http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

I like stories with happy endings.

3/14/2010 3:38:35 PM

Well just going by the odds, for every guy who kills an armed criminal, there's one where the armed criminal kills the victim.

3/14/2010 5:32:16 PM

just one?

3/14/2010 5:34:57 PM

Just because someone is a criminal doesn't mean they deserve to die. That type of justice can slide down a slippery slope of vigilanteism. I don't want our streets becoming grand theft auto.

The 2nd amendment is obsolete. If the government wanted to take over, handguns and personal guns wouldn't be able to compete so its moot anyway. Its both moot and obsolete. Its completely useless in todays world. Only net bad can come from guns. I suggest a non-lethal but potent generation of personal protection be introduced to replace guns.

3/14/2010 5:38:47 PM

Quote :

"just one?"

Well the armed victim. I'm just pointing out that having a gun doesn't mean you'll always kill the bad guys, it just means you force them to kill or be killed, that's a coin toss I'd rather avoid.

3/14/2010 5:41:30 PM

Quote :

"Just because someone is a criminal doesn't mean they deserve to die."

No, but someone directly threatening your life and safety does. See there's this little agreement in society whereby if you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. The moment, however, that you deem it necessary to threaten my life or the life of my family, you have surrendered any claim you have to your own life, until such time are you are no longer capable of threatening them.

Quote :

"I don't want our streets becoming grand theft auto. "

How ironic then that grand theft auto is inspired by places like NYC with oppressive restrictions on gun ownership.

Quote :

"The 2nd amendment is obsolete."

Do you feel that the threat of oppressive government is no longer a concern in modern society? What makes you think that?

Quote :

"If the government wanted to take over, handguns and personal guns wouldn't be able to compete so its moot anyway."

Seems to work ok for taliban insurgents. Also, history shows us that superior technology helps, but does not guarantee success.

3/14/2010 6:12:48 PM

I dont want to have to depend on the federal or local government to save my ass if some shit goes down (riots, terrorism, zombies whatev). to me the 2nd amendment is a lot more about that than taking on the government in combat.

3/14/2010 6:24:43 PM

The vast majority of people support 2nd amendment rights, including Obama and most "liberals."

mambagrl's view is the exception.

3/14/2010 6:31:49 PM

Some interest group (NRA, maybe?) recently called me for a telephone survey. The guy was asking leading questions that kind of annoyed me, so I said to him, I said, "I've never really been a fan of the Second Amendment."

He was all like, "Oh?"

"I'm more a fan of the First. The Fourth is pretty nice, too. Oh! And the third."

(Long pause) "But not the Second?"

"Nope."

He hung up, and I was slightly amused. But I didn't believe any of the garbage I was saying. I'm certainly a big advocate for our Second Amendment rights. Anyone who says any part of the Bill of Rights is obsolete is an idiot.

3/14/2010 7:02:02 PM

Quote :

"How ironic then that grand theft auto is inspired by places like NYC with oppressive restrictions on gun ownership."

Well it could be because Grand Theft Auto: Witchita would be a boring ass game.

Quote :

"Seems to work ok for taliban insurgents."

They generally have more powerful weapons that the average citizen can acquire.

Quote :

"The vast majority of people support 2nd amendment rights, including Obama and most "liberals.""

I support guns being legal, but I do think that pistols don't really need to be legal. They aren't good for much else than shooting people, and to me if you are defending yourself or hunting or whatever, a rifle or shotgun would be more effective anyways.

3/14/2010 7:10:04 PM

Quote :

", but I do think that pistols don't really need to be legal. They aren't good for much else than shooting people, and to me if you are defending yourself or hunting or whatever, a rifle or shotgun would be more effective anyways."

You're only covering a very narrow set of usage scenarios here. There are at least a handful of camping scenarios where a pistol is better than a rifle.

And then you're ignoring the pure fact that some people are just plain intrigued by the mechanics of a pistol (or other weapons), they just like to keep them as a collectors item, the same way people keep stamps or coins. theyre not the type of gun owner who wakes up every day hoping to get the chance to shoot someone who wronged them.

There are enough "normal" reasons that people should be allowed to own many/most types of guns, and it's not clear that with how many guns are already out there, that an outright ban would be effective for a decade or more. In either case, gun ownership is kind of a nit-picky thing I think. We have tons of other issues that are more significant to tackle.

3/14/2010 7:27:46 PM

Quote :

"I support guns being legal, but I do think that pistols don't really need to be legal. They aren't good for much else than shooting people, and to me if you are defending yourself or hunting or whatever, a rifle or shotgun would be more effective anyways."

First, I completely agree and would happily turn in all of my handguns after all of the criminals finish turning theirs in... Oh, wait...

Second, a rifle is a piss poor self-defense weapon. Rifles are more of an offensive weapon unless you're taking fire from afar (i.e. military). If you're trying to defend your home, a rifle is not really the weapon that you want. As poor a weapon as a handgun is, it's much more preferable simply because it's easier to maneuver and harder for someone to grab. Short(-er) barreled shotguns are pretty much your top choice.

3/14/2010 7:33:22 PM

I guess I should have put respectively, I intended for the shotgun to be for defense and the rifle for hunting.

3/14/2010 8:01:21 PM

my fav is whenever a topic is discussed, moron comes in here first thing and makes sure to blabber out the 'liberal' opinion and viewpoint first and foremost like a programmed robot.

just to make sure there is a division of opinions first and foremost. lolz. just remember lil buddy, the guy storming through your bedroom window to rob and kill you one day won't care that you're a liberal or a conservative.

3/15/2010 12:06:25 AM

^ every time you post, you confirm the stereotype: http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=589371

3/15/2010 12:14:57 AM

Quote :

" I intended for the shotgun to be for defense and the rifle for hunting"

Shotgun is a great weapon. But a woman late at night in a parking lot probably doesn't want to lug a shotgun out to her car. A handgun would be easier for her to use quickly.

3/15/2010 1:15:52 AM

Quote :

"I'm just pointing out that having a gun doesn't mean you'll always kill the bad guys, it just means you force them to kill or be killed, that's a coin toss I'd rather avoid."

All a gun does is make everyone run for cover. Which just happens to be the safest place to keep everyone. If someone breaks into my home, I'm going to yell that I have a gun whether I do or not. What idiot would stick his head into my bedroom to make sure I wasn't lying, when the front door is still standing wide open?

Like you said, both sides being armed makes it a 50/50 proposition, only if both sides refused to walk away. And a 50% chance of death is a strong incentive to walk/run away.

3/15/2010 1:40:02 AM

Okay, seriously, owning guns to protect yourself from a home invasion is like playing the lottery to win a hundred million dollars.

I think that when you weigh the benefits and the risks, you get a similar outcome. With the lottery, the benefit is winning shittons of money, but it happens only rarely, and the outlay adds up to be much greater when you take the sum of all the individuals' expenses.

The odds of a person using a gun to protect himself from a crime are extremely small when you compare it to the other issues that are created in society as a result of the easy access of guns. I would bet that if you took the total number of home invasions prevented by homeowners with guns last year throughout the whole country, it wouldn't add up to the roughly 1000 deaths by firearm in North Carolina alone in 2002. You know that most people with guns are never faced with defending their families. Would a few more families die if guns were outlawed...yes, no doubt. But thousands more families would LIVE because of it. The idea that only criminals would have guns is fallacious...in your NYC argument, since they started targeting guns in the 90s, gun crimes and homicides have steadily declined, reaching their lowest levels in the last few years.

I understand the value of the second amendment, but there should be a balance. Again, it comes down to what I have seen a lot of in this country lately, which is the me vs. us concept. In this case, when the me wins and everyone has easy access to large numbers of firearms, the us suffers greatly. If there was some statistical logic in the home defense mantra, I might be more inclined to agree with it, but it is pure emotionalism. Keep in mind, the founding fathers wanted a well regulated militia, which is not what most gun owners are concerned about.

It's not something that should be an absolute, and the idea that gun ownership is all or nothing is not rational, but I think steps need to be taken to address the number of guns we have in this country, and seriously limit that. Friends of mine who own guns always say never point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill, and that's the thing, guns are killing machines. That's what they are for. With the exception of the target or skeet shooter, there is no other purpose. We have become a masterful society at killing the shit out of things in amazing ways, and if we continue to provide better tools for doing that, it will keep happening. I just think it's really hard to go on a rampage and knife 17 people to death from a water tower.

3/15/2010 1:58:56 AM

Not at all. The argument is that when he wins, and gets his guns, the we benefits. Like you say, owning a gun is all cost and very little if ever benefit. But I, that does not own a gun, benefits from the mistaken fear engendered in criminals that I might have a gun. It is a rare instance of concentrated costs and disperse benefits. After-all, the only real benefit of having a gun is being able to yell downstairs "I have a gun!" then, maybe, fire a warning shot, something a firecracker is capable of simulating.

I don't know of any costs imposed upon others. Statistically speaking, the only action legal firearms ever see is a self-inflicted gunshot (suicide). Which I guess is the owners intended purpose, so they do work to lessen the difficulty with offing ones-self.

Also, NYC started targetting guns in the 1920s if I remember correctly. That is why in The West Side Story one of the characters was carrying around a zip-gun, which he probably made in shop class at school. You see, it seems guns are easy to make in an industrialized society. As such, the criminals of America will always have guns, the demand is just too great. The only question is whether you want most gun dealers to perform background checks or not. If you outlaw guns, then 100% of gun dealers will not. If guns are legal, then the vast majority will.

3/15/2010 3:34:47 AM

gun laws only hurt people who obey the law

3/15/2010 5:59:12 AM

^^criminals just steal guns when they break into houses these days.

3/15/2010 7:53:21 AM

^^ that hasn’t been the case in other countries where guns are banned. They have significantly less gun crime as a result.

There are plenty of arguments against 100% gun control, but just ignorantly stating that the laws plain don’t work isn’t one of them,.

3/15/2010 8:00:50 AM

lol at the anti-gun morons..... When will they learn?

3/15/2010 9:22:03 AM

In the pawn shop on Avent Ferry, there's a homemade sign (at least there was last time I was there a few months ago) on one of the gun display cases that reads [sic] "With guns we are citizen's. Without them we are subject's!"

I lol'ed. And then I cried a little bit on the inside. I was like "huh, didn't realize this particular shop exists in the 1700's...". The owner of the shop also carries a gun on him at all times in plain view. Which, I mean, he owns a pawn and jewelry shop, so, that's ok I guess....

I'm about as liberal as they come, but I don't have a huge issue with gun ownership. I grew up around them and am comfortable handling them. And I'm sure the dude who owns the pawn shop is a responsible gun owner and knows far more than I do about them.

But that said, I can't help but be a little worried about people with attitudes like "my gun arsenal at home is the only thing keeping the government in check! And when the day of reckoning comes and the government starts overtaxing me again just like King George did, we will lead the 2nd American Revolution!" I realize that is a minority viewpoint, and most gun owners aren't like that, but still... those people scare me as much as criminals do

Also, this, yes:

Quote :

"that hasn’t been the case in other countries where guns are banned. They have significantly less gun crime as a result. There are plenty of arguments against 100% gun control, but just ignorantly stating that the laws plain don’t work isn’t one of them,."

3/15/2010 9:59:32 AM

^
Why do they scare you?

3/15/2010 10:14:41 AM

i see no situation where there would be a need to take up arms against the government, but if you let the government take away that option you close the door to it forever. the ultimate check and balance in this country has always been an armed populace.

Quote :

"^^ that hasn’t been the case in other countries where guns are banned. They have significantly less gun crime as a result. There are plenty of arguments against 100% gun control, but just ignorantly stating that the laws plain don’t work isn’t one of them,."

i'm assuming you are talking about england? how anyone would hold such a big brother state as any kind of example is beyond me, however:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html

Quote :

"Offences involving firearms have increased in all but four police areas in England and Wales since 1998, figures obtained by the Tories reveal. One part of the country has seen the problem increase almost seven fold as the availability of guns, and criminals' williness to use them rises. "

or maybe you were talking about south africa where they have the highest per capita gun crime rate? canada has a higher gun ownership rate per capita than the us, so surely they have more gun crimes right? no, there is no correlation there so stop trying to use one example of statism as the rule. bad people will always have guns, so if law abiding people want to have a gun because that is how they choose to protect themselves that should always be their right (and it is, under the 2nd amendment)

3/15/2010 10:44:14 AM

I'm all for the 2nd Amendment. Handguns, assault rifles, w/e. I'm even cool with fully automatic weapons.


But gun ownership is totally impractical. Robberies:



And even then:

Quote :

" Type------------United States total------Northeast----Midwest----South----West Street/highway----------42.8---------------53.2--------45.2-------36.3-----43.4 Commercial house--------14.7---------------10.7--------12.6-------14.9-----17.9 Gas or service station-----2.7----------------3.2---------3.4--------2.4------2.4 Convenience store--------6.1----------------6.7---------4.8--------7.3------5.3 Residence---------------13.8---------------10.1--------12.5-------19.0------9.5 Bank---------------------2.4----------------3.6---------2.8--------2.0-------2.6 Miscellaneous------------17.4---------------12.5--------18.7-------18.1-----18.9 "

And even if they do rob you-- when's it going to happen? While you're home? Seriously? (but OMG Boone, I have this anecdote...) A motion-sensing floodlight or a dog would be an infinitely better deterrent than a gun would be. A "warning, this house is protected by Smith & Wesson" sign actually reads "hey criminals, this house has free guns-- rob it during working hours!"

Shoot (hah!), for the $500 or more that a quality handgun will cost, you're much better off spending it on smoke detectors or what-have-you if safety is the only concern. Add to this the extra element of danger that they add to a home (accidental shootings kill hundreds each year), and it begins to be questionable as to whether they even have a positive net effect.

Guns are (awesome) hobbies. And sure, they'll be handy during Red Dawn/Zombie scenarios, but people like pack_bryan are delusional if they think they're worth the time and money purely for safety reasons.



[Edited on March 15, 2010 at 11:04 AM. Reason : ]

3/15/2010 11:02:28 AM

If responsible, law-abiding citizens want to own guns to hunt, or even to protect their homes, that's fine by me. And it's not a right-wing extremist thing, if that's what you're wondering. They can be right, left, or chicken-wing extremists for all I care. The problem is that when people on any extreme have convinced themselves that it is their patriotic (or even God-ordained) duty to use their guns to enact some primeval form of a check-and-balance system on the government, I have a hard time seeing how, in general, positive things will result for society.

Maybe I'm just an idealist, but I think we've advanced beyond the point where the only thing stopping the government from enacting their secret plot to enslave us all is the fact that we can have guns. Call me crazy.

The idea that "with guns we are citizens, without them we are subjects" is contrary to every ideal we have about a civilized society. I, for one, think that it is my (circle your favorite): freedom to vote, freedom of speech, freedom to practice my religion, freedom of the press, etc. that define my "citizenship," not how much heat I'm packing.

[Edited on March 15, 2010 at 11:12 AM. Reason : :]

3/15/2010 11:11:41 AM

mmmmmm, extreme chicken wings

3/15/2010 11:23:22 AM

^^^

and yet i have airbags and put on my seatbelt every time i drive

your point doesn't mean anything.

also, bad stuff still happens. i'm sure you've seen the news about the kathy taft murder.

also,
http://imaps.co.wake.nc.us/imaps/main.htm?mservice=ralcrime&msize=425

i will probably never have to use my gun to protect myself, but if i ever do its my right to decide how to defend myself

[Edited on March 15, 2010 at 11:26 AM. Reason : .]

3/15/2010 11:26:03 AM

Quote :

"Just because someone is a criminal doesn't mean they deserve to die. That type of justice can slide down a slippery slope of vigilanteism. I don't want our streets becoming grand theft auto. "

you say that now until some guys breaks into your house, robs your shit, and rapes you before leaving.

3/15/2010 12:14:31 PM

I've never been in a vehicle when the air bags deployed, I guess I don't need them

3/15/2010 12:25:58 PM

When's the last time someone used an airbag to kill someone?

And let's take bets-- what's the ratio between people who've been saved by airbags and people who've been saved by carrying a firearm?

3/15/2010 12:31:05 PM

Quote :

"A motion-sensing floodlight or a dog would be an infinitely better deterrent than a gun would be."

So criminals fear lights more than the possibility that their victim will shoot and kill them? Interesting theory.

3/15/2010 12:53:41 PM

Quote :

"And let's take bets-- what's the ratio between people who've been saved by airbags and people who've been saved by carrying a firearm?"

First, that would be an irrelevant comparison. Neither raw numbers of lives saved nor rates relative to their use would mean anything at all. Why don't we compare lives saved by firearms to those saved by cancer drugs? Or clean water regulations? Because it would be nonsense. Same with airbags.

But, I will still gladly take the bet. Firearms save many, many times more lives each year than airbags. They also save far more innocent lives than they take, which is the more relevant bit of fact..

3/15/2010 1:33:26 PM

Quote :

"And even if they do rob you-- when's it going to happen? While you're home? Seriously? (but OMG Boone, I have this anecdote...) A motion-sensing floodlight or a dog would be an infinitely better deterrent than a gun would be. A "warning, this house is protected by Smith & Wesson" sign actually reads "hey criminals, this house has free guns-- rob it during working hours!""

what responsible person who owns guns wouldn't own a safe to keep them in. My dad and I are both of a very large build, and it took both of us lifting like crazy to get my gun safe in the house. It's going to take more than a couple of crackheads to get that sucker out of there.

3/15/2010 1:34:51 PM

Quote :

"what responsible person who owns guns wouldn't own a safe to keep them in"

Plenty. Especially folks who don't have young children. There are a whole lot of ways to store a weapon safely, and still have quick access when it's needed, without a safe.

Honestly, I never understood the popularity of gun safes.

All it takes is a little creativity. A gun safe is obvious, and attracts attention from anyone who breaks in.

They are highly unlikely, though, to find a handgun perched on a shelf that is well-concealed by family pictures. Or to find the shotgun draped across the top row of a bookshelf sitting behind 500-page philosophy books. Or inside the towels stored high up in a bedroom closet. Or inside the zipper-access to an unused vacuum. Etc.

Those are places a young child is completely incapable of getting to, and neither the child nor the criminal would even think to look there for something "interesting." Yet, it's quick and easy access for the owner in a bad situation. I only see the use of a gun safe for someone with a dozen or more guns that are in need of long-term storage.

[Edited on March 15, 2010 at 1:55 PM. Reason : s]

3/15/2010 1:41:25 PM

Quote :

"I'm just pointing out that having a gun doesn't mean you'll always kill the bad guys, it just means you force them to kill or be killed, that's a coin toss I'd rather avoid. "

the criminal has the option to run like hell. That was never a thought in his mind when he was committing crimes against an unarmed victim.

Quote :

"I don't want our streets becoming grand theft auto. "

Grand Theft Auto is an excellent reasoning for citizens to HAVE guns. In the normal game, you can go on shooting sprees for hours upon hours in the nice neighborhoods. If you do so in the gang-infested areas, certain groups will shoot back if you shoot at them. However, you can put in a cheat code to arm all of the citizens. When you do this, you won't last 2 minutes after you commit your first violent crime. The more people in the game that are armed, the less you'll want to do something stupid. When you know the populace is unarmed, you can get away with a lot more.

3/15/2010 1:51:15 PM

Quote :

"Honestly, I never understood the popularity of gun safes. "

I've probably got $7,500 worth of firearms in my safe. Not only does the safe keep them somewhere they are aren't going to get stolen, but I have a dehumidifier running in the safe to protect the finishes on them and keep them from rusting.

3/15/2010 1:55:59 PM

^I tacked on to my last post allowing for that situation. That's perfectly reasonable, and you would be dumb not to take that kind of care with that stuff.

I'm referring to what I perceive as the majority situation - a house has a max of 2 or 3 guns, all relatively cheap, which are stored in expensive, slow-access safes for fear that they would self-animate and cause destruction.

3/15/2010 2:07:11 PM

Quote :

"They are highly unlikely, though, to find a handgun perched on a shelf that is well-concealed by family pictures. Or to find the shotgun draped across the top row of a bookshelf sitting behind 500-page philosophy books. Or inside the towels stored high up in a bedroom closet. Or inside the zipper-access to an unused vacuum. Etc. "

There's a reason why robbers knock all of the contents off of shelves, empty drawers, and annihilate closets. They are looking for this stuff and will find it quickly.

3/15/2010 5:28:09 PM

Quote :

"I support guns being legal, but I do think that pistols don't really need to be legal. They aren't good for much else than shooting people, and to me if you are defending yourself or hunting or whatever, a rifle or shotgun would be more effective anyways."

THIS JUST IN, CRIMES DON'T HAPPEN OUTSIDE YOUR HOME!

because carrying my tactical shotgun into walmart is a better option than carrying a pistol!

3/15/2010 6:17:52 PM

pepper spray or a taser would be much safer and far more effective

shooting a gun into a crowded walmart isn't really the best situation

3/15/2010 6:32:02 PM

guns might not be the best solution in all situations but that doesn't mean its not the best solution for some situations

3/15/2010 6:39:17 PM

Having shopped at various Walmarts around this fine country I can confidently say that I don't mind extra casualties there.

3/15/2010 6:40:09 PM

Quote :

"pepper spray or a taser would be much safer and far more effective shooting a gun into a crowded walmart isn't really the best situation"

ah yes, because non-lethal force versus lethal force is a fair battle, not to mention, far more criminals are immune to bullets as compared to pepper spray and tasers.

maybe some of you guys should lay off the Mr & Mrs Smith type movies and learn what self defense with firearms is all about.

[Edited on March 15, 2010 at 7:24 PM. Reason : .]

3/15/2010 7:22:02 PM

Quote :

"If the government wanted to take over, handguns and personal guns wouldn't be able to compete so its moot anyway. Its both moot and obsolete. Its completely useless in todays world. "

Not true. I mean, I think that sort of military oppression is pretty unlikely, but as far as your comment goes, you bet your ass that such a heavily armed populace is a credible threat. Such a resistance doesn't have to be able to beat stealth fighters and ICBMs...not unless the conventional military in question is willing to engage in across-the-board destruction (highly unlikely in the scenario you're talking about).

Quote :

" Only net bad can come from guns. I suggest a non-lethal but potent generation of personal protection be introduced to replace guns."

True.

Unfortunately, we can't wave the magic wand and makes guns disappear worldwide, so your pipe dream of "replacing guns" is a moot point.

Quote :

"I'm just pointing out that having a gun doesn't mean you'll always kill the bad guys, it just means you force them to kill or be killed, that's a coin toss I'd rather avoid."

No, having a gun puts you in a position to engage in that "coin toss" should that become your best option. Just because you're armed doesn't mean engaging is the best solution...but if you're not armed, it's not really an option on the table.

Quote :

"Anyone who says any part of the Bill of Rights is obsolete is an idiot."

For the record, that also includes the 10th, right?

Quote :

"They generally have more powerful weapons that the average citizen can acquire."

The Taliban is a bad example, as they're a more organized quasi-military. Insurgents in, say, Iraq, were generally...average citizens.

Quote :

"I support guns being legal, but I do think that pistols don't really need to be legal. They aren't good for much else than shooting people, and to me if you are defending yourself or hunting or whatever, a rifle or shotgun would be more effective anyways."

Just like Mambagirl's argument...you can't get rid of handguns. You are correct in that they are largely useful for shooting people, but that's hardly an argument for outlawing them. I mean, that's kinda the point--that's exactly WHY people want them and wouldn't want them to be outlawed.

and yes, a shotgun is a superior weapon for defense in, say, your home. A rifle is of limited utility in terms of self-defense (at least as the best tool for the job). However, you can't carry a shotgun around with you. I mean, you can, but it's not really a practical option.

Quote :

"After-all, the only real benefit of having a gun is being able to yell downstairs "I have a gun!" then, maybe, fire a warning shot, something a firecracker is capable of simulating. "

I would neither yell anything like that or shoot a warning shot. I'd keep quiet unless/until I was threatened, and then I'd start drilling away at center of mass.

Quote :

"Statistically speaking, the only action legal firearms ever see is a self-inflicted gunshot (suicide)."

Well, there are the issues of having your own weapon turned against you, or the accidental shooting a family member (or yourself). My take is that this isn't the gun's fault...these things can almost be totally mitigated by responsible gun ownership and practice/training.

Quote :

"The owner of the shop also carries a gun on him at all times in plain view. Which, I mean, he owns a pawn and jewelry shop, so, that's ok I guess.... "

Uh, no shit! I'd carry one in plain view, and probably another concealed, and probably a few more under the counter.

Well, actually, I just wouldn't run a pawn shop, but if I did...

Quote :

"But that said, I can't help but be a little worried about people with attitudes like "my gun arsenal at home is the only thing keeping the government in check! And when the day of reckoning comes and the government starts overtaxing me again just like King George did, we will lead the 2nd American Revolution!" I realize that is a minority viewpoint, and most gun owners aren't like that, but still... those people scare me as much as criminals do"

Yeah, there is a small contigent of really nutty gun owners out there...but you know what would go a long way towards stifling the "THEY'RE GONNA TAKE OUR GUNS!" attitude? Not trying to take their guns!

Do I think they are paranoid and overreacting? Yeah...but it's an overreaction to provocation from the left that can and should simply be avoided.

Quote :

"They are highly unlikely, though, to find a handgun perched on a shelf that is well-concealed by family pictures. Or to find the shotgun draped across the top row of a bookshelf sitting behind 500-page philosophy books. Or inside the towels stored high up in a bedroom closet. Or inside the zipper-access to an unused vacuum. Etc."

Ever had your house broken into?

Quote :

"hose are places a young child is completely incapable of getting to, and neither the child nor the criminal would even think to look there for something "interesting." "

Ever had small children?

Quote :

"Having shopped at various Walmarts around this fine country I can confidently say that I don't mind extra casualties there."

hahaha

3/15/2010 7:50:57 PM

Quote :

"Mark my words. The downfall of the U.S. will not come from economic troubles or foreign foes, but from the very people that call themselves U.S. citizens fighting against their own government. This will probably not happen in my lifetime or even in your's or your child's, but it will happen. The once democratic, small, and limited U.S. government will one day be unrecognizable to any that have walked the earth with you or before you. Oppression shall reign. Rights will be a myth. Freedom will be a fairy tell. The rumblings of an uproar will grow strong, shaking the very ground you stand on. The people will no longer tolerate their government. Factions will form and begin to organize retaliation and redemption. The factions will increase in numbers quickly forcing their oppressive government to take actions; those actions will be their last. The people, those who have miraculously saved their arms from their government, will fight. The government will order police and military crackdowns and strikes. Those in service who are loyal to their government will disown their civilians counterparts and shed their blood. This will be the first and last use of the U.S. military against it's own people in an all out war. Prior use of national guardsmen will look like acts of Mother Teresa compared to this battle. And when the bullets stop flying, the bombs stop dropping, there will be no U.S.A. There will be no America. There will be ruins to be taken over by the swiftest and strongest foreign nation. The U.S.A. will be laid to rest."

3/15/2010 8:04:47 PM

I wouldn't mind seeing mandatory gun safety and handling training amongst all able bodied and sound minded citizens at a certain age...not only to teach proper firearms handling, training, safety, knowledge, etc, but also to calm the fear of some of the people that treat a mechanical tool as an evil object, as opposed to a useful resource in a possible situation...unless you think "It can't happen to me"

3/15/2010 8:40:23 PM

lets make a list. who has had gun training before and who hasn't

here i'll start with obvious ones.

has:
pack_bryan

has not:
moron

3/15/2010 9:11:54 PM