embraced it, and vice versa.

At least I hope so.

meyerpl
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:48 PM
I guess we just have to accept that there are cultural differences here that no amount of arguing will overcome.

I just tend to s****** at some of you Yanks, coveting your firearms and quoting the Bill of Rights, like you are all still living in the wild west and John Wayne is gonna ride into town on his hoss any minute now or there are reds under the bed that are going to jump out at you and contaminate your way of life. It smacks of fear and panic always being just around the corner and of course I think your Governments have always encouraged that belief in their propaganda, cos it keeps you all well in check and voting Republican most of the time, because a fearful population is always easier to control and influence. ;)
Footnote: this post is intended to be flippant, so don't take it too seriously? :devil:
Your footnote belies the tone of your post.

I have a friend who spent a year living and working in England. He enjoyed the experience and made some good friends. He told me that from time to time, the guys in the pub he frequented would start cracking on him with "you Yanks and your firearms", just as you've done here. His response was, "If it weren't for us Yanks and our firearms, you blokes would all be speaking German right now."
Don't take it too seriously. He was just being flippant.

lakeway11
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:51 PM
And I think even you can see the foolishness of rejecting something simply because someone ELSE embraced it, and vice versa.

At least I hope so.

sure and as the great GK Chesteron said "It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong."

meyerpl
Jun 14th, 2006, 10:12 PM
Switzerland is far better example.
Nobody wants to talk about that if it doesn't support their premise that gun ownership is the root cause of violent behavior.

"Sluggy"
Jun 15th, 2006, 08:32 AM
I realize you're just out to tweak noses here, but I actually DO spend a fair amount of time hiking in remote areas, and DID spend a lot of tiem on my uncle's farm as a kid.

No, no intention to tweak noses. I'm curious about the NRA.


Bears? Wild beasties? Are you kidding me? A rancher does have a legitimate use for a rifle to keep wolves and other predators away from the farm stock, but the risk of animal attack to the humans involved is minimal.

Tell that to the people who have been killed and eaten by American lions and bears.

If one were truly concerned with the safety of one's family in a remote area, it would be far wiser to invest in a portable electronic defibulator to have on hand should someone have a heart-attack. It's far more likely to be needed, and far more likely to save a life if it is needed. Despite this, I'd bet they're pretty uncommon in rural households.

It all depends on the risks that you wish to assume. I am much more interested in having a heart attack than being HOSED by any human being for the rest of my life. I just don't want any, I don't want to targeted by any sick dumbfuck.

But the idea that guns on the whole do anything but provide a false sense of security is laughable.

Again, that is absolutely false. Guns do save lives, you just play the odds. You are saying we are more likely to hurt ourselves than the bad guy, but of course, sometimes we do get the bad guy after all.
AND, don't diminish the value of a false sense of security. A sense of security, however false, gives you some confidence, and people can see it, and bad people might be less inclined to come trouble you. I'd like to see a "unbiased" study whose aim is to determine the benefits of having a false sense of security. While there may be drawbacks, i'm positive there are also many benefits.

"Sluggy"
Jun 15th, 2006, 08:37 AM
I agree with everything in this post. My guns are of absolutely no use for protection in the event of an intruder, unless the culprit is willing to wait around while I retrieve a gun from one floor of my house, then go to another area of the house for ammunition. I live in an area where large predators are present. I was in my yard with bears present twice during the past week. The farthest thing from my mind was running to get a gun. The sudden movement would have startled the animal and caused it to flee.

Now wait a minute here - are you telling me that if you have a guy living down the street who has no weapons and is known to be a coward, that he is not at any greater risk of getting hosed by drunken townspeople than the guy who has a nice Colt 45 and plenty of Amunition? Did i miss something or perhaps I am from another universe?

Philbo
Jun 15th, 2006, 10:11 AM
Nobody wants to talk about that if it doesn't support their premise that gun ownership is the root cause of violent behavior.

There is more to why gun deaths are so out of control in the USA compared with the rest of the world then simply gun ownership - I agree.

I think a large reason is the culture of fear. The stories that news channels choose to be their headline stories each night constantly reinforces americans about how many things they should be fearful about.. Its this culture of constantly being bombarded with messages of fear fear fear to the point where Im sure many americans go about their lives half waiting to be attacked.. In that culture its understandable people would want to own a gun to create the charade of feeling safer.

But gun ownership needs to be looked at. If all these fearful people didn’t have a gun in their closet, ready to be brought out the next time 'a bunch of drunks are partying on their lawn', you wouldn’t have as many deaths. It’s the combination of so many guns floating around, mixed with fearful people constantly on the verge of having a seige like mentality that is the lethal mix.

tennislover
Jun 15th, 2006, 10:59 AM
I live in an area where people own more guns than cars. I have seven guns in my home, but I don't consider these firearms protection for my family. That's not what I own them for at all. I can't even tell you the last time I locked the door to my house. Nobody I know locks their doors. I can't think of the last time a gun was used in the commission of a crime in the town where I live. Guns aren't the problem, a violent culture is. I happen to live in a sparsely populated, northwoods community with a very low crime-rate, even though guns are ubiquitous. Michael Moore even makes this point in his movie when he contrasts Canadian culture, where guns are plentiful and violent crime is relatively rare, with the U.S., where guns are plentiful and violent crime is a serious problem.

seven guns? :eek: if you live in a safe place,what they are for?

tennislover
Jun 15th, 2006, 11:02 AM
I think that all the members of the NRA should be shot :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol:
ditto

griffin
Jun 15th, 2006, 01:39 PM
Again, that is absolutely false. Guns do save lives, you just play the odds.

To user you're own argument "try telling that (selling that?) to people who've been shot with a stolen gun, their own gun, or had their heads blown off because some kid was playing with their parent's firearm. Or their loved ones. That's a much bigger population than people who fed the animals.

meyerpl
Jun 15th, 2006, 01:46 PM
seven guns? :eek: if you live in a safe place,what they are for?
I live in a very safe place. I don't own firearms for the purpose of personal safety at all. Actually, most of them were passed down through family, I only purchased one. A very close friend, one of the guys I deer hunted with every year, died unexpectedly a few years ago. For mainly sentimental reasons, I bought the rifle he hunted with from his estate. It's a 257 Weatherby with a Leopold scope, a marvelous rifle. Any posters familiar with firearms will apprerciate the quality of this rifle. Someday, it will belong to one of my sons.
I inherited a shotgun and small caliber rifle from my grandfather. My sons were each given rifles by a great uncle, and the same uncle gave my older son two shotguns. When my father dies, I'll inherit his gun collection. He has a pretty extensive collection of guns, although he's never shot an animal in his life. He hunts deer with me every year, although I don't think he'd shoot a deer if it came up and licked him. He regularly enjoys shooting on an outdoor range with his best friend. My grandmother was an excellent trap-shooter. Trap and skeet, along with golf, were two recreational and social activities both my grandparents enjoyed tremendously.
Where I live, firearms are considered part of the legacy parents pass along to their children.

meyerpl
Jun 15th, 2006, 01:48 PM
To user you're own argument "try telling that (selling that?) to people who've been shot with a stolen gun, their own gun, or had their heads blown off because some kid was playing with their parent's firearm. Or their loved ones. That's a much bigger population than people who fed the animals.
I fully agree. Along with the right to own firearms comes a serious responsibility.

John A Roark
Jun 15th, 2006, 05:57 PM
seven guns? :eek: if you live in a safe place,what they are for?
So, let me understand this--you are going to stand there with a bald head and a straight face and announce to everyone here that just because YOU don't understand the necessity, or even the simple desire, for owning a given object (which remains inert until a human uses it), then it must be outlawed?
And, in the same breath, you laugh out loud at a desire that all NRA members be shot? Condone 2.3 million deaths, out-of-hand?

Wow--serious strait-jacket time, here.

John A Roark
Jun 15th, 2006, 06:03 PM
YOU convince every gun owner you meet of the rightness of your position (WITHOUT using any kind of force: physical, psychological, or otherwise...calm, rational argument ONLY), and persuade them to surrender their weaponry.


minding your own damned business!

Hmmm...
For these remarks, I was badrepped and labeled a lunatic by Czechfan.
I guess I'm a wacko for being calm and deliberative and respecting other people's liberties...

Spunky83
Jun 15th, 2006, 06:06 PM
As long as I don´t have any wolves, bears or snakes living in my garden, I don´t think I need a gun. Although sometimes I´d really like to shoot a pigeon cause the next supermarket is so far away...so due to this great argument, I am totally pro rifle!

Holy yes!

meyerpl
Jun 15th, 2006, 06:11 PM
As long as I don´t have any wolves, bears or snakes living in my garden, I don´t think I need a gun. Although sometimes I´d really like to shoot a pigeon cause the next supermarket is so far away...so due to this great argument, I am totally pro rifle!

Holy yes!
Hi Spunky! :lol:

griffin
Jun 15th, 2006, 06:42 PM
The gun ban had been opposed by the NRA from the start, as well as THE SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION ...

I feel the need to point out (since Sluggo alledgedly started this to discuss the NRA :p ) that the NRA has also opposed bans on hollow point bullets, armor-piercing bullets (aka "cop killers") and has been on the opposite side from law enforcement on these issues as often - if not more often - than it has been on the same side.

Proving that there's extremeist idiocy on both side of this.

Black Mamba.
Jun 15th, 2006, 06:45 PM
As DMX said, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". I don't have a problem with the NRA because at the end of the day it is the indivdual that can use the gun in positive or negative ways.

Spunky83
Jun 15th, 2006, 06:47 PM
Hi Spunky! :lol:

Back with a bang!

Seriously now...I can´t imagine having a gun in my house. It would be like letting a lion live under my kitchen table. I wouldn´t feel save having it. Maybe some people think it´s necessary, in some crazy war terror zone in the US or maybe when the Indians come running into the house...I think one have to be an American to have a normal opinion on that topic. As an European, all I can think is ´how to shoot your own relative with your own gun´.

samsung101
Jun 15th, 2006, 06:52 PM
The NRA doesn't do anything any other lobbying
or PAC group does in the USA. They solicit support
just like the teacher's union does, the pool manufacturer's
do, the auto companies, the drug companies, the cities,
counties, states do, the way Indian casinos do, the same
way Las Vegas and Hollyood does. Many dangerous
items, and dangerous activities in America have lobbying
groups, worth millions, that try to buy influence. It's
not just the NRA. The 2nd Amendment deserves a group
that fights for it. They are it.

I don't like guns personally. I'd probably shoot my own
foot off with one. But, I don't think I have the right to keep
a law abiding citizen from owning one safely.

Gun show gun purchases, age restrictions, I have no
problem w/ a lot of that. Does anyone need an uzi in
the USA other than cops or soldiers, or a bazooka? But,
a rifle, a hunting gun, a handgun, etc., that's a different
story to me.


We're a violent nation. Banning guns here and there, or
making it harder for lawful citizens to own one, doesn't
do one thing to keep a criminal from getting one. More
children will die from drowing in a pool, than from a gunshot in America. Most of those neighborhood family
pools at home.

meyerpl
Jun 15th, 2006, 09:10 PM
I knew a guy who thought he had a gun in his head.

meyerpl
Jun 15th, 2006, 09:37 PM
Back with a bang!

Seriously now...I can´t imagine having a gun in my house. It would be like letting a lion live under my kitchen table. I wouldn´t feel save having it. Maybe some people think it´s necessary, in some crazy war terror zone in the US or maybe when the Indians come running into the house...I think one have to be an American to have a normal opinion on that topic. As an European, all I can think is ´how to shoot your own relative with your own gun´.
The thought has been tempting from time to time! :lol:

Spunky83
Jun 15th, 2006, 09:48 PM
The thought has been tempting from time to time! :lol:

That´s exactly what I meant, yes :lol:

tennislover
Jun 15th, 2006, 09:52 PM
I live in a very safe place. I don't own firearms for the purpose of personal safety at all. Actually, most of them were passed down through family, I only purchased one. A very close friend, one of the guys I deer hunted with every year, died unexpectedly a few years ago. For mainly sentimental reasons, I bought the rifle he hunted with from his estate. It's a 257 Weatherby with a Leopold scope, a marvelous rifle. Any posters familiar with firearms will apprerciate the quality of this rifle. Someday, it will belong to one of my sons.
I inherited a shotgun and small caliber rifle from my grandfather. My sons were each given rifles by a great uncle, and the same uncle gave my older son two shotguns. When my father dies, I'll inherit his gun collection. He has a pretty extensive collection of guns, although he's never shot an animal in his life. He hunts deer with me every year, although I don't think he'd shoot a deer if it came up and licked him. He regularly enjoys shooting on an outdoor range with his best friend. My grandmother was an excellent trap-shooter. Trap and skeet, along with golf, were two recreational and social activities both my grandparents enjoyed tremendously.
Where I live, firearms are considered part of the legacy parents pass along to their children.


I see: so you and your family simply like firearms........

that's proof that cultural approach is involved (as I said in my previous post)

There just one difference: so in the USA average people like firearms
In Europe is totally an other story: average people is horrified by firearms and only serial killers/pluri-murderers were found loving it (after capturing such criminals,the police usually say this: "He had got an arsenal at home!")

tennislover
Jun 15th, 2006, 09:56 PM
So, let me understand this--you are going to stand there with a bald head and a straight face and announce to everyone here that just because YOU don't understand the necessity, or even the simple desire, for owning a given object (which remains inert until a human uses it), then it must be outlawed?
And, in the same breath, you laugh out loud at a desire that all NRA members be shot? Condone 2.3 million deaths, out-of-hand?

Wow--serious strait-jacket time, here.

so every one could own even a nuclear bomb at home: it's also inert until a human uses it! :rolleyes:

meyerpl
Jun 15th, 2006, 10:02 PM
I see: so you and your family simply like firearms........

that's proof that cultural approach is involved (as I said in my previous post)

There just one difference: so in the USA average people like firearms
In Europe is totally an other story: average people is horrified by firearms and only serial killers/pluri-murderers were found loving it (after capturing such criminals,the police usually say this: "He had got an arsenal at home!")
Truthfully, I'm not much of a firearms enthusiast, I just sort of take them for granted.
At my son's urging, I'll go out and shoot a few clays once in awhile and once a year I go deer hunting. Other than that, they're out of sight and out of mind.

meyerpl
Jun 15th, 2006, 10:04 PM
I thought about getting a bumper sticker for my car:

Guns don't kill people, I do.

Helen Lawson
Jun 15th, 2006, 10:07 PM
I thought about getting a bumper sticker for my car:

Guns don't kill people, I do.

I'd stick that on my car, it's hilarious. Only, where I live, there's so many redneck hillbillies around, people would think I'm serious.

John A Roark
Jun 15th, 2006, 10:47 PM
so every one could own even a nuclear bomb at home: it's also inert until a human uses it! :rolleyes:
Sure, you can--go buy one, yuk yuk yuk... :cuckoo:
You couldn't even get the info on where to get a reliable detonator, let alone the bomb--or even the weapons-grade plutonium to make it, much less the machine tools with such fine tolerances.
Try to stay within the realm of possibility, here, please?

tennislover
Jun 16th, 2006, 02:06 PM
I thought about getting a bumper sticker for my car:

Guns don't kill people, I do.

:lol:

"Sluggy"
Jun 16th, 2006, 02:26 PM
:D I feel the need to point out (since Sluggo alledgedly started this to discuss the NRA :p )

That is absolutely true. Unless you think i am a right wing mole, or secrete agent for the NRA?

that the NRA has also opposed bans on hollow point bullets, armor-piercing bullets (aka "cop killers") and has been on the opposite side from law enforcement on these issues as often - if not more often - than it has been on the same side.

Proving that there's extremeist idiocy on both side of this.

I didnt know about this issue, the precise reason I started the thread, to learn more about it. Maybe I'll just got some redman chewing tobacco t-shirts, then I'll feel like a rough and tough cowboy. :D