# Bohica



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Didn't take very long, ,did it?

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/...fords_shooting_assault_weapons_ban/index.html




> Vice says the *Brady Center will now push for a renewal of the assault weapons ban* and more strict background checks.
> 
> "Our gun laws are so weak that someone who couldn't get into the military, who was kicked out of school, and who used drugs walked into a gun store and was able to immediately buy a semiautomatic weapon," he says.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

I think they should go one step further and make it illegal to shoot people!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I think they should go one step further and make it illegal to shoot people!



That's a great idea, and will stop these things from happening, I'm sure


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

> Vice says the Brady Center will now push for a renewal of the assault weapons ban and more strict background checks.
> 
> "Our gun laws are so weak that someone who couldn't get into the military, who was kicked out of school, and who used drugs walked into a gun store and was able to immediately buy a semiautomatic weapon," he says.


Good. Excellent. :banana02:

I hope they push hard. Ban all assault weapons everywhere. Make background checks the strictest ever. :thumb:

.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Maybe the Americans can copy our wonderfully successful gun registry and top the 2 billion wasted here by 10X!! Orrrrrrrrrr we could get serious about criminal activity and invest in our youth so they don't go sideways in the first place. Banning guns simply doesn't stop crime. Nope lets waste more money on useless laws.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Drugs are good things in the hands of a doctor
Drugs in the hands of an idiot is often not so good. 

motorcycles are good things when operated by a sane person
not so good when ridden by idiots

automobiles can be good things when driven by reasonable people
not so good when driven by idiots

Guns are good tools when handled by decent people
not so good in the hands of an idiot

Anyone see a trend here? how about we just ban the idiots so the rest of us can go on with our lives?


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Good. Excellent. :banana02:
> 
> I hope they push hard. Ban all assault weapons everywhere. Make background checks the strictest ever. :thumb:
> 
> .


Even though the weapon he used wouldn't have been classified as an "assault weapon"? 

Since any gun could be used in an assault I suppose you support banning all guns?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Good. Excellent. :banana02:
> 
> I hope they push hard. Ban all assault weapons everywhere. Make background checks the strictest ever. :thumb:
> 
> .


How would that have stopped him from buying a gun?


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

How about hockey sticks Naturelover? They are also "assault weapons".

So are base ball bats, pocket knives, brass candlestick holders, sticks, rocks...............


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

He was turned down by the army. Undisclosed reasons. So if they did a better job of a back ground check they may have found out this guy has problems and should be having a gun Period.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Remember, Congresswoman Giffords was a pro-gun advocate. There's a picture on the web of her holding an "assault" weapon. 

Thiss is turning into an excuse to float more bills to turn us into more of a police state. 

We need education not punitive laws.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> He was turned down by the army. Undisclosed reasons. So *if they did a better job of a back ground check* they may have found out this guy has problems and should not be having a gun Period.


Yes.

.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Naturelover, since you are a Canadian who lives in Canada ... I can't imagine that your opinion on AMERICAN 2nd Amendment rights or AMERICAN gun control amounts to a hill of beans.


----------



## Beeman (Dec 29, 2002)

The last sentence is misleading as the ban that was in place would have effected the magazine capacity, not the gun.
I didn't know what gun was used, didn't know a 9mm could hold 31, is that correct? 
I've often wondered about the backround checks, I never had to have one to buy a gun as I bought mine years ago or from private owners.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> He was turned down by the army. Undisclosed reasons. So if they did a better job of a back ground check they may have found out this guy has problems and should be having a gun Period.


I haven't heard anything so far that leads me to that conclusion. Do you know something that I don't know about him? Precisely what would they find in his background that a firearm background check would have picked-up on? I don't believe that being turned down by the military bars someone from owning a firearm.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

tinknal said:


> How about hockey sticks Naturelover? They are also "assault weapons".
> 
> So are base ball bats, pocket knives, brass candlestick holders, sticks, rocks...............


More prevarication. All of those items you listed can certainly be used to assault a person, so can fists and feet and bottles and numerous other common things. The difference is that in order to assault a person with them you have to get up close and personal and put your own self at risk of injury as your victim will undoubtedly fight back, and there's a real chance that those items won't kill a person even though they inflict an injury. With a firearm you don't have to get up close and personal and there's a much greater chance of killing a person without getting harmed yourself. 

A firearm is the coward's way of distancing themself while settling a disagreement with an unarmed person.

.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Drugs are good things in the hands of a doctor
> Drugs in the hands of an idiot is often not so good.
> 
> motorcycles are good things when operated by a sane person
> ...


Well put. VERY WELL PUT! Unfortunately, common sense isn't very common anymore. Save for a few.
Matt
Prayers to all those affected by this.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> More prevarication. All of those items you listed can certainly be used to assault a person, so can fists and feet and bottles and numerous other common things. The difference is that in order to assault a person with them you have to get up close and personal and put your own self at risk of injury as your victim will undoubtedly fight back, and there's a real chance that those items won't kill a person even though they inflict an injury. With a firearm you don't have to get up close and personal and there's a much greater chance of killing a person without getting harmed yourself.
> 
> A firearm is the coward's way of distancing themself while settling a disagreement with an unarmed person.
> 
> .


Automobiles can be pretty deadly too. In fact, I suspect you will find that more people are killed by cars than by guns. Should we ban cars?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I haven't heard anything so far that leads me to that conclusion. Do you know something that I don't know about him? Precisely what would they find in his background that a firearm background check would have picked-up on? I don't believe that being turned down by the military bars someone from owning a firearm.


Well find out why he couldn't get into the armed forces and was turned down.
That would be or should be a "red flag" in a back ground check. And him not getting in is in the news reports on him.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Many people are turned down by the army for many different reasons. 
Having only one leg is a reason for them turning a person down. Is that reason good enough to keep them from buying a gun?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> Automobiles can be pretty deadly too. In fact, I suspect you will find that more people are killed by cars than by guns. Should we ban cars?


You are prevaricating too. Are cars created for the sole purpose of killing things? Firearms are, cars are not so your argument is a moot point. 

It is my contention that assualt firearms do not need to be placed in the hands of common civilians for any reason. 

If you want to play Rambo tough guy with assault firearms designed for mass killing of people then join the military and go to war and take your fair chances on getting yourself killed as well.

.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I haven't heard anything so far that leads me to that conclusion. Do you know something that I don't know about him? Precisely what would they find in his background that a firearm background check would have picked-up on? I don't believe that being turned down by the military bars someone from owning a firearm.


The only thing is if he was convicted by some court and he wasn't he got sent to a bypass two times for smoking pot but not a conviction. That means that the judge did not do his job and let hem own a gun to kill somebody else.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Well find out why he couldn't get into the armed forces and was turned down.
> That would be or should be a "red flag" in a back ground check. And him not getting in is in the news reports on him.


You're speculating. He could have been turned down because he was too skinny, or even for admitting he might be gay. We really don't know.

To be honest though, people in Arizona don't have a lot of trouble buying guns. The last time I bought a 22 rifle was in Arizona, from a vendor along a highway. Hand guns are just as easy to get.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

> Naturelover, since you are a Canadian who lives in Canada ... I can't imagine that your opinion on AMERICAN 2nd Amendment rights or AMERICAN gun control amounts to a hill of beans.


 I agree with this but I would encourage Americans to look north at the mistakes we've made with gun control so they can avoid them!


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

naturelover said:


> You are prevaricating too. Are cars created for the sole purpose of killing things? Firearms are, cars are not so your argument is a moot point.
> 
> .


Millions of folks who own firearms who never used one to kill would disagree with you.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> You are prevaricating too. Are cars created for the sole purpose of killing things? Firearms are, cars are not so your argument is a moot point.


No prevarication involved. It was a pretty straightforward question. The purpose behind the creation is of no interest to those who are victims of the violence committed by those who misuse them. Firearms, by the way, are created for the purpose of preventing violence more so than they are created to kill people. 

My point may be over your head, but it is far from being moot.



naturelover said:


> It is my contention that assualt firearms do not need to be placed in the hands of common civilians for any reason.
> 
> If you want to play Rambo tough guy with assault firearms designed for mass killing of people then join the military and go to war and take your fair chances on getting yourself killed as well.
> 
> .


Our founding fathers had a different opinion.



> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson





> "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" -- George Washington





> "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton


Even Ghandi has a different opinion on the issue:



> "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi


You're welcome to your opinion as long as it doesn't deprive me of my God given, constitutionally protected rights; but I have a lot higher regard for the opinions of these great men than I do of yours.


----------



## FyredUp (May 22, 2010)

The historical data in this country is as soon as you completely ban something an underground economy almost immediately develops to supply the banned item. 

Prohibition led to the rise of organized crime and the illegal distribution of alcohol. (WOW! Related gun violence, including the use of automatic weapons)

Making drugs illegal led to cartels and an entire illegal empire built solely on the trafficing of illegal drugs. (Wow! Once again, related gun violence, including the use of automatic weapons)

There is already an underground of gun trafficking that supplies the criminal elements with weapons. The drug dealers, stick up men, the mob, illegal militias and more gt all the guns they need and they are not purchased through legal sources with background checks. (Guess what I see happening here if the illegal demand makes this an even more lucrative enterprise)

Let's play a game. Let's say we ban all guns named assault weapons. Now what? Mr Insanity can't buy an EBR (evil black rifle) anymore so he looks down the shelf and says "Hey! How about that 12 gauge shotgun? Or that semi-automatic pistol?" Would those people be any less shot, or dead, if it was done with a shotgun, or pistol, instead of an EBR?

How do we solve the problem of gun crime? I don't know if you ever will. But disarming the law abiding public simply doesn't work. Take a look at what happened in Australia when they, for the most part, banned most private gun ownership. Assault and armed robbery increased dramatically.

I don't believe that gun laws that target the law abiding citizenry have any effect on gun crime. The unwillingness by politicians to make mandatory sentencing, that DA's can't bargain away, for gun crimes is a factor in my mind. When the criminals know that even using a gun in a crime doesn't automatically mean jail where is the deterrent? Make even the possesion of a gun while committing a crime, even if the gun isn't used, a federal crime punishable by 10 years in prison and let's see what effect that might have. Surely that will have more effect that banning owning certain guns by law abiding citizens.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

If more criminals knew that they were likely to be shot and killed THEMSELVES while committing a crime then you'd have a whole heck of a lot less crime.

The way I see it, you have two choices: disarm everyone, or arm everyone.

Since there is no feasible way to really disarm everyone, you're left with no choice but to let law abiding citizens arm up and protect themselves AND other law abiding citizens.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Ernie said:


> Naturelover, since you are a Canadian who lives in Canada ... I can't imagine that your opinion on AMERICAN 2nd Amendment rights or AMERICAN gun control amounts to a hill of beans.


**********************************************
or, as has been pointed out to me in the past on just such a question, that she is a member of this 
forum and as such is entitled to her own opinion. Fine.....then perhaps then she has an opinion 
on whether or not to ban the bubonic plague (Black Death) or the flu bug that swept the world from 1917-1920??? 

I'd be willing to bet that both of those epidemics killed more people than *ALL* those who 
have been killed by firearms in *BOTH* World Wars.....perhaps even since the invention of gunpowder!!!???

She'd of course have almost as much success in getting those diseases banned as she would assault-type weapons. :smiley-laughing013:


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Old Vet said:


> The only thing is if he was convicted by some court and he wasn't he got sent to a bypass two times for smoking pot but not a conviction. That means that the judge did not do his job and let hem own a gun to kill somebody else.


Smoking pot convictions are generally not felonies. It takes a felony conviction or mental condition to prevent you from buying a gun. I'm not sure of the qualifications for a mental condition but I think you have to have been confined to a mental institution. Simply going to a shrink for depression or something similar won't do it.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I suspect emotions will subside in a few days and I doubt any new gun legislation will come of it. The dems were afraid to pass gun legislation even though they had total control of government. I sure don't think the reps will do it either.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ernie said:


> Naturelover, since you are a Canadian who lives in Canada ... I can't imagine that your opinion on AMERICAN 2nd Amendment rights or AMERICAN gun control amounts to a hill of beans.


You are correct in that. However, I'm still entitled to my opinion about assault firearms in the hands of common civilians who wish to make war on each other. 

If my opinion only amounts to a hill of beans then why is anybody paying any attention to it and getting so hot and bothered by it? Could it be that I strike a guilty, self-conscious nerve in those who have an imaginary vision of themselves as blood thirsty Rambo types mowing down other citizens?

.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> If my opinion only amounts to a hill of beans then why is anybody paying any attention to it and getting so hot and bothered by it? Could it be that I strike a guilty, self-conscious nerve in those who have an imaginary vision of themselves as blood thirsty Rambo types mowing down other citizens?
> 
> .


Oh no, don't give yourself too much credit in that department. There are people on this forum who are not so well versed in political discourse who might be swayed by the kind of statements you made, so we make sure we discredit such statements in short order. We will never change your mind, but we can help educate those who might otherwise be mislead.

BTW, thank you for the opportunity. :cowboy:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Jim, you are welcome. And thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my opinion, even if it is an unpopular opinion. :grin:

.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Could it be that I strike a guilty, self-conscious nerve in those who have an imaginary vision of themselves as blood thirsty Rambo types mowing down other citizens?
> 
> .


Oh brother................


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I hope they push hard. Ban all assault weapons everywhere. Make background checks the strictest ever


You just don't have a clue do you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The last sentence is misleading as the ban that was in place would have effected the magazine capacity, not the gun


New magazines couldn't be *made *during the ban, but you could always BUY them, so the whole thing is a lie


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Well find out *why he couldn't get into the armed forces *and was turned down


It doesn't matter
He PASSED a background check


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You are prevaricating too. Are cars created for the *sole purpose of killing *things? *Firearms are*, cars are not so your argument is a moot point.
> 
> It is my contention that assualt firearms do not need to be placed in the hands of common civilians for any reason


You really are showing that your only *knowledge* of this subject is inflammatory hype


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

> It doesn't matter
> He PASSED a background check


Then the background checks aren't good enough.

.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Then the background checks aren't good enough.
> 
> .


...or, background checks aren't infallible. Bad things can and will happen. We can't legislate them away.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Could it be that I strike a guilty, self-conscious nerve in those who have an imaginary vision of themselves as blood thirsty Rambo types mowing down other citizens?


No. it's because it's irritating to hear arguments from someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

You spout words you don't understand and insert emotion in place of logic


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Then the background checks aren't good enough.


He had done NOTHING that would disqualify him from owning a gun.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Then the background checks aren't good enough.
> 
> .


 True so he passed, that along should tell a person it is weak or was not done correctly given the sheriff in that area. Now if Joe Arpiro was in charge instead of what is there now, Joe wouldn't have let it go through so easy or at least do it to the letter of the law.
I bet Joe is wising he was there instead of up in Phoenix. No wonder the borders are not sealed, or the law followed in the Southern part of AZ. Joe is tougher and doing a better job once the illegals get up to Maricopa CO.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You really are showing that your only *knowledge* of this subject is inflammatory hypw


My knowledge of this subject is personal.

Excuse me ..... I'm going shopping now. And I won't feel like I need to be carrying a gun with me when I leave the house.

Carry on.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> My knowledge of this subject is personal.


Nope

It's non existant.
You're basing your opinions on emotional hype instead of logic

You want to punish the whole country for the actions of one deranged person, and try to justify it with parroted buzzwords


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> True so he passed, that along should tell a person it is weak or was not done correctly given the sheriff in that area. Now if Joe Arpiro was in charge instead of what is there now, Joe wouldn't have let it go through so easy or at least do it to the letter of the law.
> I bet Joe is wising he was there instead of up in Phoenix. No wonder the borders are not sealed, or the law followed in the Southern part of AZ. Joe is tougher and doing a better job once the illegals get up to Maricopa CO.


HUH? You're name is either on the no-buy list or it isn't. You have to do certain things to get on the no-buy list. It is not up to a sheriff or anyone else to put you on the list at their discretion. This nut was not on the list, period. That doesn't mean the list is weak. He had never done anything that would automatically put him on the list. It happens because nothing is foolproof.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Drugs are good things in the hands of a doctor
> Drugs in the hands of an idiot is often not so good.
> 
> motorcycles are good things when operated by a sane person
> ...


U da man!! Well said!!


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

Wolf mom said:


> Remember, Congresswoman Giffords was a pro-gun advocate. There's a picture on the web of her holding an "assault" weapon.
> 
> Thiss is turning into an excuse to float more bills to turn us into more of a police state.
> 
> *We need education not punitive laws.*





Yvonne's hubby said:


> Guns are good tools when handled by decent people
> not so good in the hands of an idiot
> 
> Anyone see a trend here? *how about we just ban the idiots so the rest of us can go on with our lives?*


Does anyone else see a conflict here? How do you educate everyone equally and be absolutely certain it sticks so nobody has to relive such an awful thing?


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Drugs are good things in the hands of a doctor
> Drugs in the hands of an idiot is often not so good.
> 
> motorcycles are good things when operated by a sane person
> ...


:thumb:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

georger said:


> Does anyone else see a conflict here? How do you educate everyone equally and be absolutely certain it sticks so nobody has to relive such an awful thing?


You dont, and the world will NEVER be a completely safe place, no matter what some of the dreamers would have us believe. We will always have those among us who aim to do us harm. God Himself will see to it that something kills us eventually, even if its not our neighbor tomorrow. The key is to inform our citizens of those basic facts, so they can protect themselves as best they can and live a normal life as long as they can. Your government cannot protect you, not from others, and not from ourselves..... only we can do that, and we must be allowed to do so for ourselves.


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> .....only we can do that, and we must be allowed to do so for ourselves.


But you have that right now in your society and way of life - and this tragedy still happened in spite of people having guns to protect themselves.

If everyone having guns is supposed to be able to make a safer society so this sort of thing cannot happen, then I submit that the status quo is in error. The death of Christina Green bears witness to this.










I would further submit that it is the proliferation of guns and the proliferation of a culture which celebrates the "freedom" of gun ownership which feeds such tragedies. 

In other words, it is entirely an artificial culture celebrating artificial freedom which authored an entirely preventable and very real tragedy in which innocent people lost their lives.

Is there any evidence to disprove my theory?


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

naturelover said:


> With a firearm you don't have to get up close and personal and there's a much greater chance of killing a person without getting harmed yourself.
> 
> .


In this case, he did get up close and personal. Within 4 feet of her I believe.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

georger said:


> But you have that right now in your society and way of life - and this tragedy still happened in spite of people having guns to protect themselves.
> 
> If everyone having guns is supposed to be able to make a safer society so this sort of thing cannot happen, then I submit that the status quo is in error. The death of Christina Green bears witness to this.
> 
> ...


Nothing will ever prevent every such tragedy. Can you show me something that will?


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Just as many heinous acts, if not MORE, are done without a firearm weapon. SOmeone who will kill, if he doesn't have a gun, will find another way to do so. Here in parts of MD, it is the in thing to slash eachother with boxcutters.

So I say, we remove ANYTHING that could be a weapon. Anything sharp (scissors, forks, knives, toothpicks), gone. Oh, so then people will strangle each other...ok, so take away all rope, belts, neckties. Drats! Rocks, baseball bats and bricks can be used as weapons, and in fact frequently are...no more baseball, and all housing is to be made from styrofoam. Guess you'll have to use your bear hands...tell you what, all hands should be removed as well. Can you bite someone to death?

Just saying, despite what everyone thinks, a person who is going to kill, is going to kill. Period.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> You are prevaricating too. Are cars created for the sole purpose of killing things? Firearms are, cars are not so your argument is a moot point.
> 
> It is my contention that assualt firearms do not need to be placed in the hands of common civilians for any reason.
> 
> ...


Do you know a good gunsmith? I have a couple of firearms which I think should be checked out, they seem to not be functioning property, they have yet to kill anything.

No on a more serious note. 

Just what is an "assault weapon"? Does the fact it can fire in semi automatic mode (i.e. all you have to do is keep pulling the trigger to fire more rounds) make it an assault weapon? 

Is it the number of rounds it can hold? What is the magic number of rounds that changes it from a weapon to an "assault" weapon?

Is it the stock? If the stock is wood its just a weapon but if the stock is black plastic it suddenly becomes an "assault" weapon?

The correct definition of assault weapon is a weapon chambered in a mid-power round capable of firing either a single round or more than one round with each pull of the trigger.

Every day you probably drive down the road. You are much more danger of being killed doing this than you are of being shot by someone with an "assault weapon".


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

beccachow said:


> Just as many heinous acts, if not MORE, are done without a firearm weapon. SOmeone who will kill, if he doesn't have a gun, will find another way to do so. Here in parts of MD, it is the in thing to *slash eachother with boxcutters*.
> 
> So I say, we remove ANYTHING that could be a weapon. Anything sharp *(scissors, forks, knives, toothpicks), gone*. Oh, so then people will strangle each other...ok, so take away all rope, belts, neckties. Drats! *Rocks, baseball bats and bricks can be used as weapons*, and in fact frequently are...no more baseball, and all housing is to be made from styrofoam. Guess you'll have to use your bear hands...tell you what, all hands should be removed as well. Can you bite someone to death?
> *Monty Python, Holy Grail, Black Knight ... youtube it, funny, sorry*
> Just saying, despite what everyone thinks, a person who is going to kill, is going to kill. Period.


Didn't TSA already do that?
Sorry, I'll go to my corner now...:lookout:
Matt
PS, Becca, I am agreeing with you, incase someone mistakes this response.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Shygal said:


> In this case, he did get up close and personal. Within 4 feet of her I believe.


4 feet is 4 feet away. It is not close and making physical contact. If he had attacked her with any other object besides a firearm he'd have had to get closer to make some kind of physical contact - and nobody would have been killed because he would have been disarmed by other people there of whatever other weapon he was using.

.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> 4 feet is 4 feet away. It is not close and making physical contact. If he had attacked her with any other object besides a firearm he'd have had to get closer to make some kind of physical contact - and nobody would have been killed because he would have been disarmed by other people there of whatever other weapon he was using.
> 
> .


Explain that to the people who were on the planes that went into the World Trade Center, commanded by the people carrying box cutters.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

georger said:


> But you have that right now in your society and way of life - and this tragedy still happened in spite of people having guns to protect themselves.
> 
> If everyone having guns is supposed to be able to make a safer society so this sort of thing cannot happen, then I submit that the status quo is in error. The death of Christina Green bears witness to this.
> 
> ...


Precisely so. There is no evidence to disprove your theory.

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

georger said:


> But you have that right now in your society and way of life - and this tragedy still happened in spite of people having guns to protect themselves.
> 
> If everyone having guns is supposed to be able to make a safer society so this sort of thing cannot happen, then I submit that the status quo is in error.
> 
> ...


Yes, we do have the right to carry a gun in our society.... sort of anyway.... so far. As I pointed out, we will always have those among us who aim to do the rest of us harm and yes we will alway have these tragedys to contend with. 

Now as to your assertion that the status quo is in error...... perhaps you need to educate yourself a bit. There have been cities here in the US that have passed ordinances requiring all residents to own a firearm, and to learn to use them. Interestingly enough the violent crime rates in those cities dropped radically...... so yes, status quo apparently does work!

Lastly I would say your last comment about this incident being entirely preventable is utter nonsense. People of lesser moral quality will invariably find guns or other methods with which to commit these atrocities...... in spite of any laws, regulations or other protections to prevent them. Here is a clip of a recent news article to demonstrate my point: "One man was shot in the chest and another woman in the leg, while a third man walked in St George's hospital later that morning with a gunshot wound to the abdomen." These shootings did not occur in some western town in Nebraska where gun laws are relaxed.....these occurred in Jolly ol London, UK last week! A city where guns are very tightly restricted. The article continues on about the killings close-by the previous year... so my friend, I would say further regulations, restrictions and bans on firearms are a waste of time. Teaching our citizens responsible behavior is what will lower our risk. 
you can read the rest of said article here http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/8767675.UPDATE__Teens_arrested_after_New_Year_shooting/


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> Even Ghandi has a different opinion on the issue:
> 
> 
> 
> > "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi


Who introduced firearms to India? If firearms had never been introduced to India or anywhere else for that matter then nobody would want them and nobody would have felt they were being deprived of something they knew nothing about.

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Precisely so. There is no evidence to disprove your theory.
> 
> .


Sorry, I was gathering that information to post while you were writing this. see my post above, you will see the evidence, and I didnt even mention Mexico


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

That is diversion.

A gun is what killed these people. Why disguise that? Why protect that?

If you have a known and perfectly preventable factor in life -such as the prevalence of gun violence in society - which is able to threaten and extinguish innocent human lives with such ferocious fire power, why guard it when it does such harm?

A knife or a bite or a stone can do limited harm as compared to a gun and the assaulter must be much closer to the victim than with a gun. A gun has a much greater killing range, making it a much greater weapon than a knife, a bite or a stone.

Comparing a stone, a knife, a bite, a kick or anything else to a gun's killing power and accuracy is like comparing apples to oranges. There is little else which can kill as a gun can, and can be so easily concealed, and apparently so easily procured in some cultures, apparently so worshipped as well as a source of "freedom" as well.

If you had a vicious rabid animal in your neighbourhood which killed in the past and threatened to kill again unless halted, and if people excused the presence of such an animal on the basis that "if that animal didn't kill our kind then something else would" or "if it's going to happen then it will happen regardless", then the innocent deaths which will continue to come about as a result of human inaction on such a threat would represent a greater disregard for the safety of life.

I describe a culture becoming morbidly preoccupied with death and war in other words. This culture can exist anyplace in any country in the world, it is not isolated to west or east.

And though I don't have answers either, I am just as qualified as anyone else is to ask questions and just as qualified to wish to provoke serious objective discussion for the sake of our children and their future.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Who introduced firearms to India? If firearms had never been introduced to India or anywhere else for that matter then nobody would want them and nobody would have felt they were being deprived of something they knew nothing about.
> 
> .


True, and "if" a frog had wings......

People do know about guns, people do intend to own them in order to defend themselves and their families. They are also quite handy items around the farm to ward off unwanted critters, and to put other critters in the stew pot. I have found my trusty ol shotgun comes in handy during the holidays for fetching mistletoe out of the walnut trees too.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Who introduced firearms to India? If firearms had never been introduced to India or anywhere else for that matter then nobody would want them and nobody would have felt they were being deprived of something they knew nothing about.
> 
> .


Argue that point with Ghandi.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

poppy said:


> Smoking pot convictions are generally not felonies. It takes a felony conviction or mental condition to prevent you from buying a gun. I'm not sure of the qualifications for a mental condition but I think you have to have been confined to a mental institution. Simply going to a shrink for depression or something similar won't do it.


Nope In Arkansas if you are found guilty of having a drug problem you are not allowed to buy a gun or even possessed one or the ammunition for one.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> Explain that to the people who were on the planes that went into the World Trade Center, commanded by the people carrying box cutters.


I wasn't aware that any of the passengers on those planes that went into the world trade center had previous outside communication with other people to let them know that they were being held under threat of box cutters. Perhaps you're thinking of the plane that crashed in the field - which it's my understanding the passengers of that plane did have cel phone communication and did try to disarm the terrorists before it went down.

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

georger said:


> A gun is what killed these people.


Nope, bullets fired from a gun, being used by a man is what killed these people. The gun, without the man, would still be in his closet not bothering anyone.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

deaconjim said:


> Argue that point with Ghandi.


I dunno Jim, Ghandi may not be our best source here..... When I am looking for advice, some guy wandering about the countryside wearing a diaper and starving himself is somehow not the guy I am inclined to stop and ask.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

georger said:


> That is diversion.
> 
> A gun is what killed these people. Why disguise that? Why protect that?
> 
> ...


George, if I had access to Tricky's Post of The Day smiley I'd give you a hundred of them for this post. :thumb:

.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

naturelover said:


> You are correct in that. However, I'm still entitled to my opinion about assault firearms in the hands of common civilians who wish to make war on each other.
> 
> If my opinion only amounts to a hill of beans then why is anybody paying any attention to it and getting so hot and bothered by it? Could it be that I strike a guilty, self-conscious nerve in those who have an imaginary vision of themselves as blood thirsty Rambo types mowing down other citizens?
> 
> .


As I sit here at the computer I have a loaded hand gun in my pocket and I carry it everywhere that the law allows. I don't think about it unless I change jeans and have to relocate it to anther pocket.I carry mine for the peace of mind that it brings. I have had several death threats and some of them are real. I am not a Rambo type and have never thought of killing anybody. I have used it to shoot a person that would have killed me but I don't think about using it it comes on so very fast and the only reflex motion is to use it. You don't need a gun most of the time but when you need one you better have it in your hand.You can have all sorts of strange ideas and I will have mine.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Old Vet, I'm really sorry that you have to carry a gun for the sake of your peace of mind. I'm sorry you've had to shoot somebody who was trying to kill you. I'm sorry that you live in a society where people live in fear of death threats and of being killed by their fellow citizens.

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

The world would be sweetness and light if we could only follow the Canadian model for peace.



> Police tape: Canada bus killer ate victim's flesh
> Internal communication leaked on Internet; suspect charged in beheading
> 
> 
> ...





> The Jungle Massacre: African rebels who revel in their machete genocide
> 
> Mary Braid
> 
> ...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Old Vet, I'm really sorry that you have to carry a gun for the sake of your peace of mind. I'm sorry you've had to shoot somebody who was trying to kill you. I'm sorry that you live in a society where people live in fear of death threats and of being killed by their fellow citizens.


You make it sound like you live in a society that has no violent criminals in its midst. Cool beans!! 
BTW I dont live in fear either. Never lock my doors, (dont even have a door to lock at the shop!) leave the keys in my vehicles, and dont worry about being mugged. Most everyone around these parts know I carry and that I have a low tolerance for stupid.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ed Norman said:


> The world would be sweetness and light if we could only follow the Canadian model for peace.


You forgot to mention the Canadian guy from Montreal who was so disgruntled with the Canadian model for peace that he moved to Texas, got a gun and then while withholding his children from their mother who had legal custody of them he shot and killed his 8 year old Canadian son with a single shot, then shot his 12 year old Canadian daughter 8 times in the arms and legs. She's still in hospital in Texas recovering from surgeries awaiting her return home to Canada and her mother.

.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

georger said:


> But you have that right now in your society and way of life - and this tragedy still happened in spite of people having guns to protect themselves.
> 
> If everyone having guns is supposed to be able to make a safer society so this sort of thing cannot happen, then I submit that the status quo is in error. The death of Christina Green bears witness to this.


Body isn't even in the ground yet and already you gun-grabbers are dancing in her blood and beating your chests. Look at your phony posting of a photo of the dead child as proof. Do you think one dead child grants you the moral high ground in this matter?

I put the blood of every murdered child on YOUR heads. Every man beaten and robbed, every woman raped, every child killed where an armed and free citizen could have PREVENTED it is on the heads of you hoplophobes.

You may tremble and urine may run down your legs at the thoughts of free men armed, but rest assured, America was FOUNDED upon the rights of a free man to protect himself, his family, and every soul who cries out under the yoke of fear and tyranny. 

If Canadians wish Americans disarmed, then arm yourselves and come disarm us. Molon labe.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> You forgot to mention the Canadian guy from Montreal who was so disgruntled with the Canadian model for peace that he moved to Texas, got a gun and then while withholding his children from their mother who had legal custody of them he shot and killed his 8 year old Canadian son with a single shot, then shot his 12 year old Canadian daughter 8 times in the arms and legs. She's still in hospital in Texas recovering from surgeries awaiting her return home to Canada and her mother.
> 
> .


He got excited after the first shot, failed to control his breathing and trigger squeeze, obviously. 

No comment on 800,000 dead in 100 days with machetes?


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

naturelover said:


> 4 feet is 4 feet away. It is not close and making physical contact. If he had attacked her with any other object besides a firearm he'd have had to get closer to make some kind of physical contact - and nobody would have been killed because he would have been disarmed by other people there of whatever other weapon he was using.
> 
> .


He could have used a sword, Ax, Knife, a club, a rock, and many things from 4 feet. If it was customary to carry the weapon like brief case and many other things he could have done it. The reason that he got so close before firing is because he wanted to hit her and most everybody knows that the closer you are the better the chances to hitting. Just because he used a tool called a gun doesn't mean that he could not hurt her by using other means. He didn't have to stand toe to toe to her to hurt her. My arms are 36 inches and most anything will make up the rest of the distance.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You make it sound like you live in a society that has no violent criminals in its midst. Cool beans!!


I live in a society that doesn't have anywhere near the amount of violence as your society does, nor is it steeped in the rabid gun culture of your society. I'm thankful for that.

.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Old Vet, I'm really sorry that you have to carry a gun for the sake of your peace of mind. I'm sorry you've had to shoot somebody who was trying to kill you. I'm sorry that you live in a society where people live in fear of death threats and of being killed by their fellow citizens.
> 
> .


You can have all the peace of mind all the way you live but how long is that going to be? I have the tools to make sure that I live a full life. The death threats come from some bad gangs that I used to deal with and if I wanted to do a lesser job of security for the people that hired me to make sure they were safe I wouldn't have them. I am sure that BC doesn't have any bad persons their at all but in the US they are everywhere expectantly when you send so many to jail.


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

Yep, ban all guns. Have all gun owners turn them in to be used by law enforcement or the military.
Great idea! Then the law abiding citizens will be left unarmed and at the mercy of gang members, drug dealers and other criminals who keep their weapons.


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

naturelover said:


> I live in a society that doesn't have anywhere near the amount of violence as your society does, nor is it steeped in the rabid gun culture of your society. I'm thankful for that.


Look at who is using the guns for crimes. If guns are banned, they will be the ones keeping them and continue commiting crimes, especially when their innocent targets have no weapons to use to defend themselves.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ed Norman said:


> *He got excited* after the first shot, failed to control his breathing and trigger squeeze, obviously.


Says it all, doesn't it? Excitement. The little girl was curled up in a ball in a corner, blocking the rest of her body with her arms and drawn up legs. He didn't get "excited" after the first shot, he was already excited. His intent was to kill her, that's why he shot her 8 times in the arms and legs.



Old Vet said:


> He could have used a sword, Ax, Knife, a club, a rock, and many things from 4 feet. If it was customary to carry the weapon like brief case and many other things he could have done it. The reason that he got so close before firing is because he wanted to hit her and most everybody knows that the closer you are the better the chances to hitting. Just because he used a tool called a gun doesn't mean that he could not hurt her by using other means. He didn't have to stand toe to toe to her to hurt her. My arms are 36 inches and most anything will make up the rest of the distance.


So what? Describing other ways to injure or kill a person doesn't negate the fact that a gun was used in this case. Might have beens and could haves are not important. The point is that a sick, schizophrenic young man that was already known to have mental health problems was easily able to walk into a store and buy a gun without an efficient background check being done, and then plot and cause death and mayhem ..... because it is his constitutional RIGHT to bear arms.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *If everyone having guns is supposed to be able to make a safer society so this sort of thing cannot happen*, then I submit that the status quo is in error. The death of Christina Green bears witness to this.


You realize that's a fantasy don't you?
One should at least TRY to be realistic
Life's not a Dsiney movie


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Cain killed Abel,Moses killed an Egyptian and Old Elijia killed the prophets of Baal.

No weapon is mentioned.They may have used their hand and chocked the life out of them,Who Knows what weapon was used? Nobody,because the weapon is not important,because its not the weapons fault.Just like the jets that hit the twin towers,would you blame the planes?.The plane was the weapon they chose.Where theres a will to kill,the killer will find a way and what weapon he will use..

IF any of you anti gunners happen to have a weapon,if not borrow one.Load it and lay it on the kitchen table,and set and watch it, till it makes its move,then duck.It want hurt a soul.

A fly might pitch on it.But it ain't going off,until someone pulls the trigger.Thats the someone who needs to be hung by the neck until they are dead.And have the hanging on the court house lawn, and a sign saying,"NEXT"just shoot someone, and you can have a ride showing folks how to rope dance..But we better have it quick,before ropes are illegal... One other thing,if its the guns to blame,lets call all our American soldiers home.Just tell them to leave their guns over there,they can kill our enemy and we won't lose anymore lives...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Is there any evidence to disprove my theory?





> Precisely so. There is no evidence to disprove your theory


There is no theory there.
Just more fantasy and rambling




> 4 feet is 4 feet away. It is not close and making physical contact. If he had attacked her with any other object besides a firearm he'd have had to get closer to make some kind of physical contact - and nobody would have been killed because he would have been disarmed by other people there of whatever other weapon he was using.


Would you be happier if he had driven a car through the crowd?


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> IF any of you anti gunners happen to have a weapon,if not borrow one.Load it and lay it on the kitchen table,and set and watch it, till it makes its move,then duck.It want hurt a soul..


Love it!!!!:thumb:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You forgot to mention the Canadian guy from Montreal who was so disgruntled with the Canadian model for peace that he moved to Texas, got a gun and then while withholding his children from their mother who had legal custody of them he shot and killed his 8 year old Canadian son with a single shot, then shot his 12 year old Canadian daughter 8 times in the arms and legs. She's still in hospital in Texas recovering from surgeries awaiting her return home to Canada and her mother.


How many MILLIONS of American gun owners DIDN'T ever shoot anyone?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Would you be happier if he had driven a car through the crowd?


Should a blind man have a right to drive a car? Should a delusional, mentally ill person have a right to own a gun?

.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How many MILLIONS of American gun owners DIDN'T ever shoot anyone?


I've shown some amazing restraint so far.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> George, if I had access to Tricky's Post of The Day smiley I'd give you a hundred of them for this post


Of course you would since he *parroted* many of your phrases



> The point is that a sick, schizophrenic young man that was already *known to have mental health problems *was easily able to walk into a store and buy a gun *without an efficient background *check being done, and then plot and cause death and mayhem ..... because it is his constitutional RIGHT to do so.


He had never been in a mental hospital
He had never been convicted of a felony

He DID have an "efficient" background check because of those facts, and YES it was his right.

Why do you want to punish *everyone *for HIS acts?

You don't care about the deaths.
You just jumped on the kneejerk bandwagon


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

Ernie said:


> I've shown some amazing restraint so far.


ound:ound:ound:


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

> University Study Confirms
> Private Firearms
> Stop Crime 2.5 Million Times Each Year
> By J. Neil Schulman
> 4-20-7


.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If you had a vicious rabid animal in your neighbourhood which killed in the past and threatened to kill again unless halted


....

you'd SHOOT it


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Should a blind man have a right to drive a car? *Should a delusional, mentally ill person have a right to own a gun?*


Why is it you cant make ONE *rational *argument to back your postition?

And a blind man couldn't pass the test anyway

Public opinion as to who is "delusional" doesn't mean anything
It has to be a *legal* determination

Anyone who thinks another law will stop killings is delusional


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> I live in a society that doesn't have anywhere near the amount of violence as your society does, nor is it steeped in the rabid gun culture of your society. I'm thankful for that.
> 
> .


really?!?! I did a little looking just to make sure. In the state of KY, thats my state, there were 178 murders in the year 2009. There were also a little over 4 million people living in this state that year. So lets make the math simple and round up the number of murders per capita shall we? Lets kick that 178 on up to 200 just to simplify the math. 4,000,000 divided by 200 comes out to one murder per 20,000 of population. Now, lets have a lil looksee at the numbers for your area. Frazier valley BC was tricky, it seems all the stats for that area are on the city of Abbotsford, which also seems to be known by wiki as the murder capital of Canada :shrug: Anyways, Nine murders in 2009, very low indeed! but considering the population is only 160,000 divided by nine we get one murder per every 18,000 or so. Looks like us gun totin hlllbilly heathens actually have a LOWER murder rate than your area.  Oh by the way, wiki also awards yall as being the canadian leader in robbery game. Congratulations!!


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> ....
> 
> you'd SHOOT it


No. The government should have intervened and offered medical services to help him with the rabies. It is not its fault that he had rabies. The government is responsible for allowing rabies in his community and is therefore at fault for any incidents of rabid animals. If anyone feels the need to shoot him, then they are taking the life of an unfortunate soul who is not at all responsible for its actions.
If the government fails to provide the necessary services for any living creature to thrive, the creatures are not at fault and anyone that does not allow them on their property is being insensitive and prejudice.:bash:


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh by the way, wiki also awards yall as being the canadian leader in robbery game. Congratulations!!


lol


> The once sleepy B.C. farming communities of Abbotsford and Mission now have some big crime problems, with the highest homicide rate of any metropolitan area in Canada....
> 
> "Our community finds itself caught in the middle of gang warfare. And while the homicides are distressing, they are not random. These are targeted homicides, and the citizens of our community should feel safe, because they are not a target to be murdered," said Peary on Tuesday morning.


Never fear, only the "right" people are being murdered, says the mayor.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

naturelover said:


> 4 feet is 4 feet away. It is not close and making physical contact. If he had attacked her with any other object besides a firearm he'd have had to get closer to make some kind of physical contact - and nobody would have been killed because he would have been disarmed by other people there of whatever other weapon he was using.
> 
> .


A bat would reach, a sword, a lot of things at 4 feet, its not that far. I could almost touch you from that distance


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Should a blind man have a right to drive a car? Should a delusional, mentally ill person have a right to own a gun?
> 
> .


Whos gunna determine they are delusional and mentally ill.But then again,most of the time we don't know it until something happens.I have heard thousands of people say after a tragedy,they knew the murderer was crazy.Where were all these people that knew it already before the tragedy?

On a lighter note,this guy I knew years ago,didn't have all his "marbles"or a tad shy in the brain dept.Well he had borrowed 10 or 15 grand from this man that had plenty of money.Anyway the guy would never offer to pay any of the money back.

They went to court,figuring the loaner would get his money back.Well when the lone e took the stand and knew nothing about a loan or even knew who the man was claiming he did.,He got to talking about everything but the case.Even to the point of asking the judge and the DA would they like to go fishing with him.

About that time the loaner stood up :flame: and told the judge the lone e was lying, and they did know each other and he was crazy talking that way.

The judge said you know,I have about come to that conclusion also.Case dismissed said the judge and dropped the gavel.

The loaner run up to the judgees bench in disbelief,but your Honor I did lend him the money,he's crazy if he says I did not.

The judge said I agree,but you need to learn a lesson,Never lend any money to a crazy man,he might remember it,but he might not as well.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ed Norman said:


> lol
> 
> 
> > The once sleepy B.C. farming communities of Abbotsford and Mission now have some big crime problems, with the highest homicide rate of any metropolitan area in Canada....
> ...


And your point of posting that is what? Are you implying that the citizens of that community should all take up their rifles and get involved, go to war against the gangsters who are killing each other?

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> And your point of posting that is what? Are you implying that the citizens of that community should all take up their rifles and get involved, go to war against the gangsters who are killing each other?
> 
> .


I didnt take it that way at all. I took it more as a "hey, its just gangsters killing gangsters.... its not like they are killing people". Down here in the states we have this thing called a Constitution, and it guarantees equal protection and rights to EVERYONE, at least until they have had their day in court and are proven guilty of a crime,, then shame on them!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I didnt take it that way at all. I took it more as a "hey, its just gangsters killing gangsters.... its not like they are killing people". Down here in the states *we have this thing called a Constitution, and it guarantees equal protection and rights to EVERYONE*, at least until they have had their day in court and are proven guilty of a crime,, then shame on them!


Heh. We have a constitution too and we have the same guarantee here, everybody gets their day in court. But I don't think there's any way to guarantee to provide equal protection and rights for gangsters from the depredations of other gangsters. They have their own courts and deal out their form of justice gangster style.

Gangsters sell drugs from here in exchange for restricted guns from America because it's so easy to get them there. Then they use those guns to kill each other. Tough cookie. I don't feel bad about gangsters killing each other and I hope they bring about their own extinction, what I do feel bad about is how easy it is for them to get those guns.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Gangsters sell drugs from here in exchange for restricted guns from America because it's so easy to get them there.


They can't buy them here LEGALLY, and yet your solution to everything is pass more laws



> I don't feel bad about gangsters killing each other


I said earlier you didn't care about deaths, but were just using them for your agenda.



> how easy it is for them to get those guns


Tell us what you have to do to LEGALLY buy a gun here


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They can't buy them here LEGALLY, and yet your solution to everything is pass more laws
> 
> I said earlier you didn't care about deaths, but were just using them for your agenda.
> 
> Tell us what you have to do to LEGALLY buy a gun here


Well of course they can't get them there legally but they can still get them smuggled from there whereas otherwise they wouldn't be able to get them here at all. 

No, I don't care about gangsters killing each other, they could all garrotte or behead each other for all I care and I hope they do. They're all murderers or people who deal in human slave trade or promote the addiction and destruction of innocent people by selling drugs to them. I would prefer to see gangsters all be gone sooner than later. 

I do care about the deaths of innocent bystanders that occasionally get caught in the warring gangsters crossfire, and I care about other innocent people who get shot by criminals and nutcases, so you're wrong if you think I don't care about the deaths of innocents. I think that's a low blow for you to suggest that.

I can't tell you what you have to do to legally buy a gun in America, I've never tried to buy one there and I never would. All my firearms were bought legally here at home.

Oh, and I'll remind you of your original post. This topic is not about gangsters and crime in Canada. It's about what you posted:


> Vice says the Brady Center will now push for a renewal of the assault weapons ban and more strict background checks.
> 
> "Our gun laws are so weak that someone who couldn't get into the military, who was kicked out of school, and who used drugs walked into a gun store and was able to immediately buy a semiautomatic weapon," he says.


I said good, ban all assault weapons and make background checks the strictest ever.

Now if anyone can tell me why assault weapons which are designed for violently mowing down people are necessary to be owned by civilians and why background checks should not be made more strict, I'd like to know the answers to that.

.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

*A gun is what killed these people*

Let me repeat it again - the gun didn't kill anyone - a man killed those people.

There is no way all guns are going to go away. We tried prohibition of liquor and the gangsters had plenty of liquor. They have prohibited drugs, doesn't stop the drugs, only made the criminals richer. 

It seems Canada has laws against owning guns - but the gangs still buy guns. So I'm kinda wondering exactly what good doing away with guns in America would do. If they couldn't get them from America - I'll just bet China would be happy to sell them some.

I'm wondering if maybe some citizen, in the crowd had been armed, and had acted, perhaps fewer people would have been killed. That action might have also served notice to some other nutjob in the future.

But I'm getting a strange feeling about this whole thing. It is amazing Congress was so quick to jump in and talk about making some law against it. That's a little scary.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Trixie said:


> ..... It seems Canada has laws against owning guns - but the gangs still buy guns. So I'm kinda wondering exactly what good doing away with guns in America would do.....
> 
> I'm wondering if maybe some citizen, in the crowd had been armed, and had acted, perhaps fewer people would have been killed.


No, Canada doesn't have laws against owning guns. Most Canadians do have at least one gun in their homes, many have more, and background checks and regulations concerning acquiring an FAC are very strict. I'm a multiple gun owner myself and satisfied with Canada's gun laws. Canada has laws about assault weapons, they are totally banned in Canada, and Canadians can own certain types of non-restricted handguns but they don't CCW and they aren't obsessed with the gun culture that is so prevalent in America.

A citizen in the crowd in Tucson did intervene, but not with a gun. It was a woman who snatched away the gun's magazine from him when he went to exchange it with the expired one, and then other citizens tackled him to the ground. It was that woman's quick action that helped prevent more deaths.

I must say I'm very impressed with unarmed but brave American ladies. There was that councilwoman in Texas that sneaked up from behind and hit that gunman with her purse, gotta give her credit for trying to intervene, and now this time in Arizona with the woman that snatched the magazine out of his hands. Very impressive and Yay! for the ladies for their courage.

.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Now if anyone can tell me why assault weapons which are designed for violently mowing down people are necessary to be owned by civilians and why background checks should not be made more strict, I'd like to know the answers to that.


I'll be happy to do that. Once again, I'll defer to our founding fathers:



> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson





> "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -- Patrick Henry, speech of June 5 1788





> "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788


I could provide more, but you get the picture. Arms, including "assault weapons" are our right to own, a right given to us by our Creator, and the freedom to exercise that right is protected by our Constitution. Even if that Constitutionally protected freedom were denied us, the right cannot be taken away nor will it be surrendered peacefully.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Trixie said:


> *But I'm getting a strange feeling about this whole thing. It is amazing Congress was so quick to jump in and talk about making some law against it. That's a little scary.*


*

You can rest assured that there are those on the left who are ready at every instance of violence to dredge up the gun control issue, but you can be just as sure that it will go nowhere (at least with this Congress). The GOP has only just gained a majority in the House, and is still working on the Senate and White House, so they won't risk that by entertaining this foolishness.*


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> I'll be happy to do that. Once again, I'll defer to our founding fathers:
> 
> I could provide more, but you get the picture. Arms, including "assault weapons" are our right to own, a right given to us by our Creator, and the freedom to exercise that right is protected by our Constitution. Even if that Constitutionally protected freedom were denied us, the right cannot be taken away nor will it be surrendered peacefully.


Sorry James, no offense intended but I'm not buying any of that. Your Creator never said you had a 'right' to arm yourself and your Creator never said arm yourself with firearms. You all insisted on having the right to bear firearms because that's what you all wanted. It had nothing to do with any God given rights. You show me where it says in your bible that your Creator told you that you had a right to arm yourself with firearms. I know you can't do that because firearms didn't exist when the bible was written and they are a creation of man, not the Creator.

You still haven't explained why assault weapons are necessary for civilians to own or why background checks shouldn't be stricter.

.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Sorry James, no offense intended but I'm not buying any of that. Your Creator never said you had a 'right' to arm yourself and your Creator never said arm yourself with firearms. You all insisted on having the right to bear firearms because that's what you all wanted. It had nothing to do with any God given rights. You show me where it says in your bible that your Creator told you that you had a right to arm yourself with firearms. I know you can't do that because firearms didn't exist when the bible was written and they are a creation of man, not the Creator.
> 
> You still haven't explained why assault weapons are necessary for civilians to own or why background checks shouldn't be stricter.
> 
> .


Whether you "buy it" or not is totally irrelevant. The founding fathers of this nation believed it. They said so in the Declaration of Independence:



> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


They went on to list those rights in our Constitution. They didn't say we had the right to own guns, they said we had the right to "bear arms". The reason being that we would need them to defend freedom.

Our Constitution didn't say we could bear arms, except "assault weapons", but it did say "the right to keep and bear arms *shall not be infringed*". Assault weapons, like all others, are necessary to own in case we find it necessary to rise up and overthrow a tyranical government that has ceased to exist by the consent of the governed.

I'm glad you are satisfied with the gun laws in Canada, and I'm happy for you that you are able to live in a country where the gun laws suit you. Just as I'm not going north across the border to advocate restoring the gun rights of Canada, I would suggest you give us the same courtesy. You see, while I am not totally satisfied with the current gun laws here, I like ours much better than I do those of Canada. 

As for your question regarding stricter background checks, you still haven't answered my question. How would that have stopped him from buying a gun?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

> As for your question regarding stricter background checks, you still haven't answered my question. How would that have stopped him from buying a gun?


Setting aside the fact that a person might buy a gun illegally without a background check - if you are buying a gun in America legally, don't you have to have something like an Firearms Acquisition Certificate to do so? If you do, then what is the procedure and requirements for applying for it? If you do not, then does that mean that just anybody can walk into a gun store, lay their money down and buy a gun with no questions asked?

.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

poppy said:


> Smoking pot convictions are generally not felonies. It takes a felony conviction or mental condition to prevent you from buying a gun. I'm not sure of the qualifications for a mental condition but I think you have to have been confined to a mental institution. Simply going to a shrink for depression or something similar won't do it.


and some misdemeanors...domestic battery is one.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Setting aside the fact that a person might buy a gun illegally without a background check - if you are buying a gun in America legally, don't you have to have something like an Firearms Acquisition Certificate to do so? If you do, then what is the procedure and requirements for applying for it? If you do not, then does that mean that just anybody can walk into a gun store, lay their money down and buy a gun with no questions asked?
> 
> .


First of all, you can't just 'set aside' the fact that a person can buy a gun illegally. Shooting people is illegal and that didn't stop the guy. Why wouldn't he be just as willing to violate the law in the purchase of a gun?

It is also a fact that gun stores are not the only place you can buy a gun. Millions of guns are bought and sold each year, perfectly within the law, in private transactions where no background check is required.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> It is also a fact that gun stores are not the only place you can buy a gun. Millions of guns are bought and sold each year, perfectly within the law, in private transactions where no background check is required.


Okay, so am I understanding you correctly then that no certification for acquisition is required when purchasing a gun? And when a gun is purchased in a private transaction the gun doesn't have to be registered to the new owner? What is the law for purchasing a gun?

.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

To say Canada is less violent than the USA because of gun control is crazy. There are plenty of guns in Canada, enough to copy any massacre anywhere if having a gun is all it takes. Its been posted here before and my Swiss neighbors certainly confirm it, every military aged man in Switzerland has a current assault rifle in his home. And they keep it after their service term is up. Switzerland has the occasional crazy shootign too, but its a pretty peaceful place. Prosperity and education seem to be more deciding factors than gun control.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ross said:


> To say Canada is less violent than the USA because of gun control is crazy...... Prosperity and education seem to be more deciding factors than gun control.


Ross, I don't think I said that Canada is less violent than the USA because of gun control. I think Canada is less violent than the USA because Canada is Canada. Same thing goes for Switzerland. Different cultures and different priorities. Period.

.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Okay, so am I understanding you correctly then that no certification for acquisition is required when purchasing a gun? And when a gun is purchased in a private transaction the gun doesn't have to be registered to the new owner? What is the law for purchasing a gun?
> 
> .


Laws vary from state to state. Where I live, guns are not registered even if you buy from a gun store. A background check is required if you purchase from a gun store, except for antiques and replicas. If you are buying from a private party, the only requirement is that you pay the asking price.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Ross, I don't think I said that Canada is less violent than the USA because of gun control. I think Canada is less violent than the USA because Canada is Canada. Same thing goes for Switzerland. Different cultures and different priorities. Period.
> 
> .


Then why are you so determined that the U.S. have gun control? What do you hope to accomplish?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> He was turned down by the army. Undisclosed reasons. So if they did a better job of a back ground check they may have found out this guy has problems and should be having a gun Period.


Can't believe he was kicked out of jr college & told he had to get psychiatric help b/4 coming back...how bad do you have to be to be too nutty for juco???


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

> What do you hope to accomplish?


Less violence.

.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Less violence.
> 
> .


If that is really your goal, you should become a staunch advocate of gun rights.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> Automobiles can be pretty deadly too. In fact, I suspect you will find that more people are killed by cars than by guns. Should we ban cars?


Probably should ban them til we can have something in place that trains folks how to use cars, licsenses them, age limit,...wait...


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Less violence.
> 
> .


You are misguided on this issue on at least a couple of points. First of all, if the U.S. has a more violent population than other countries, does it make sense to seek to take away our means of defense? Since guns are not the cause of the violence, it is counter productive and dangerous to take them away.

The more important point however, is that you believe we should surrender our freedom for the sake of perceived security. Again, I'll defer to our founding fathers to address that notion:



> Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin


I wanted to add a final thought to this discussion before I head off to work. 

So far, you have taken a position that disagrees with Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Samuel Adams, James Madison, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, George Mason, and even Mahatma Ghandi. In doing so, you advocate the policies used by Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, Idi Amin, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-il. Think about this for awhile. Could it be at all possible that your position is ill advised? Can you at least see why we are not exactly eager to agree to what you seek?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I wasn't aware that any of the passengers on those planes that went into the world trade center had previous outside communication with other people to let them know that they were being held under threat of box cutters. Perhaps you're thinking of the plane that crashed in the field - which it's my understanding the passengers of that plane did have cel phone communication and did try to disarm the terrorists before it went down.
> 
> .


Then you'd be wrong. 
Do you not recall the flt attndant on her cell as the plane went into the WTC? A flt attendant was murdered on that plane too, w/box cutter.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Ernie said:


> Body isn't even in the ground yet and already you gun-grabbers are dancing in her blood and beating your chests. Look at your phony posting of a photo of the dead child as proof. Do you think one dead child grants you the moral high ground in this matter?
> 
> I put the blood of every murdered child on YOUR heads. Every man beaten and robbed, every woman raped, every child killed where an armed and free citizen could have PREVENTED it is on the heads of you hoplophobes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Says it all, doesn't it? Excitement. The little girl was curled up in a ball in a corner, blocking the rest of her body with her arms and drawn up legs. He didn't get "excited" after the first shot, he was already excited. His intent was to kill her, that's why he shot her 8 times in the arms and legs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tell us, NL, how banned guns would've prevented this demented evil peron from harming his children?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> If that is really your goal, you should become a staunch advocate of gun rights.


Believe it or not, I actually am a staunch advocate of gun rights.



deaconjim said:


> Laws vary from state to state. Where I live, guns are not registered even if you buy from a gun store. A background check is required if you purchase from a gun store, except for antiques and replicas. If you are buying from a private party, the only requirement is that you pay the asking price.


Things were different 40 years ago. Now, this is the way things are:
http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/gunlaws.htm

I believe if you had similar laws in America then there would be less violence and less people would feel they need to carry firearms to protect themselves. There would be less people like that unfortunate sick young man who shot the congresswoman being able to acquire guns so easily, and there would be less people like that man in Texas who commit suicide (the guy that the woman hit with her purse) being able to openly carry guns, and less people like the Canadian man in Texas who shot his 2 children being fixated on guns, and less young people who aren't responsible and mature enough to own guns getting their hands on them ...... and need I go on?

I think you need to change your gun laws. Not to take them away from responsible gun owners but to make people be more responsible about them and about who can own them.

If this conversation is still going on later today I'm willing to continue my arguments because it's something I feel passionate about but I have to go now, it is 4:41 a.m. here and time for me to leave too.

.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Heh. We have a constitution too and we have the same guarantee here, everybody gets their day in court. But I don't think there's any way to guarantee to provide equal protection and rights for gangsters from the depredations of other gangsters. They have their own courts and deal out their form of justice gangster style.
> 
> Gangsters sell drugs from here in exchange for restricted guns from America because it's so easy to get them there. Then they use those guns to kill each other. Tough cookie. I don't feel bad about gangsters killing each other and I hope they bring about their own extinction, what I do feel bad about is how easy it is for them to get those guns.
> 
> .


Tell ya what, you guys go by YOUR constitution & we'll go by ours. OK?
Ours tells us about our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. Those are not taken away.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> You are misguided on this issue on at least a couple of points. First of all, if the U.S. has a more violent population than other countries, does it make sense to seek to take away our means of defense? Since guns are not the cause of the violence, it is counter productive and dangerous to take them away.
> 
> The more important point however, is that you believe we should surrender our freedom for the sake of perceived security. Again, I'll defer to our founding fathers to address that notion:
> 
> ...


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

naturelover said:


> I think you need to change your gun laws. Not to take them away from responsible gun owners but to make people be more responsible about them and about who can own them.


Here's where it gets dangerous.

State laws vary regarding the purchase and possession of firearms. It's when the federal government starts getting involved that we have a 2nd amendment issue. That's precisely where the greatest threat of tyranny lies---and our founders knew it. 

So no, we don't need to change our gun laws on the federal level. If the states wish to do so, they have that right. The federal government does not.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Believe it or not, I actually am a staunch advocate of gun rights.


No, you may be a staunch advocate of gun priviledges, but you are certainly no advocate of gun right.




naturelover said:


> Things were different 40 years ago. Now, this is the way things are:
> http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/gunlaws.htm
> 
> I believe if you had similar laws in America then there would be less violence and less people would feel they need to carry firearms to protect themselves. There would be less people like that unfortunate sick young man who shot the congresswoman being able to acquire guns so easily, and there would be less people like that man in Texas who commit suicide (the guy that the woman hit with her purse) being able to openly carry guns, and less people like the Canadian man in Texas who shot his 2 children being fixated on guns, and less young people who aren't responsible and mature enough to own guns getting their hands on them ...... and need I go on?
> ...


Again, you are welcome to your opinion on the subject as long as your opinions do not interfere with my rights. Our Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". What might seem like a good idea to you is in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment. 

Our founding fathers were pretty smart people, were quite vocal about the importance of protecting our individual rights. and they were pretty successful in their attempt to establish a free nation. If you think you know how to do it better than they did, feel free to establish your own country somewhere and write yourself a constitution the way you want it. Ours is working quite well right now, and I'm not interested in relinquishing any of the freedoms it guarantees.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Ross, I don't think I said that Canada is less violent than the USA because of gun control. * I think Canada is less violent than the USA because Canada is Canada. *Same thing goes for Switzerland. Different cultures and different priorities. Period..


***************************************
much more land _*UP THERE*_??? I could put two (2) people who are dead-set on killing 
each other in the Sahara desert; one on the east, one on the west. How long would it take for 
them to find each other and 'finish the deed'??? Certainly possible, no matter what weapon that 
they choose......or whether they are legally acquired.

You're 'thinking' that Canada is less violent than the USA because it's Canada 
has already been shown by Yvonne's hubby to be a crock.......get over it;
Canooks can kill each other, as well as or even better than Yanks can and this 
despite the extra 'protection' of the stiff gun laws of your country!!! :help::stars:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Old Vet, I'm really sorry that you have to carry a gun for the sake of your peace of mind. I'm sorry you've had to shoot somebody who was trying to kill you. I'm sorry that you live in a society where people live in fear of death threats and of being killed by their fellow citizens.
> 
> .


I have fire extinguishers but I don't live fear of fire. I have seatbelts and airbags but I don't live in fear of an auto accident. I have have firearms but I don't live in fear of being killed. They are all there because there might be a need for them to be used, not because of fear.

Also a firearm is nothing more than a tool. The largest mass murder in the US before the OKC bombing was carried out with gasoline and a match. Have you ever heard of banning gasoline and matches?

I rather live in a place where I had to worry a few of the millions of my fellow citizens might go nuts and shoot people or run them over with his car or whatever and have freedom than to live in a place where my government feels free to control my life. IMO, government officials *should* be afraid of the people they are in place to govern.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> Our founding fathers were pretty smart people, were quite vocal about the importance of protecting our individual rights. and they were pretty successful in their attempt to establish a free nation.
> .


so you are for individual rights? a womans right to choose....gays to marry?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> you're wrong if you think I don't care about the deaths of innocents. I think that's a low blow for you to suggest that.


Then where are your emotional rants in favor of banning ALCOHOL, since it kills so many innocent people?

No one has the right to get drunk, and it's a POISON that has no real value.




> I said good, ban all assault weapons and make background checks the strictest ever.
> 
> Now if anyone can tell me why assault weapons which are designed for violently mowing down people are necessary to be owned by civilians and why background checks should not be made more strict, I'd like to know the answers to that


If you had any real knowledge of firearms, you'd know the gun he used wouldn't be considered an "assault weapon", and the magazines he used were never illegal to own.

Just more parroting on your part


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Believe it or not, I actually am a staunch advocate of gun rights.


No, you are not

Who do you think you're fooling?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *I think you need to change your gun laws.* Not to take them away from *responsible gun owners *but to make people be more responsible about them and about who can own them.


You don't even know what they are now

Responsible gun owners are the only ones who obey the laws.

It's illegal in Mexico for most people to own guns, and yet they have a "war" going in in the streets every day


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

lilmizlayla said:


> so you are for individual rights? a womans right to choose....gays to marry?


I'm all for individual rights as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

I am for a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, but not to choose to kill an innocent child.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one has the right to get drunk, and it's a POISON that has no real value.


Here now, lets not let things get out of hand. Take a deep breath, have a drink, calm down and stop typing this kind of blasphemy!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Less violence.
> 
> .


Let me see if I follow your logic. Canada has much more strict gun control laws than the US and Canada has much less violence than the US therefore the stricter the gun control the less the violence. Is this your logic?

A ask you to explain the following. Our neighbor to the south, Mexico, has stricter gun control laws than even Canada does. Therefor, using your logic, Mexico should have even less violence than Canada. But it doesn't quite the opposite as a matter of fact.

A quick google search tells me that Mexico ranks 6th in the number of murders with 0.13/1000. The US comes in at 24th with 0.04/1000 and Canada ranks 44th with 0.015/1000.

AAMOF, if you check the top 5 countries all have gun control laws which IMO makes Canada's look totally lax. So one must say your logic fails and there must be something other than gun control laws which prevent violence.

I'll be awaiting your rebuttal.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Good. Excellent. :banana02:
> 
> I hope they push hard. Ban all assault weapons everywhere. Make background checks the strictest ever. :thumb:
> 
> .


 


You would think I'm the criminal! 

So tell me what is an assault weapon?

Any weapon that can be converted to semi automatic?
Any automatic weapon?
Any weapon that looks "mean"?

Good Idea NL maybe Canada should ban all their weapons like the Brits did... Good to see Canada has no crime or murder.. It must be amazingly peaceful there..


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Also not sure when anti-gun folks will realize that the vast majority of deaths by gunshots are NOT from legally obtained guns (though this one was). Take away the average citizen's right to bear arms, and you will end up with a helpless and defeseless public held hostage by lawbreaking, gun touting criminals who could give a flying fig about your gun laws.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Where you most live there is a cop minuets away. Where I live they are at least 30 or more minuets away if they run as fast as they can. If not then an hour away if they are not on the other side of the county arresting somebody for wife beating in that case it will be the next morning before they arrive. There are 6 cops in my county and two are city cops that can't go out side of the city divide that by 2 because they are on 12 hour shifts and you have the ones on duty. Most everybody is law abiding but not all. So they tell us all to be our own cops and carry what we want to defend our self. I know we should pay more taxes and have more cops most would have enough to be 4 or 5 minuets response. But the ones in our county don't want that so we get by by our self. That is why I carry a gun and am not afraid to use it when time comes.


----------



## clong (May 9, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Drugs are good things in the hands of a doctor
> Drugs in the hands of an idiot is often not so good.
> 
> motorcycles are good things when operated by a sane person
> ...



But...that's profiling and is unfair to people. <sarcasm>


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

naturelover said:


> Could it be that I strike a guilty, self-conscious nerve in those who have an imaginary vision of themselves as blood thirsty Rambo types mowing down other citizens?
> 
> .


Not really, You simply strike a defensive streak in people who simply want a good well designed firearm that is built to last and doesn't cost a fortune who never imagine themselves shooting anyone.

I seriously doubt you even know what an assault weapon is.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

clong said:


> But...that's profiling and is unfair to people. <sarcasm>


I dunno if its fair or not, but profiling works.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

beccachow said:


> Take away the average citizen's right to bear arms, and you will end up with a helpless and defeseless public held hostage by lawbreaking, gun touting criminals who could give a flying fig about your gun laws.


Sounds almost like the situation now in Mexico... they disarmed the citizens, and now the outlaws out gun the cops.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> No, you may be a staunch advocate of gun priviledges, but you are certainly no advocate of gun right.
> 
> Again, you are welcome to your opinion on the subject as long as your opinions do not interfere with my rights. Our Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". What might seem like a good idea to you is in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Our founding fathers were pretty smart people, were quite vocal about the importance of protecting our individual rights. and they were pretty successful in their attempt to establish a free nation........


Considering the tone of some other folks comments and them not wanting to see the common sense of withholding certain types of firearms from certain types of individuals, prudence tells me to drop the subject and so I will, however I will make one additional comment here before dropping out of the discussion.

Your founding fathers were smart people and had foresight 230+ years ago as befitted their time and level of technology. Unfortunately they didn't have enough foresight to see ahead to the technological America of the 20th and 21st centuries. I'm sure they never envisioned that their promotion for all to have the right to bear arms would encourage Americans to develop weapons of mass destruction that now holds the rest of the world in a thrall of fear and intimidation. I don't think they foresaw the creation of the type of rapid fire automatic and semiautomatic firearms that exist now, where reloading with a fresh magazine loaded with god knows how many bullets of whatever caliber takes only a matter of seconds. I doubt they envisioned an America of 310+ million people where there is so much violent crime, so much political divisiveness and corruption, and so many mentally ill and/or ignorant people. Nor, I'm sure, did they foresee the day that so many violent and mentally ill people, and so many criminals and paranoid revolutionaries, would have such easy unrestricted access to such weapons because the 2nd Amendment says their right to them cannot be infringed.

Personally I think your right for everybody to bear arms not being infringed upon by sensible, foreseeing people is what has led to the pickle you are in now, where good citizens go about in fear of their fellow citizens and MUST now bear arms to protect themselves from fellow citizens. The original idea was the right to bear arms to protect yourselves from the tyranny of corrupt government becoming your enemy, not to protect yourselves from yourselves but what has happened is that you have all become your own worst enemies because you all fear each other so much. 

I think your founding fathers are now rolling over in their graves because they didn't foresee the consequences of their declaration that everybody had the right to bear arms would encourage America to become a hostile and fearsome nation of people that possess more firearms than any other nation in the world.

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Considering the tone of some other folks comments and them not wanting to see the common sense of withholding certain types of firearms from certain types of individuals, prudence tells me to drop the subject and so I will, however I will make one additional comment here before dropping out of the discussion.
> 
> Your founding fathers were smart people and had foresight 230+ years ago as befitted their time and level of technology. Unfortunately they didn't have enough foresight to see ahead to the technological America of the 20th and 21st centuries. I'm sure they never envisioned that their promotion for all to have the right to bear arms would encourage Americans to develop weapons of mass destruction that now holds the rest of the world in a thrall of fear and intimidation. I don't think they foresaw the creation of the type of rapid fire automatic and semiautomatic firearms that exist now, where reloading with a fresh magazine loaded with god knows how many bullets of whatever caliber takes only a matter of seconds. I doubt they envisioned an America of 310+ million people where there is so much violent crime, so much political divisiveness and corruption, and so many mentally ill and/or ignorant people. Nor, I'm sure, did they foresee the day that so many violent and mentally ill people, and so many criminals and paranoid revolutionaries, would have such easy unrestricted access to such weapons because the 2nd Amendment says their right to them cannot be infringed.
> 
> ...


Our founding fathers were indeed wise, and while they may not have been able to foresee the weaponry available today, or the changes that our society has gone through, they were wise enough to understand that the nation would see changes, and provided article five in our Constitution. They also USED it themselves. 

On a side note here.... Since I have already pointed out that I am actually safer in my area than you are in yours, perhaps you have more to be afraid of where you live. I dont live in fear... I live a pretty normal life, but I do try to protect myself from problems. I have several kinds of insurance... medical insurance, home insurance, auto insurance..... not because I am afraid, but because I know that sometimes things happen. Carrying a firearm is just one more form of insurance. Call it idiot insurance if you like. I have been told that ostriches hide their head in the sand if danger lurks nearby. I am sure they feel safe... but that kind of thinking leaves their behinds exposed to risk.


----------



## PrettyPaisley (May 18, 2007)

I'm just glad I figured out I could google bohica!


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

deaconjim said:


> Nothing will ever prevent every such tragedy. Can you show me something that will?


being armed your self and knowing how to use the weapon.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

SquashNut said:


> being armed your self and knowing how to use the weapon.


+1, and hope I never need to use it.
Matt


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I am glad that Mexico has such strict gun laws - no one has guns there. 

Mexico is home to the most dangerous city in the world

This man evidently was not an illiterate person - he could easily have learned how to make a simple bomb that would have done as much harm or more. If destruction was his goal. 

Those who want laws against guns - you do realize we have laws against killing already.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Considering the tone of some other folks comments and them not wanting to see *the common sense *of withholding certain types of firearms from certain types of individuals, prudence tells me to drop the subject and so I will, however I will make one additional comment here before dropping out of the discussion.


I haven't seen whatever it is you're calling "common sense"
I've only seen the *parroted buzzwords* and lack of real knowledge about firearms and our laws



> weapons of mass destruction





> rapid fire automatic and semiautomatic firearms





> mentally ill and/or ignorant people





> a hostile and fearsome nation


\



> more firearms than any other nation in the world.





> easy unrestricted access to such weapons





> in fear of their fellow citizens


During your *short* hiatus, maybe you can learn some truth and come back and have a real discussion based on fact instead of hype and falsehoods


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm just glad I figured out I could google bohica!


LOL
Surprise!


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> You are prevaricating too. Are cars created for the sole purpose of killing things? Firearms are, cars are not so your argument is a moot point.
> 
> It is my contention that assualt firearms do not need to be placed in the hands of common civilians for any reason.
> 
> ...


Killing things is not the sole purpose of firearms. Millions of people participate in dozens of different shooting sports where nothing is killed.

So called assault weapons don't differ mechanically in their operation from any other semi-automatic sporting firearm. Not a bit different from grandpa's deer rifle or grandma's pheasant gun. The only differences are in the way they look and the size of their magazines.

If a responsible gun owner decides, for whatever reason, that they like their assault weapon, it doesn't mean they want to "play Rambo". If a responsible gun owner prefers an assault weapon, why is that anymore of a problem than one who want's a lever action "cowboy" type rifle or a double barrel shotgun for shooting skeet? There isn't any real difference. A responsible, law abiding gun owner will never take their assault weapon out and murder anyone. A deranged person who doesn't care about the law will commit murder with any type of firearm they can find.


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> 4 feet is 4 feet away. It is not close and making physical contact. If he had attacked her with any other object besides a firearm he'd have had to get closer to make some kind of physical contact - and nobody would have been killed because he would have been disarmed by other people there of whatever other weapon he was using.
> 
> .


This is simply untrue. As others have pointed out, 4 feet is not far away at all. Barely more than arms length. There are any number of weapons that will kill at 4 feet. 

This was a deranged individual who wanted to kill. If he hadn't had a gun, he would have found another way to kill. He could have plowed his car into the crowd. Improvised explosive devices aren't hard to make. He could have made one and thrown it into the crowd. There are any number of ways in which he could have killed that day. Without anyone being able to disarm him. If he had chosen another type of weapon to commit murder, it's possible that fewer people might have been killed. Depending on the method he chose, it's also possible that more people could have been killed. The point is, if a person is commited enough to killing, they will find a way. A gun is just a tool. Just as airliners were the weapons that the 9/11 terrorists used. After using other weapons to take over the planes.


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

georger said:


> But you have that right now in your society and way of life - and this tragedy still happened in spite of people having guns to protect themselves.
> 
> If everyone having guns is supposed to be able to make a safer society so this sort of thing cannot happen, then I submit that the status quo is in error. The death of Christina Green bears witness to this.
> 
> ...


The "proliferation of guns" didn't cause the death of this innocent child and the others killed and injured in AZ. Guns in general are not responsible for this tragedy. A deranged individual is responsible for this tragedy. If this person had driven his car into the crowd he could have killed and injured many people. If he had thrown an improvised bomb into the crowd, he could have killed and injured many people. It's already illegal to run people down with your car yet it happens. The car or the gun are only the tool. Evil intent is what makes the tool a weapon. 

As far as your theory, yes there is evidence to disprove it. As others have mentioned, look at the violence comitted in some countries with very strict gun laws.


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Should a blind man have a right to drive a car? Should a delusional, mentally ill person have a right to own a gun?
> 
> .



Since an eye test is part of getting a driver's license, a blind person would not qualify for one. If a person is known to be delusional and mentally ill, they do not have a legal right to own a gun.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

This is an odd topic. I'm seeing lots of people making all kinds of excuses about how anybody can kill anybody with any kind of tool if they set their mind on it. That there is still violence happening in countries with stricter gun laws. We all know that violent killings happen in any number of ways but why should it be made easier for killers to do it with guns? 

Why doesn't anyone want to address the real issue which is that it's so easy for a deranged person in America to legally buy a gun? Why shouldn't laws be amended to make it less easy for sick and deranged people to buy guns?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paumon said:


> This is an odd topic. I'm seeing lots of people making all kinds of excuses about how anybody can kill anybody with any kind of tool if they set their mind on it. That there is still violence happening in countries with stricter gun laws. We all know that violence happens in any number of ways but why should it be made easier for killers to do it with guns?
> 
> Why doesn't anyone want to address the real issue which is that it's so easy for a deranged person in America to legally buy a gun? Why shouldn't laws be amended to make it less easy for sick and deranged people to buy guns?


as has been pointed out, sick and deranged people are not allowed to purchase guns. 

As to why violence is made easier with the use of guns... would you prefer having these nut cases running around with pipe bombs?


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Well of course they can't get them there legally but they can still get them smuggled from there whereas otherwise they wouldn't be able to get them here at all.
> 
> 
> I can't tell you what you have to do to legally buy a gun in America, I've never tried to buy one there and I never would. All my firearms were bought legally here at home.
> ...


If they are getting the guns illegally, how are more laws going to stop that? Laws only matter to the people who obey them.

If you don't know what is required to legally buy a gun here, with all due respect, how can you really comment on how the process should be changed?

I'd be happy to answer your questions. Or at least give you my opinion. 

It's not necessary for civillians to own assault weapons. No single category of firearm is necessary. But, just because it is not necessary does not mean that it should be forbidden. As I said in an earlier post, so called assault weapons don't function any differently than any other type of semi-automatic firearm. They may not be necessary but they are no more inherently bad than a semi-automatic rifle used for hunting or a semi-automatic shotgun used for shooting clay pigeons. In fact, assault weapons, particularly the AR-15 platform, are being used for hunting. More of them every year. Many, if not most, of the things we own are not necessary. For example, televisions, video games, stuffed animals and pink lawn flamingos are not necessary. Should any of them be banned?

As far as background checks, they already exist. If you don't know what they already involve, how do you really know that they need to be stricter? In what ways should they be stricter? Yes, people slip through the system but people will always slip through the system. Yes, there are people who actively try to cheat the system but no matter the checks, there will still be people who cheat the system. Can you tell me that no Canadian ever uses a legally purchased firearm in the comission of a crime? That question's not a dig of any kind. I'm just trying to point out that passing a background check today, no matter how strict, can not prevent criminal intent or use at a later time. Unless there is obvious evidence of intent, you can't punish a law abiding person for what they might do in the future.


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Ross, I don't think I said that Canada is less violent than the USA because of gun control. I think Canada is less violent than the USA because Canada is Canada. Same thing goes for Switzerland. Different cultures and different priorities. Period.
> 
> .


If Canada and Switzerland are not less peaceful because of gun control, than how is more gun control here going to change things? People with criminal intent will always be able to aquire whatever tools they choose to use in comitting their crimes. You're earlier mention of Canadians illegally obtaining guns is a good example of this.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> *as has been pointed out, sick and deranged people are not allowed to purchase guns. *
> 
> As to why violence is made easier with the use of guns... would you prefer having these nut cases running around with pipe bombs?


Excuse me. *A sick and deranged person just was allowed to purchase a gun. He shot 20 and killed 6.*

Not only that, when he went to buy ammunition he was turned down at one Walmart store because of his behaviour and then went directly to another Walmart store where he purchased the ammunition. He had 90 rounds still in his possession when he was taken down. 

Why didn't the Walmart people at the first store alert other Walmart stores about him? Why didn't they report him as a suspicious person to the police? 


Spare me the rhetoric about pipe bombs and quit evading the real issue. Most sick young people don't know how to make pipe bombs. Most healthy minded adults don't know how to make pipe bombs. Guns are the easiest and most cowardly way to kill people and a deranged young man was just ALLOWED to do so.


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Considering the tone of some other folks comments and them not wanting to see the common sense of withholding certain types of firearms from certain types of individuals, prudence tells me to drop the subject and so I will, however I will make one additional comment here before dropping out of the discussion.


Personally, I think there is more common sense in withholding all types of firearms from certain types of individuals. There are already laws about who can and can't own a firearm. There are already background checks for people buying firearms from a retail source. 

I don't think you should drop out of the discussion. We might not agree on the issue but you have as much right to your opinion as I do to mine. And, as much right to voice that opinion.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Excuse me. *A sick and deranged person just was allowed to purchase a gun. He shot 20 and killed 6.*


The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the possession of firearms by the mentally ill. So why was Mr. Loughner able to guy a gun?

The ability to own a firearm is a constitutionally protected right, and depriving someone of that right involves a legal process. Under the 1968 law, a person must be declared mentally unfit by a court or have been committed to a mental institution to lose his or her right to possess firearms.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the possession of firearms by the mentally ill. So why was Mr. Loughner able to guy a gun?
> 
> The ability to own a firearm is a constitutionally protected right, and depriving someone of that right involves a legal process. Under the 1968 law, a person must be declared mentally unfit by a court or have been committed to a mental institution to lose his or her right to possess firearms.


So what's wrong with going through a legal firearms application process? Why shouldn't a person need to be able to demonstrate by their own history and actions and by testimony of others in high standing that they are fit to have the right to own arms? That is the common procedure in many other places where people own guns, why not in America? It's a very good way of weeding out people who are mentally ill and it's not expensive.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Considering the tone of some other folks comments and them not wanting to see the common sense of withholding certain types of firearms from certain types of individuals, prudence tells me to drop the subject and so I will, however I will make one additional comment here before dropping out of the discussion.
> 
> Your founding fathers were smart people and had foresight 230+ years ago as befitted their time and level of technology. Unfortunately they didn't have enough foresight to see ahead to the technological America of the 20th and 21st centuries. I'm sure they never envisioned that their promotion for all to have the right to bear arms would encourage Americans to develop weapons of mass destruction that now holds the rest of the world in a thrall of fear and intimidation. I don't think they foresaw the creation of the type of rapid fire automatic and semiautomatic firearms that exist now, where reloading with a fresh magazine loaded with god knows how many bullets of whatever caliber takes only a matter of seconds. I doubt they envisioned an America of 310+ million people where there is so much violent crime, so much political divisiveness and corruption, and so many mentally ill and/or ignorant people. Nor, I'm sure, did they foresee the day that so many violent and mentally ill people, and so many criminals and paranoid revolutionaries, would have such easy unrestricted access to such weapons because the 2nd Amendment says their right to them cannot be infringed.


Our founding fathers could not have possibly imagined our world today, but they were smart enough to understand that the world would change and that changes might someday be needed to the Constitution, so they built in a method of amending it. If enough people believe that guns should be banned, the right thing to do would be to propose and ratify a repeal of the second amendment.

That of course, will never happen as long as we continue to hold our freedoms dear. The founding fathers understood that freedom is more precious than safety or security, because without freedom we can never be safe nor secure.



naturelover said:


> Personally I think your right for everybody to bear arms not being infringed upon by sensible, foreseeing people is what has led to the pickle you are in now, where good citizens go about in fear of their fellow citizens and MUST now bear arms to protect themselves from fellow citizens. The original idea was the right to bear arms to protect yourselves from the tyranny of corrupt government becoming your enemy, not to protect yourselves from yourselves but what has happened is that you have all become your own worst enemies because you all fear each other so much.


The society you describe does not exist. We do not "go about in fear" of our fellow citizens. I live in a world where I am comfortable where ever I go, I'm not afraid to leave my kids out of my sight, and I don't feel the need to lock my doors. 

My DW is from the UK where guns are not allowed. It took a long time for her to get used to the fact that we did not have the crime she had to live with there. She was amazed that you could leave personal belongings out in full view without them being stolen. Local stores could leave their inventory outside at night, unprotected and unguarded without fear that it would not be there the next morning.

Events such as the tragedy in AZ make headlines and might give people the impression that there is a gunfight on every street corner, but that simply is not the case. If it were however, it would only highlight the need for citizens to be armed.

While we do not live in fear, we do have a realistic view of the world and understand the dangers that come with it. I live and work just a few miles away from Virginia Tech, so I am quite aware of how bad gun violence can be. I am also aware that another student was murdered there, beheaded with a kitchen knife in the school cafeteria in full view of the other students. Had even one of those kids been armed, that senseless murder would not have taken place. Just a few miles away at another college, a similar shooting incident was stopped in its tracks because students and faculty were able to use their guns to stop the shooter.

We are a free nation, and with freedom comes risk, and responsibility. Some people are simply not cut out to handle that sort of risk nor are they willing to take on the responsibility. Those who cannot handle freedom need a place of refuge, and that is why, I suppose, countries like Canada need to exist. Some of us cannot abide chains and that is why a country such as the United States was born.



naturelover said:


> I think your founding fathers are now rolling over in their graves because they didn't foresee the consequences of their declaration that everybody had the right to bear arms would encourage America to become a hostile and fearsome nation of people that possess more firearms than any other nation in the world.
> 
> .


I would agree that our founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves, but not for the reasons you describe. The would be distressed over how many of our liberties we have gradually allowed to be taken from us, and by how powerful and out of control we have allowed our government to become. They would not want to see us give up more of those liberties, instead they would be shouting at us to return to the principles upon which they founded this wonderful nation that has given freedom to so many during the course of our history.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Paumon said:


> So what's wrong with going through a legal firearms application process? Why shouldn't a person need to be able to demonstrate by their own history and actions and by testimony of others in high standing that they are fit to have the right to own arms? That is the common procedure in many other places where people own guns, why not in America? It's a very good way of weeding out people who are mentally ill and it's not expensive.





> Free men don't ask permission to bear arms." -- Glen Aldrich


We already have a system in place to prevent those who are judged to be mentally ill from purchasing firearms through a retail gun store. Had this young man ever been judged mentally ill, he would have had to purchase his gun elsewhere. Apparently, that was not the case, even though Sheriff Dupnik was said to have been well aware of the Laughner's instability and chose to do nothing about it, and even discouraged others from doing so. This was more a failure of the system than a failure of legislation, which is why we clearly cannot depend on legislation to keep us safe.

According to Dr. Walter E. Williams, "90 percent of violent crimes are committed without a handgun. Of those committed with a handgun, 93 percent of the guns used were obtained through unlawful means. Registration and waiting times are of little value in deterring criminals."

If legislation were enough to stop such tragedies, this one would not have happened. It is already against the law to shoot people for no reason. A person bent on shooting people would not hesitate to violate another law to obtain a gun. A mass murderer would hardly balk at theft or deception as a means to carry out the crime of murder.



> "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato


We live in a free society, and with that freedom comes danger. We do what we can to minimize the danger, but we must draw the line at sacrificing freedom to do so. In the end, we must protect ourselves from the dangers around us.



> When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace... -- Jesus, Luke 11:21


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Old Vet said:


> Where you most live there is a cop minuets away. Where I live they are at least 30 or more minuets away if they run as fast as they can. If not then an hour away if they are not on the other side of the county arresting somebody for wife beating in that case it will be the next morning before they arrive. There are 6 cops in my county and two are city cops that can't go out side of the city divide that by 2 because they are on 12 hour shifts and you have the ones on duty. Most everybody is law abiding but not all. So they tell us all to be our own cops and carry what we want to defend our self. I know we should pay more taxes and have more cops most would have enough to be 4 or 5 minuets response. But the ones in our county don't want that so we get by by our self. That is why I carry a gun and am not afraid to use it when time comes.


Who is it who has the tag line: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away..."?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Who is it who has the tag line: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away..."?


:nana: That's me :grin:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Ross, I don't think I said that Canada is less violent than the USA because of gun control. I think Canada is less violent than the USA because Canada is Canada. Same thing goes for Switzerland. Different cultures and different priorities. Period.
> 
> .


If you freely admit gun control isn't what makes Canada less violent than the US and there are different cultures why are you even suggesting that the US should have more gun control to reduce the amount of violence? Your logic confuses me. . .


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Isn't it nice to have people in other countries explain what we, in the U.S, should do.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the possession of firearms by the mentally ill. So why was Mr. Loughner able to guy a gun?
> 
> The ability to own a firearm is a constitutionally protected right, and depriving someone of that right involves a legal process. Under the 1968 law, a person must be declared mentally unfit by a court or have been committed to a mental institution to lose his or her right to possess firearms.


 Ands a sheriff that looked the other way. Is one way that he got the gun. Because the guys mother worked there.


----------



## Gabriel (Dec 2, 2008)

Paumon said:


> We all know that violent killings happen in any number of ways but why should it be made easier for killers to do it with guns?


"God made men, Sam Colt made them equal." Weapons are nothing more than tools that equalize a situation that we all agree shouldn't happen, yet does. Perhaps you're right, we should take away all tools so that my 66 year old mother would only have her fists to fight off a young strong attacker. :umno:


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Paumon said:


> Excuse me. *A sick and deranged person just was allowed to purchase a gun. He shot 20 and killed 6.*
> 
> Not only that, when he went to buy ammunition he was turned down at one Walmart store because of his behaviour and then went directly to another Walmart store where he purchased the ammunition. He had 90 rounds still in his possession when he was taken down.
> 
> ...


Just what the world needs a Walley world employee practicing being a shrink :clap::clap: Also where did you get your information or degree ?? (Ie most healthy minded adults don't know how ) Ever hear of a pop bottle full of gas with a rag or a bottle of PGA from the Liquor store ??


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paumon said:


> So what's wrong with going through a legal firearms application process? Why shouldn't a person need to be able to demonstrate by their own history and actions and by testimony of others in high standing that they are fit to have the right to own arms? That is the common procedure in many other places where people own guns, why not in America? It's a very good way of weeding out people who are mentally ill and it's not expensive.


Here in the states we have system that says we are innocent until proven guilty, and we are considered competent unless there is reason to believe otherwise. More importantly we have a Constitution that guarantees our government cannot infringe upon our right to own and carry firearms.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Not only that, when he went to buy ammunition *he was turned down *at one Walmart store because of his behaviour and then went directly to another Walmart store where he purchased the ammunition. He had 90 rounds still in his possession when he was taken down.


Really?

Got any REAL PROOF to back that one up?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So what's wrong with going through a legal firearms application process?


He DID and he PASSED

If you don't KNOW the laws now you shouldn't try to push for more of them

You sound just like your sister now, all rhetoric and no substance


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Now they are talking of making it illegal to take a weapon to any meeting where there are Politicians. How did this come out of an out doors public accessible site. These idiots just gasping for straws.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Now they are talking of making it illegal to take a weapon to any meeting where there are Politicians.


They don't deserve any special treatment.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

7thswan said:


> Now they are talking of making it illegal to take a weapon to any meeting where there are Politicians. How did this come out of an out doors public accessible site. These idiots just gasping for straws.


I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's already illegal to shoot them. If someone is in the frame of mind to do so, I suspect they will be less than concerned with obeying this particular law.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's already illegal to shoot them.


I think there may some conditions under which we can shoot them.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ernie said:


> I think there may some conditions under which *we* can shoot them.


So with your above statement you admit you advocate the assassination of politicians under certain conditions. When you say "we", just exactly who else is "we" besides yourself wanting to assassinate politicians? Since you addressed your comment to DeaconJim are you including DeaconJim in your ranks of would be assassins?

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Oh, and while I think of it Ernie, why does your avatar depict a picture of a man preparing to strike a woman with a weapon in his left hand and the caption by it says "removing the kid gloves"? What is the motivation for representing yourself with such a violent avatar on a family forum?

.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

naturelover said:


> So with your above statement you admit you advocate the assassination of politicians under certain conditions. When you say "we", just exactly who else is "we" besides yourself wanting to assassinate politicians? Since you addressed your comment to DeaconJim are you including DeaconJim in your ranks of would be assassins?
> 
> .


Yes. I do believe there are certain offenses at which the politicians who try to govern us have withdrawn from the contract and their continued attempts to oppress us will put them in the crosshairs. It's called tyranny, but since you're an advocate of it I don't expect you to see my point. 

Since you're trying so hard to bait me, make sure you spell my name right when you report me to the SPLC or DHS. 

Unlike a lot of Americans, I'm not afraid of being put on their lists. They can bring that scumbag Horiuchi out of hiding when they come for me and all the cheering progressive scumbags on this forum can cheer on CNN when they haul my bullet-ridden body out.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

naturelover said:


> Oh, and while I think of it Ernie, why does your avatar depict a picture of a man preparing to strike a woman with a weapon in his left hand and the caption by it says "removing the kid gloves"? What is the motivation for representing yourself with such a violent avatar on a family forum?
> 
> .


As usual, you see what you want to see.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ernie said:


> Yes. I do believe there are certain offenses at which the politicians who try to govern us have withdrawn from the contract and their continued attempts to oppress us will put them in the crosshairs. It's called tyranny, but since you're an advocate of it I don't expect you to see my point.
> 
> Since you're trying so hard to bait me, *make sure you spell my name right when you report me to the SPLC or DHS. *
> 
> Unlike a lot of Americans, I'm not afraid of being put on their lists. They can bring that scumbag Horiuchi out of hiding when they come for me and all the cheering progressive scumbags on this forum can cheer on CNN when they haul my bullet-ridden body out.


I don't know your name and I'm not in a position to report you or anyone else to SPLC or DHS. Perhaps someone closer to you who knows you will do that. Why don't you just report yourself to see what happens, then you can let us all know about it? :grin:

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ernie said:


> As usual, you see what you want to see.


Thank you for explaining that better. The small avatar does look like a man preparing to strike a woman. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who is seeing it that way since not many here would be familiar with pictures of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as a Soviet prisoner. You might want to change the caption near the avatar to describe what it is that people are seeing so there's no confusion.

.


----------



## Gabriel (Dec 2, 2008)

As we all now know, guns cause crime. 

Please help us keep an eye out for criminal activity.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Gabriel, that is some spew worthy stuff! LOL!


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Oh, and while I think of it Ernie, why does your avatar depict a picture of a man preparing to strike a woman with a weapon in his left hand and the caption by it says "removing the kid gloves"? What is the motivation for representing yourself with such a violent avatar on a family forum?
> 
> .





Ernie said:


> As usual, you see what you want to see.


I thought you had a keen imagination from your climate change ideas, but you have shown you have almost unlimited potential to imagine fiction.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> a picture of *a man preparing to strike a woman *with a weapon





> *I'm sure I'm not *the only one here who is seeing it that way


So far you're two for two.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Thank you for explaining that better. The small avatar does look like a man preparing to strike a woman. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who is seeing it that way since not many here would be familiar with pictures of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as a Soviet prisoner. You might want to change the caption near the avatar to describe what it is that people are seeing so there's no confusion.
> 
> .


It never crossed my mind that it was a man preparing to strike a woman.
Are you sure you aren't the only one who sees things like that in pictures?
Are there other avatars that make you think of assaulting a woman?


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Luckily our avatars don't have to pass the naturelover "Rorschach test".

What do you see in this one?

"A man beating his wife."

And this one? 

"A Conservative beating his wife."

And this one?

"A Christian beating his wife."


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Oh, and while I think of it Ernie, why does your avatar depict a picture of a man preparing to strike a woman with a weapon in his left hand and the caption by it says "removing the kid gloves"? What is the motivation for representing yourself with such a violent avatar on a family forum?
> 
> .


Which person do you see as being a woman? Do you assume the smaller person is a woman? Perhaps I'm wrong, but that would seem to be a little prejudiced to me, thinking that women are diminutive and weak.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> Which person do you see as being a woman? Do you assume the smaller person is a woman? Perhaps I'm wrong, but that would seem to be a little prejudiced to me, thinking that women are diminutive and weak.


Deaconjim, I noticed you are smiling in your avatar. Is it because you've just finished beating your wife?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Ernie said:


> Deaconjim, I noticed you are smiling in your avatar. Is it because you've just finished beating your wife?


What makes you think I'm finished?


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

deaconjim said:


> What makes you think I'm finished?


I see an empty gin bottle on your head, standing at an angle as someone out of view is obviously aiming to shoot it off. Do you condone such reckless gunplay and drinking?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Ed Norman said:


> I see an empty gin bottle on your head, standing at an angle as someone out of view is obviously aiming to shoot it off. Do you condone such reckless gunplay and drinking?


You can be certain that bottle never contained an ounce of gin.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Oh, and while I think of it Ernie, why does your avatar depict a picture of a man preparing to strike a woman with a weapon in his left hand and the caption by it says "removing the kid gloves"? What is the motivation for representing yourself with such a violent avatar on a family forum?
> 
> .


Huh? I thought it was a picture of a chicken crossing the road. I wondered why it was doing that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

NL, A lot of your theories are like your avatar.

They look OK at first glance , but melt into a useless puddle in the light of day


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

deaconjim said:


> You can be certain that bottle never contained an ounce of gin.


Agreed. it looks more like a full pint to me.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Oh, and while I think of it Ernie, why does your avatar depict a picture of a man preparing to strike a woman with a weapon in his left hand and the caption by it says "removing the kid gloves"? What is the motivation for representing yourself with such a violent avatar on a family forum?
> 
> .


Wow,,,,, just Wow!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> NL, A lot of your theories are like your avatar.
> 
> They look OK at first glance , but melt into a useless puddle in the light of day


 :shocked: Huh?! You don't like my avatar? My nice friendly, open-armed, cheerful, smiling snowman?  I guess you're right, it is kind of wishy-washy, time to change it again. In honor of Ernie and his depressing avatar I'll try to replace it with something especially meaningful to him. :heh:

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> :shocked: Huh?! You don't like my avatar? My nice friendly, open-armed, cheerful, smiling snowman?  I guess you're right, it is kind of wishy-washy, time to change it again. In honor of Ernie and his depressing avatar I'll try to replace it with something especially meaningful to him. :heh:
> 
> .


Makes me wonder why he is so cheerful, especially considering Ms. Snow is conspicuously missing in the photo.... I wonder if she was pummeled by him and carried off to the emergency room? Such violence in these avatar thingies!


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Ernie said:


> Deaconjim, I noticed you are smiling in your avatar. Is it because you've just finished beating your wife?


Mine's crying because she's being beaten AND abused.


----------



## Beowulf (Aug 27, 2010)

georger said:


> That is diversion.
> 
> A gun is what killed these people. Why disguise that? Why protect that?


Actually, a murderous nut-job killed these people. Yes, he happened to use a gun as his weapon...



georger said:


> If you have a known and perfectly preventable factor in life -such as the prevalence of gun violence in society - which is able to threaten and extinguish innocent human lives with such ferocious fire power, why guard it when it does such harm?


"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin I get all warm and squishy over our founding fathers' ideas...



georger said:


> A knife or a bite or a stone can do limited harm as compared to a gun and the assaulter must be much closer to the victim than with a gun. A gun has a much greater killing range, making it a much greater weapon than a knife, a bite or a stone.


And yet people are still killed with knives, stones, etc.



georger said:


> Comparing a stone, a knife, a bite, a kick or anything else to a gun's killing power and accuracy is like comparing apples to oranges. There is little else which can kill as a gun can, and can be so easily concealed, and apparently so easily procured in some cultures, apparently so worshipped as well as a source of "freedom" as well.


A gun is no more a source of freedom than a tractor is a source of food. 

The second amendment is a shield of freedom, not a source of freedom. According to the Declaration of Independence, we are endowed by our Creator by certain inalienable rights... It seems to me that, according to our founders, our freedom comes from God. The second amendment is to ensure that no one takes that freedom away - not even the government. Keep in mind that when it was written, the flint-lock rifle was the height of military technology, and was widely owned by the common man. Assault weapons are the commensurate technology of today.



georger said:


> If you had a vicious rabid animal in your neighbourhood which killed in the past and threatened to kill again unless halted, and if people excused the presence of such an animal on the basis that "if that animal didn't kill our kind then something else would" or "if it's going to happen then it will happen regardless", then the innocent deaths which will continue to come about as a result of human inaction on such a threat would represent a greater disregard for the safety of life.


Personally, I would put the rabid animal down, but we are not talking about rabid animals. We aren't even talking about guns. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Those people who kill people - whether with guns or not - need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.



georger said:


> I describe a culture becoming morbidly preoccupied with death and war in other words. This culture can exist anyplace in any country in the world, it is not isolated to west or east.


:shrug: I don't see what this has to do with anything...
I'm fairly ambivalent about death in general - I don't fear it, but that's a personal point of view I guess. I don't see what war has to do with second amendment rights or the news story that brought this up, really...



georger said:


> And though I don't have answers either, I am just as qualified as anyone else is to ask questions and just as qualified to wish to provoke serious objective discussion for the sake of our children and their future.


This is the only thing you have said that I can whole heartedly agree with.


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

There have been "issues" wwith avatars lately. Ernie, you are now in the same category as Nick.....hmm.
It is interesting to me to see someone writing about changing our laws and then asking what our laws are.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Oh, and while I think of it Ernie, why does your avatar depict a picture of a man preparing to strike a woman with a weapon in his left hand and the caption by it says "removing the kid gloves"? What is the motivation for representing yourself with such a violent avatar on a family forum?
> 
> .


You owe Ernie an apology.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

tab said:


> It is interesting to me to see someone writing about changing our laws and then asking what our laws are.


I'm always willing to admit if I've made a mistake, so I might have been mistaken in my understanding about how easy it is for mentally ill people to acquire guns in America. I have been informed the following by an American gun owner, I would like confirmation if this is true:

_*"Gun buyers in America already have to complete long forms to purchase guns and their backgrounds are already checked by the FBI before they are allowed to acquire them. Further, those wishing to carry those guns must endure a lengthy background check by local and state governments in which their entire life's history is documented and verified."*_

Is all of that true? Is it true in any State? Is it true in all States?

.


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

For me to get a pistol permit, I have to wait at least six months, pay for a back ground check, get fingerprinted, take a safety course and fill out all kinds of paperwork, provide references which are checked, etc. State laws, not federal, as it should be.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Tab, do you mind saying what State you live in? Also, you mention the red tape you have to go through to get a pistol permit. Is that for a permit to _own_ a pistol, or to _carry_ a pistol? What about other types of firearms, i.e. long guns? Do you have to go through all the same procedures?

.


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

naturelover said:


> Thank you for explaining that better. The small avatar does look like a man preparing to strike a woman. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who is seeing it that way .
> 
> .


I'm pretty sure it's just you.


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

Let me just say, I grew up being able to freely go north and visit your country.
That is just some of what I have todo to get a pistol permit, ownership. The carry part is later as to what type is allowe. Long guns are not as bad but it still is not a process that makes me feel warm and fuzzy,more like I have to prove I am not a criminal.....
I think one of the issues with regulatios is we are slowly being regulated to pieces, it is never enough and there are many in power that seem to want to remove all rights. It becomes a very heated topic. The media promotes things that oftentimes are simply not true, like reporting the congresswoman had died....things get inflamed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I'm always willing to admit if I've made a mistake, so I might have been mistaken in my understanding about how easy it is for mentally ill people to acquire guns in America. I have been informed the following by an American gun owner, I would like confirmation if this is true:
> 
> _*"Gun buyers in America already have to complete long forms to purchase guns and their backgrounds are already checked by the FBI before they are allowed to acquire them. Further, those wishing to carry those guns must endure a lengthy background check by local and state governments in which their entire life's history is documented and verified."*_
> 
> ...


Depends on the state.

You can get a quick overview of each state's laws here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)



For the most part you will find the states with the highest crime rates (including gun crimes) the laws on law abiding citizens buying and owning firearms are usually the harshest/strictest. States which do not put such restrictions on the law abiding tend to have lower crime rates. 

AAMOF, stats show when a state relaxes a strict carry law its crime rate drops and at a faster rate than the national average.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

That whole avatar bit was the funniest thing I have read in a long time.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

deaconjim said:


> Automobiles can be pretty deadly too. In fact, I suspect you will find that more people are killed by cars than by guns. Should we ban cars?


Maybe after this Toronto should...
"A man took a stolen snow plow on two-hour rampage through the streets of Toronto, Canada, Wednesday morning, killing a police officer and wrecking cars and a car dealership."
Readd more about his 2 hour run-a-muck thru town below. Wonder if he had a license? 
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/12/barefoot-man-steals-snowplow-kills-cop/?hpt=C2
Prayers to the officer's family.
Matt


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Ernie's avatar looks like a man preparing to strike a woman. Period.


Even after being shown the original photo in a size big enough to see, you don't change. Keep that in mind on the global warming threads when you are presented with differing evidence. Shown the facts, you still aren't willing to change. You go by emotion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Ernie's avatar looks like a man preparing to strike a woman. Period.


Only in YOUR mind


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> so I* might have been *mistaken in my understanding about how easy it is for mentally ill people to acquire guns in America.


There is no "might have been " involved.

It would have been simple for you to* learn *FIRST


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> "Gun buyers in America already *have to complete long forms to purchase guns *and their* backgrounds are already checked by the FBI before they are allowed to acquire them*. Further, those wishing to carry those guns *must endure a lengthy background check by local and state governments *in which their entire life's history is documented and verified."


If there is any criminal or LEGAL mental history discovered during those checks, you cannot legally purchase a firearm

"Acting weird" or "suspicious" doesn't disqualify anyone, because that's just an opinion

Consider this:

*Seeing things that don't exist* could be considered a *mental illness*, and *insisting *that's what they are *even after being shown *the truth confirms a delusional state

Should someone like that be allowed to have a firearm?


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

naturelover said:


> Good. Excellent. :banana02:
> 
> I hope they push hard. Ban all assault weapons everywhere. Make background checks the strictest ever. :thumb:
> 
> .


push that agenda in Canada would ya. 

or your welcome to come here and become a citizen and exercise your new rights and maybe a few privileges?

We have enough liberals,socialist and communist of our own though.

Every one knew they would grab this and run with it.

anyone with halve a brain knows only law abiding citizens follow the law,
criminals will still have guns. There will be a good number of former lawful citizens that will become new criminals.

our jails are already over crowded as it is maybe new gun laws would give them the option of gunning down the "new criminals" as well as the actual felon type. you know the suspect was in possession of a illegal weapon, there by to much of a risk to the public, so took the only option we had and eliminated the threat. 

Only problem there is we have the Right to keep and bear arms,no its not granted by the constitution but inferred and assumed.I believe the supreme court thought the same at some point, but what is guaranteed is that we have the right to form a militia and that the inferred and assumed right to owning is not to be infringed upon.

its like outlawing cars cause you get an idiot behind the wheel every now and again or its used in a commission of a crime?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

naturelover said:


> Ernie's avatar looks like a man preparing to strike a woman. Period.
> 
> I do not owe Ernie any apologies. Ernie owes me several apologies for a number of reasons, some going back to several months ago and some current. You might not know why but he does and I do. Let's just leave it at that, shall we.
> 
> .


Granted, if he hadn't posted the larger version of it I would never have been able to tell for sure what was going on, it's just too small to see other than it looks like a man and a woman. 

To me it does not look like the man is raising his arm to strike at her but I ain't telling what I thought it looked like.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

At the end of the day, does anybody but me see a little hint of irony in this thread?

We have a poster from Canada advocating we get rid of our guns, or at least curtail the rights of Americans to own a firearm, while his country depends upon the United States for much of their national defense...


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

Txsteader said:


> Here's where it gets dangerous.
> 
> State laws vary regarding the purchase and possession of firearms. It's when the federal government starts getting involved that we have a 2nd amendment issue. That's precisely where the greatest threat of tyranny lies---and our founders knew it. So no, we don't need to change our gun laws on the federal level. If the states wish to do so, they have that right. The federal government does not.


the state's do not have a right to infringe upon the god given rights inferred in the constitution. yes god given at the time it was a very necessary thing, food and protection. know what still is. 

coming to the fight with a single shot when everyone has magazines and semi auto fire might as well bring a knife or rock.

like Ernie said disarm everyone or arm them everyone. 



naturelover said:


> Ernie's avatar looks like a man preparing to strike a woman. Period.
> 
> I do not owe Ernie any apologies. Ernie owes me several apologies for a number of reasons, some going back to several months ago and some current. You might not know why but he does and I do. Let's just leave it at that, shall we.
> 
> .


go get glasses before they take your guns or maybe a bigger monitor, 

I couldn't tell for sure but I figured it was a guy getting frisked. the larger pic just enforces it.


there is so much stuff in this thread that deserve a retort and more that does not even deserve acknowledgment. 

but I agree take away guns and there are other methods that those intent on harm will use. 

what i worry most about is bomb or as they are called now IED , just look at Ireland for a example, as far as killing from a distance with intent and great potential damage the una bomber comes to mind and i forget the other one, but then you also have all the abortion clinic bombings in the 80's.

more laws will not stop people intent on there deed.

from a early age I played cops and robbers and cowboys and indians ,pirate
never would I have been allowed to even raise a cap gun to someone or fake sword. pretending you know the finger gun and air sword where tolerated.
I was taught from a early age to never point a gun at anyone, though I was also taught that it could be a necessity at some point. there are a few other lessons that figure in here that I have a right to defend myself and to give as good as I receive, so that right to defend depends upon some good sense and common sense. I know there are not many that have one let alone both quality's. last lesson was if I felt the need to point a gun I better use it and if not to bother.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Jolly said:


> .... his country depends upon the United States for much of their national defense...


That's actually a misconception. Perhaps you've never heard of the Kingston Dispensation and the Defense Against Help policies? 

Canada doesn't depend on USA for any national defense, it already defends its own territory and sovereignty without assistance from the USA and it has always done so. 

Because the 2 nations share a continent, in order for the USA to protect itself it's in the national best interests of the USA to agree to defend Canadian territory if it becomes necessary but it has never been necessary and probably never will be. Canada and America have been partners in the defense of North America since WW2. 

Perhaps these 2 academic articles will help you to understand that better:

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/7/3/6/1/p73619_index.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb009/is_1_38/ai_n29427731/


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

||Downhome|| said:


> the state's do not have a right to infringe upon the god given rights inferred in the constitution. yes god given at the time it was a very necessary thing, food and protection. know what still is.


True. My point was that the states were meant to have the greater power, as opposed to the federal government. Our founders' greatest fear was of a too-powerful *centralized* government; hence the greater powers/rights given to the states and, more importantly, the individuals themselves.

The danger that too many fail to see is the all-powerful, centralized federal government, that has been trampling on states/individuals rights from the beginning. History has shown us time and again how centralized government is a threat to individual liberty.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

naturelover said:


> I'm always willing to admit if I've made a mistake, so I might have been mistaken in my understanding about how easy it is for mentally ill people to acquire guns in America. I have been informed the following by an American gun owner, I would like confirmation if this is true:
> 
> _*"Gun buyers in America already have to complete long forms to purchase guns and their backgrounds are already checked by the FBI before they are allowed to acquire them. Further, those wishing to carry those guns must endure a lengthy background check by local and state governments in which their entire life's history is documented and verified."*_
> 
> ...


It's true here in PA! To get my LTCF (License to Carry a Firearm) I had more background checks then those who don't carry, both State, FBI, Military records etc.. The government knows more about me then I can remember..

Now to purchase a handgun we still go through a background check, but for longarms it isn't necessary, but is done if bought from a gun shop, but not needed in a private sale of a longarm. Unless it is a Class 3 firearm (think full automatic firearms), which requires a special license.. 

I have to renew every 5 years and go through the same thing each time. 

I have also been lucky that I have only ever had to pull my weapon 3 times and fire once, since 1985..


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Unless it is a Class 3 firearm (think full automatic firearms), which requires a special license..


It's not actually a "license"
You have to pay a $200 "transfer fee" to the ATF, after extensive background checks and storage requirements


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Paumon said:


> That's actually a misconception. Perhaps you've never heard of the Kingston Dispensation and the Defense Against Help policies?
> 
> Canada doesn't depend on USA for any national defense, it already defends its own territory and sovereignty without assistance from the USA and it has always done so.
> 
> Because the 2 nations share a continent, in order for the USA to protect itself it's in the national best interests of the USA to agree to defend Canadian territory if it becomes necessary but it has never been necessary and probably never will be. Canada and America have been partners in the defense of North America since WW2.


That's a pretty amusing take on it. Canada and America HAVE been partners in the defense of North America, but to pretend that Canada's contribution to that partnership is equal is laughable at best. 

In 2008, the United States spent 4.3% of its GDP on its military. In that same year, Canada spent 1.3%. Canada has disarmed its citizens, so they can't even rely on a civilian defense force. We spent decades staring down the Soviets who would have poured across Canada like water over glass. 

Try as you might, you have to realize that Canadians sleep peacefully at night because terrible governments the world over know that America has Canada's back.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ernie said:


> That's a pretty amusing take on it. Canada and America HAVE been partners in the defense of North America, but to pretend that Canada's contribution to that partnership is equal is laughable at best.
> 
> In 2008, the United States spent 4.3% of its GDP on its military. In that same year, Canada spent 1.3%. Canada has disarmed its citizens, so they can't even rely on a civilian defense force. We spent decades staring down the Soviets who would have poured across Canada like water over glass.
> 
> Try as you might, you have to realize that Canadians sleep peacefully at night because terrible governments the world over know that America has Canada's back.


Who said it was equal? Nobody said it was equal but Canada's contribution in defense of North America doesn't have to be equal to that of the USA anyway. How could it be expected to do so when it isn't a superpower and doesn't have 10 times the population and 10 times the military that America does? Canada had America's back as far as the Soviets were concerned, Canada is your safety cushion and Canada was never under threat from the Soviets as America might have been. If the Soviets were to pour across Canada it would be America they were attacking, not Canada. America spends more on it's military because America is an aggressive warrior nation out getting involved in wars around the world. Canada doesn't have any enemies, it's a peacekeeper nation that is not under threat and isn't at war against anyone. Canada goes and cleans up the messes left behind from other people's wars.

To say that Canada has disarmed its citizens is laughable. Nobody has taken away the citizens firearms or prevented them from purchasing and possessing firearms. Canadian citizens are simply not obsessed with America's type of aggressive gun culture and don't agitate about carrying handguns the way Americans do. America's cowboy gun culture is incomprehensible and uncivilized to most Canadians. But make no mistakes about it, that doesn't mean that Canadian citizens don't possess firearms.

Now with regard to your comment about Canadians sleeping peacefully knowing that America has it's back against terrible governments around the world, that is also a laughable concept. Canada has no enemies. Canadians are fully aware that America could be a greater threat to Canada than any other nations ever could be and Americans like you make a point of not letting Canadians forget that fact. Personally I'm thankful that Americans like you don't let Canadians forget that. Canadians know that if it suited America's purposes it would have no compunctions about overwhelming Canada and there would be nothing Canada could do to defend itself from America. Canadians are fully aware of that. 

Canada is held hostage by America just as much as any other nation is so don't be thinking Canada is being complacent and sleeping peacefully about America's own self interests. That is one of the reasons why there is the Kingston Dispensation and the Defense Against Help policy, and one of the reasons why Canada defends its own territory and sovereignty just as much from America as from anyone else. 

.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Ernie

Canada is hardly disarmed and you've obviously never been to Northern Canada if you think it's Pour over-able!! :smiley-laughing013: 

Our contribution is suitable for the defense of Canada (considering our enemies) ; your GDP spending far far far exceeds what you need to defend the USA. Which explains why your country has the resources to invade other countries, (note use of the plural) while maintaining the defense of several countries like Korea and multiple Pacific and other world protectorates. The comparison is truly ignorant of the facts. That we don't spend enough to meet our NATO obligations is true, but we do our best, and it always shows better than many more spendy members.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

seedspreader said:


> You owe Ernie an apology.


 Forgot this one I agree with Seedspreader 100% Naturelover you certainly do owe him an apology! All you have to do for 99% of avatars is tap the + key and control at the same time to blow up the text and images on your screen. The limits of HT's software or your skill are no excuse. Besides if you see something you feel is offensive you report it which to the best of my immediate knowledge you did not.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

What kind of satanic symbol is your avatar?


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

I think naturelovers avatar looks like a woman being shot with a cannonball


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Naturelover's avatar is obviously a terrified harp seal pup getting an inverted windmill kick to the head by a giant chicken. I find it disgusting and absolutely horrifying. Never in history has anything been so shocking, to the levels we are seeing currently in her avatar.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

naturelover said:


> You are prevaricating too. Are cars created for the sole purpose of killing things? Firearms are, cars are not so your argument is a moot point.
> 
> It is my contention that assualt firearms do not need to be placed in the hands of common civilians for any reason.
> 
> ...


You couldn't be more wrong...Assault weapons...and other weapons do need to be in the hands of common civilians to deter those that would enslave them .


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> You couldn't be more wrong...Assault weapons...and other weapons do need to be in the hands of common civilians to deter those that would enslave them .


Well said.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

deaconjim said:


> Automobiles can be pretty deadly too. In fact, I suspect you will find that more people are killed by cars than by guns. Should we ban cars?


 I've read where doctors kill quite a few people also. Also, liberal welfare policies have done wonders with poverty.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It is my contention that assualt firearms do not need to be placed in the hands of common civilians for any reason.


Way back somewhere in this thread I asked you what is an "assault weapon"

You're still ranting about banning them, but you have yet to show if you even know what they are

You have proven you ranted about the laws without knowing, so I'm beginning to think you have no idea what you're talking about, but are merely parroting things you've heard from other ANTI GUN people


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Keep up Bear you're falling behind, we aren't talking about assault weapons anymore ..... but since you asked ..... in MY OPINION an assault firearm is any firearm that takes a clip that holds more than 10 rounds. It could be my sweet little semi-automatic Cooey whose clip holds 10 rounds but could be exchanged with a clip that holds more than 10 rounds, and then that would make it an assault weapon.

I have a solution to the whole firearms problem. Guns don't kill people (unless you bash somebody's head in with your gun butt), it's the bullets fired from them that kill people. (Please spare me the usual buzz words about cars and people killing people, it's really boring). 

The solution would be to put restrictions and limitations on the availability of ammunition. Only the diehard gun nuts would make their own to get around the restrictions. 

Everybody should have to have an Ammunitions Acquisition Certificate to buy ammunition and there would be a limit on how much a person could purchase each week. :nanner: 

Okay guys, have at it - lets hear your arguments about that. :grin:

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> since you asked ..... in MY OPINION an assault firearm is any firearm that takes a clip that holds more than 10 rounds. It could be my sweet little semi-automatic Cooey whose clip holds 10 rounds but could be exchanged with a clip that holds more than 10 rounds, and then that would make it an assault weapon.














> I have a solution to the whole firearms problem. Guns don't kill people (unless you bash somebody's head in with your gun butt), it's the bullets fired from them that kill people. (Please spare me the usual buzz words about cars and people killing people, it's really boring).
> 
> The solution would be to put restrictions and limitations on the availability of ammunition. Only the diehard gun nuts would make their own to get around the restrictions.
> 
> ...


Stay in Canada.

Oh, and I've reloaded for 30 years. Hundreds of thousands of rounds.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Okay then, both. If it holds more then 10 rounds it's an assault weapon.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ed Norman said:


> Stay in Canada.


Thanks, I plan to.



> Oh, and I've reloaded for 30 years. Hundreds of thousands of rounds.


Then that makes you a dedicated gun nut. :lookout:

.


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Keep up Bear you're falling behind, we aren't talking about assault weapons anymore ..... but since you asked ..... in MY OPINION an assault firearm is any firearm that takes a clip that holds more than 10 rounds. It could be my sweet little semi-automatic Cooey whose clip holds 10 rounds but could be exchanged with a clip that holds more than 10 rounds, and then that would make it an assault weapon.
> 
> I have a solution to the whole firearms problem. Guns don't kill people (unless you bash somebody's head in with your gun butt), it's the bullets fired from them that kill people. (Please spare me the usual buzz words about cars and people killing people, it's really boring).
> 
> ...


With all due respect, just because that is your opinion about what makes a weapon an assault weapon, it doesn't mean that's actually the definition.

What makes any weapon that holds 10 or more rounds any more inherently evil than a weapon that holds 1, 2, 5 or 10 rounds in the magazine? Whether you find it boring or not, the weapon a criminal uses is not the problem. The problem is the evil intent of the criminal. Why the arbitrary 10 round magazine limit? Why 10 instead of 8, 5 or 2?

What good would restrictions and limitations on ammunition do? What would you set the limits at and how do you arrive at that number? The nut in AZ used 1 30 round magazine. Is that what you think the limit should be, 30 rounds a week? Or since he used that many, maybe it should be less. Maybe 20 rounds a week? Maybe 10 or less so one could not utilize the full capacity of one of those nasty assault weapons?

Now that I've asked my questions about it, I'll give you the argument you asked for. Or at least some of it. First off, it you can legally own and use a firearm, there is no reason to restrict the amount of ammunition you can have for it. A lot of responsible gun owners enjoy target practice/plinking as a recreational activity. Why limit what others can do for enjoyment? Millions of people enjoy dozens of different shooting sports. Arbitrary limits on ammunition would stop them from enjoying these perfectly legal activities. Quite a few of these people actually make their living in the shooting sports. Most of them expend hundreds of rounds a week just in training. Now, would these people be able to get some sort of waiver that other law abiding shooters couldn't get? Or, would you rather see these shooting sports simply end. Sports which, by the way, contribute millions of dollars anually to programs that support wildlife conservation. Besides, at the risk of sounding boring, these restrictions wouldn't matter anyway. Only law abiding people would follow these laws anyway. Criminals will always find a way to get what they want. Why put more restrictions on the law abiding when it won't affect the criminals?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

You bring up some excellent points Murray. I have a sneaking suspicion though that she was just joking around, being facetious with that suggestion about restricting ammunition.

Although here we need to have a valid firearms license to purchase ammunition (I don't know if you do in the States) everyone we personally know stockpiles their ammunition far beyond their needs anyway and many of them reload their own. I'd imagine most enthusiastic firearms owners in the States do the same thing.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

naturelover said:


> Good. Excellent. :banana02:
> 
> I hope they push hard. Ban all assault weapons everywhere. Make background checks the strictest ever. :thumb:
> 
> .


Not gonna happen....The right to bear arms shall not be infringed...the words are simple enough to understand no interpretation is needed...if i want to own a tank i ought be able to, if i want a bazooka I ought be able to...if I need a mp-5 fully auto I ought be abel to in short My rights shall not be infringed....wonder why they are gonna push an assault ban he used a pistol....


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

naturelover said:


> Thank you for explaining that better. The small avatar does look like a man preparing to strike a woman. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who is seeing it that way since not many here would be familiar with pictures of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as a Soviet prisoner. You might want to change the caption near the avatar to describe what it is that people are seeing so there's no confusion.
> 
> .


You might want to attend to your own avatar and stay out of the avatar inspection buisness.....


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

naturelover said:


> Jim, you are welcome. And thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my opinion, even if it is an unpopular opinion. :grin:
> 
> .


And unwelcomed dont forget that, we dont discuss candian laws on here especially hot button ones...it has no effect on you but you relish in stirrring the pot.....Why is that....


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

naturelover said:


> My knowledge of this subject is personal.
> 
> Excuse me ..... I'm going shopping now. And I won't feel like I need to be carrying a gun with me when I leave the house.
> 
> ...


Good Luck with that hope you dont run into some one looking to do you harm and you have no way to protect yourself.....


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Karen said:


> :thumb:


 Deleted wrong post


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

georger said:


> Does anyone else see a conflict here? How do you educate everyone equally and be absolutely certain it sticks so nobody has to relive such an awful thing?



The same way you get unicorns that fly around pooping skittles...and making rainbows....in the real world you dont bad people do bad things and the best we can hope for is th be able to protect ourselves.....at least in my country we have the right to be armed....unlike the frozen tundra you all live in.....Listen to the father of the nine year old victim he says as bad as it is we cannot restrict fredom to make us safer....


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

georger said:


> That is diversion.
> 
> A gun is what killed these people. Why disguise that? Why protect that?
> 
> ...


It is not open to discussion so sayeth the second ammendment....folks up north in case you havent guessed to most americans this is the one thing that would ignite this country...any kind of circumvention of our second ammendment rights its is greater i beleive even than the First ammendment....all other rights are predicated on an armed citizenry.....beiong able to impose the will of the people on the government....


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Keep up Bear you're falling behind, we aren't talking about assault weapons anymore ..... but since you asked ..... in MY OPINION an assault firearm is any firearm that takes a clip that holds more than 10 rounds. It could be my sweet little semi-automatic Cooey whose clip holds 10 rounds but could be exchanged with a clip that holds more than 10 rounds, and then that would make it an assault weapon.
> 
> I have a solution to the whole firearms problem. Guns don't kill people (unless you bash somebody's head in with your gun butt), it's the bullets fired from them that kill people. (Please spare me the usual buzz words about cars and people killing people, it's really boring).
> 
> ...


Feel free to discuss your ideas with you elected representatives and I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige. Here in the U.S., we are fortunate in that the majority of our elected representatives would recoil (that's a good gun term) at the mere mention of trying to pass an unconstitutional restriction on guns (or ammo). It's probably good that you live in Canada, and that I don't.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

naturelover said:


> Considering the tone of some other folks comments and them not wanting to see the common sense of withholding certain types of firearms from certain types of individuals, prudence tells me to drop the subject and so I will, however I will make one additional comment here before dropping out of the discussion.
> 
> Your founding fathers were smart people and had foresight 230+ years ago as befitted their time and level of technology. Unfortunately they didn't have enough foresight to see ahead to the technological America of the 20th and 21st centuries. I'm sure they never envisioned that their promotion for all to have the right to bear arms would encourage Americans to develop weapons of mass destruction that now holds the rest of the world in a thrall of fear and intimidation. I don't think they foresaw the creation of the type of rapid fire automatic and semiautomatic firearms that exist now, where reloading with a fresh magazine loaded with god knows how many bullets of whatever caliber takes only a matter of seconds. I doubt they envisioned an America of 310+ million people where there is so much violent crime, so much political divisiveness and corruption, and so many mentally ill and/or ignorant people. Nor, I'm sure, did they foresee the day that so many violent and mentally ill people, and so many criminals and paranoid revolutionaries, would have such easy unrestricted access to such weapons because the 2nd Amendment says their right to them cannot be infringed.
> 
> ...


It what makes us Great...thanks for playing move along....


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Paumon said:


> This is an odd topic. I'm seeing lots of people making all kinds of excuses about how anybody can kill anybody with any kind of tool if they set their mind on it. That there is still violence happening in countries with stricter gun laws. We all know that violent killings happen in any number of ways but why should it be made easier for killers to do it with guns?
> 
> Why doesn't anyone want to address the real issue which is that it's so easy for a deranged person in America to legally buy a gun? Why shouldn't laws be amended to make it less easy for sick and deranged people to buy guns?


I dont know how many times we got to say it...The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.....period....when a nut gets one does a nut thing...you kill him to prevent future nut things from him and move about but you Never never never ever infringe on the second ammendment....


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Paumon said:


> Excuse me. *A sick and deranged person just was allowed to purchase a gun. He shot 20 and killed 6.*
> 
> Not only that, when he went to buy ammunition he was turned down at one Walmart store because of his behaviour and then went directly to another Walmart store where he purchased the ammunition. He had 90 rounds still in his possession when he was taken down.
> 
> ...


Big deal it happens everyday in canada america germany britian mexico innocent people always get killed by whack jobs why is this the case de jour...the liberal flavor of the month...news flash they will never infringe honest american right to own whatever type of guns they want...the japanese knew it...if we wanted to as citizens just from the ones that bought hunting liscense last year alone somethinglike 59-100 million man army in seconds....poof...deal with it....


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Okay then, both. If it holds more then 10 rounds it's an assault weapon.


So you have no problem with people owning as many M1 Garands (8 rounds) and M1911s (7 rounds) as they want?

FYI, those are the two main combat weapons of the US in WWII.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

naturelover said:


> Okay then, both. If it holds more then 10 rounds it's an assault weapon.


I never realized my ol Red Ryder BB gun was an assult weapon. It can hold 200 rounds.
Matt


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not actually a "license"
> You have to pay a $200 "transfer fee" to the ATF, after extensive background checks and storage requirements


Correct, I'm aware of that, but others wouldn't understand so I made it easy for them instead of trying to explain it all.

This is like any one from PA saying they have a concealed carry license, when the reality is, it is a "License to carry a firearm" (LTCF) 

Thank you for keeping me straight.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Thanks, I plan to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No it makes him frugal and a person who wants better ammo then the Corporations can make.

But if that is your definition of a gun nut then I also qualify. In my gun room now is over 30 rifles and shotguns, over a dozen handguns, 2 Dillon progressive reloaders (that sounds like they are socialist reloaders), 1 Lyman progressive reloader, 2 RCBS single stage reloaders and 3 MEC reloaders, plus all the accessories associated with them.

Laying on my tear down table (all in pieces) is an 1853 Enfield and an Marlin 336 in 30-30 cal. along with various antique box locks (for doors) that need repaired or have been repaired. 

So go right ahead and call me a gun nut. The difference is I haven't killed anyone with any of the guns I have. I haven't violated any laws, yet people like you would make me out to be a criminal. Even though at one point in my life I had a FFL for gun smithing, so the government knows even more about me then most..


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

deaconjim said:


> Feel free to discuss your ideas with you elected representatives and I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige. Here in the U.S., we are fortunate in that the majority of our elected representatives would recoil (that's a good gun term) at the mere mention of trying to pass an unconstitutional restriction on guns (or ammo). It's probably good that you live in Canada, and that I don't.


Sadly our elected representatives have already passed far too many unconstitutional restrictions on guns and ammo. Our right to keep and bear arms is severely infringed upon now, and has been since automatic weapons were restricted, now its "assault weapons" on the line and tomorrow it will be anything capable of causing harm. The bleedin hearts simply are not going to be happy until the citizens are defenseless.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Sadly our elected representatives have already passed far too many unconstitutional restrictions on guns and ammo. Our right to keep and bear arms is severely infringed upon now, and has been since automatic weapons were restricted, now its "assault weapons" on the line and tomorrow it will be anything capable of causing harm. The bleedin hearts simply are not going to be happy until the citizens are defenseless.


You're right of course, but I'm refering to present day. I don't think there is any chance of getting a gun control bill passed with the current Congress. Had this happened last year, it would have been a much different scenario.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> Here in the U.S., we are fortunate in that the majority of our elected representatives would recoil (that's a good gun term) at the mere mention of trying to pass an unconstitutional restriction on guns (or ammo). .


Your random use of gun terminology has made me want to go shoot a kitten.:benice:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Keep up Bear you're falling behind, we aren't talking about assault weapons anymore ..... but since you asked ..... in MY OPINION an assault firearm is any firearm that takes a clip that holds more than 10 rounds. It could be my sweet little semi-automatic Cooey whose clip holds 10 rounds but could be exchanged with a clip that holds more than 10 rounds, and then that would make it an assault weapon.


Then, just as I thought, you have no clue what they really are


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> my sweet little semi-automatic Cooey


If that's what you rely on for self defense, you are severely undergunned


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Paumon said:


> You bring up some excellent points Murray. *I have a sneaking suspicion though that she was just joking around, being facetious with that suggestion about restricting ammunition.*
> 
> Although here we need to have a valid firearms license to purchase ammunition (I don't know if you do in the States) everyone we personally know stockpiles their ammunition far beyond their needs anyway and many of them reload their own. I'd imagine most enthusiastic firearms owners in the States do the same thing.


Thanks Paumon, I _was_ being facetious and after I left for work last night I was thinking about this thread and suddenly thought, "darn, those guys are going to take that seriously. I'll come back and find myself ripped to shreds (more) for suggesting it." :happy0035:



Bearfootfarm said:


> If that's what you rely on for self defense, you are severely undergunned


No Bear, my Cooey is just one of my baby guns but the point was the clips I use now hold 10 rounds which is what is legal for it here, the other clips that hold more are now banned in Canada. If I absolutely had to use it for self defense in a SHTF situation I guess it would do in a pinch, but I'd use the 30-30's before I'd resort to the .22's. Circumstances would have to be very dire for me to use any of them for self defense, and I do mean serious do-or-die SHTF.

.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If that's what you rely on for self defense, you are severely undergunned


What's the best firearm for self defense? The one you have when you need it.


----------



## Rickstir (Jun 28, 2006)

Gun control is like fighting drunk driving by making it hard for sober drivers to buy cars.


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Thanks Paumon, I _was_ being facetious and after I left for work last night I was thinking about this thread and suddenly thought, "darn, those guys are going to take that seriously. I'll come back and find myself ripped to shreds (more) for suggesting it." :happy0035:


I missed the facetiousness this morning. I was tired and just didn't notice. Rereading it now, it is much easier to see.

I would really like to know your reasoning on magazine capacity though. If a firearm with a magazine capacity of 10 rounds is perfectly fine, why is any more than 10 an inherently bad thing? A 30 round magazine is no more inherently evil than a 5 or 10 round magazine. I'm not trying to stir up trouble with this question by the way. I just don't understand why one can be fine and the other bad.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Circumstances would have to be very dire *for me to use any of them for self defense, and I do mean serious do-or-die SHTF.


Do you think Americans just whip out their guns for every occasion?

Crime rates have* steadily fallen *since concealed carry laws started taking effect.

More guns cause LESS crime


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Rickstir said:


> Gun control is like fighting drunk driving by making it hard for sober drivers to buy cars.


I like that. :cowboy:


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Ok naturelover You did a good job of finding a aviator. That one looks like a Asian woman that that has a bruise on one eye and a redone when she was slapped. Just what I thought you would find.


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Circumstances would have to be very dire for me to use any of them for self defense, and I do mean serious do-or-die SHTF.


Do you really think that's not the case here in the US. In most cases here, if you use your firearm against another person in anything less than a "serious do-or-die" situation, you are breaking the law and will go to jail. Just because many of us here believe in our right to legally carry a firearm, that doesn't mean we ever want to use it against another person. No rational person would.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Murray in ME said:


> Do you really think that's not the case here in the US. In most cases here, if you use your firearm against another person in anything less than a "serious do-or-die" situation, you are breaking the law and will go to jail. Just because many of us here believe in our right to legally carry a firearm, that doesn't mean we ever want to use it against another person. No rational person would.


I seriously think some of these foreigners imgaine it slike the wild wild west we are all walking around locked and cocked waiting for our next gunfight at the OK corral...sheeesh...the only relevant point is this

THE right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED....period....nothing else said matters nothing that happens in AZ matters...no amount of liberal bleeding hart its for the children carp matters

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.....:duel:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Gabrielle Giffords shoots an AK-47:

(Notice how she's smiling)

http://oddculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/gabrielle-giffords.jpg


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Ross said:


> Ernie
> 
> Canada is hardly disarmed and you've obviously never been to Northern Canada if you think it's Pour over-able!! :smiley-laughing013:
> 
> Our contribution is suitable for the defense of Canada (considering our enemies) ; your GDP spending far far far exceeds what you need to defend the USA. Which explains why your country has the resources to invade other countries, (note use of the plural) while maintaining the defense of several countries like Korea and multiple Pacific and other world protectorates. The comparison is truly ignorant of the facts. That we don't spend enough to meet our NATO obligations is true, but we do our best, and it always shows better than many more spendy members.


Back when I was in the service I used to work a lot with Canadian SAR techs in the field. Despite being the only American in their midst, they treated me very well and I have fond memories of that time. They were some serious fellows and I like to think that some of the early seeds of liberty and conservatism were planted there in the mind of that 22 year old kid. 

So it's possible there are "two Canadas" in culture, much the same as there are two America's. However the conservative Canadians represent a much smaller voice here than the progressive ones who want to tell Americans how to run their country.

I guess using percentage of GDP spent on military activities is not a good measure after all. Despite the fact that it confused some of your brethren who apparently don't understand ratios and percentages, we DO spend a lot of our military budget aggressively in foreign countries. I think much of that expenditure is actually a disguised government subsidy for the oil companies. We'll provide their defense for them, at taxpayer expense, while they reap the profits. 

So I concede your point. Percentage of GDP isn't an accurate metric of contribution to the defense of North America.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Fair post. :thumb:


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Defending the northern border should be a joint effort. Why have a primary defense line thousands of miles south (America) when you can send the same amount and get thousands of miles of someone elses country to crash the enemy into? Why would we say no to that kind of deal when it means real help when you need it? 
I don't think that Canada is nearly as polarized between Liberals and Conservatives as the USA. I am a conservative but hey 10 years of the Liberal govt. just before the worlds worst recession did us no harm. In fact once they took over from Mulrooney's conservatives (Reagan era) they did next to nothing. Great!! 

I think most Liberals and all Conservatives agree, the Liberal party is lead by the wrong man currently, and I can think of one or two people in the Liberal party who might just be OK. And one who would probably be much like his father and at least stand for something, even if I don't particularly expect to like it. You gotta respect a guy who is ready to do the job with all his heart at least.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

We don't have "liberals" down here, Ross. What we have is socialists following what they term a "progressive" ideology.

Their progressive ideology is in fact a mishmash of fascism, communism, and socialism. _Everything for the state._ The same ideology of governments that have killed millions of their own citizens either deliberately (as in Russia) or through ineptitude (as in North Korea). The same ideology that millions of people worldwide have died fighting in an effort to eradicate it from this planet.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Ernie said:


> We don't have "liberals" down here, Ross. What we have is socialists following what they term a "progressive" ideology.
> 
> Their progressive ideology is in fact a mishmash of fascism, communism, and socialism. _Everything for the state._ The same ideology of governments that have killed millions of their own citizens either deliberately (as in Russia) or through ineptitude (as in North Korea). The same ideology that millions of people worldwide have died fighting in an effort to eradicate it from this planet.


nice explanation in a nutshell! (really, that is a compliment)

and I just wanted to say that your teeny avatar does indeed look like a guy(on the right) just about to smack a peasant-type woman--and I did NOT get that suggestion from Naturelover. Of course it looks much different blown up, and I do appreciate the historical significance of the photo. I've been wondering about that since you put it up. 

And yeah I'm too stupid to know I can click on it to make it bigger.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Actually we do have some liberals down here.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

> And yeah I'm too stupid to know I can click on it to make it bigger.


 Maybe so but you seem to know enough to hold your tongue until you're sure of yourself.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And yeah I'm too stupid to know I can click on it to make it bigger.


That's funny, since when I click on an avatar, it just takes me to the profile, and doesn't enlarge the picture at all


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ross said:


> Maybe so but you seem to know enough to hold your tongue until you're sure of yourself.


Exactly how _sure_ is one supposed to be of their own OPINION before they express it? If one's OPINION might be deemed unpopular by some does that mean the opinion should not be expressed at all? If that's the case then every one of us is guilty for expressing opinions that are not popular with everyone. I may not agree with your opinion that you just expressed above but I don't make light of you or try to censor you for expressing it. We are ALL entitled to our opinions. If we aren't then what's the point of having a discussion forum where people express their opinions?

:shrug:

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

One of the best things about living in the US is that we are all free to express our opinions. For whatever reason, making oneself look foolish is not a crime in our country.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's funny, since when I click on an avatar, it just takes me to the profile, and doesn't enlarge the picture at all


I'm on IE and in the bottom corner of my screen is a little magnifying glass icon and 100% beside it. I can click on that icon to change the size of everything shown on the screen, either to larger or smaller. I can customize it to whatever size I want and that can be helpful with printed words, but not with picture images. The problem is, when you enlarge an image that is very tiny all it does is enlarge the pixels shown and makes everything in the image very blurry and much less definable, all you see is a bunch of little squares. Enlarging an image of an avatar that has already been reduced to 50 x 50 pixels is no help at all, it just makes it look all smeared.

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

All one really needs to do is to look at the avatar in question. It does not need to be resized, made any sharper nor enhanced in any way. It just needs to be looked at with an honest, open mind rather than one with preconceived notions. :shrug:


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2011)

naturelover said:


> Exactly how _sure_ is one supposed to be of their own OPINION before they express it?
> .


You handled the situation in the most logical way that you were able to. Bless your little heart.
I would have said "Hey Ernie, what is happening in your avatar?" But that's just me...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Exactly how sure is one supposed to be of their own OPINION before they express it? If one's OPINION might be deemed unpopular by some does that mean the opinion should not be expressed at all?


Opinions are fine, but they should be based in fact.

You could have easily ASKED about the avatar BEFORE giving your "opinion" on what it was or meant.

Is it were, your opinion was based on fantasy


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> All one really needs to do is to look at the avatar in question. It does not need to be resized, made any sharper nor enhanced in any way. It just needs to be looked at with an honest, open mind rather than one with preconceived notions. :shrug:


I looked at the teeny avatar, and yes it looked like a man getting ready to slap a lady. BUT, I know Ernie enough to know he wouldn't actually put a pic of a man getting ready to slap a woman as his avatar. I was just saying, yes, I couldn't make out what it really was, and if it was an ink blot sort of test with lil teeny pictures I would say it looks like what I said it did. 

I was being honest, and yeah I said that to "back up" what Naturlover said on how it appeared to her, to which you guys said she must be the only one. No, she's not--and I'm sure there are other people who wondered about it too. I haven't been a battered wife neither, so I dont' see battered women everywhere neither. My "honest open mind" kicked in when my second thought after trying ot make out what it is was "no Ernie wouldn't actually post a pic of a guy going to hit a woman" --even though that's how it APPEARED to my eyes. SHeesh.

ANd if Ernie really wanted to educate he'd put a link to the full size picture and description of the event in his sig line. Otherwise, since it's hard to see what it really is, the teachable moment is lost. Personally I really like historical photography and would have clicked on the link. As for it not needing resizing for clarity of message, any graphic designer would tell you that teeny picture conveys no message unless the viewer is already familiar with the photo.

ANd yeah I'm all really sure about that:teehee:

So, I WOULD love to see a link about that photo, and the story behind it.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

And by the way I miss the Ernie avatar where he's holding a baby  and I think he's got a do-rag on and smiling.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

wyld thang said:


> And by the way I miss the Ernie avatar where he's holding a baby  and I think he's got a do-rag on and smiling.


Why are you criticizing avatars when you are pictured wearing your big red boxing gloves, flexing your muscles, ready to pound someone senseless?


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Ed Norman said:


> Why are you criticizing avatars when you are pictured wearing your big red boxing gloves, flexing your muscles, ready to pound someone senseless?


ound:


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Ed Norman said:


> Why are you criticizing avatars when you are pictured wearing your big red boxing gloves, flexing your muscles, ready to pound someone senseless?


Wouldn't have to pound too many people very hard around here, would she? :hammer:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Ed Norman said:


> Why are you criticizing avatars when you are pictured wearing your big red boxing gloves, flexing your muscles, ready to pound someone senseless?


Thank you Ed, you confirmed what I was thinking.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

beccachow said:


> Wouldn't have to pound too many people very hard around here, would she? :hammer:


actually I think there's a few around that like a good pounding


----------

