Neil, There is a difference between vigilante justice and self defense. And "assault rifle" is a misnomer concocted by the anti gun activists. I really would like to know what makes an "assault rifle" an "assault rifle". I know there was gun during world war two that the Germans used that they would push around on wheels and it was belt fed, and it did such crazy damage that they called it an assault rifle as a nickname, but a semi-automatic rifle should be called a semi-automatic rifle. Also, the notion that hillbillies are the only ones who believe in the right to bear arms is another anti-gun activist portrayal. In fact the NRA and Gun Owners of America both are filled with respectable people who believe that its their right to own a gun, and they have all their teeth, they don't wear a straw hat, and they wear shoes wherever they go. Oh, and only a few of them have the name of Billy Bob.
I know your just joking around, but your entire post is filled with the misleading stereotypes that are always attributed to gun owners. I was watching television the other day and watching several different television shows, and I could accurately predict every time guns and red necks were going to be linked together before they even did it. It was pretty amazing. As for your substantive arguments, I tend to find a little more common ground. I don't buy the argument that more guns is always the answer to our problems. On the flip side, just because their is a problem doesn't entail my giving up my right to defend myself and my family. Additionally, I could care less what you Brits do. I could care less what you New Yorkers and Californians do. I can see where your living in close quarters how it might be in your best interests to disarm yourselves and be the last man that Nietzsche speaks of, but don't come out here and try to universalize the principle on those of us who aren't in the same predicament as you. I live in Idaho where the open spaces go for miles and miles and miles. When I was in high school, our guns hung in our gun racks in back of our pickup trucks. No one said a word, nor gave it a second thought. Never in the history of my town was anyone shot (except one idiot who decided to play Russian roulette, but I won't go there). We were raised around guns, and we are trained to use them. When we hear on the television or on the news about shootings in California or New York or Illinois (where they have the strictest gun laws by the way), we can't even fathom what is going on there. Gun control may be the answer to your problems. ( I highly doubt it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt ) But we don't have those problems, and we don't want your solutions. On Jan 31, 3:16 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I doubt the animals "borrow" from you either Craig (typo) - you do > create the illusion of being a "sparrow blaster" from time to time. I > used to hunt - but one day I had a bead of a hare in full flight and > gave it up. Loonies and gutter-scum crooks are much more dangerous > with guns, so I'm generally against rights to bear arms, despite > actually rather liking the things themsleves. The arguments I have > seen are paper-thin and rarely extend beyond posturing. It's pretty > clear, looking round the world, that where there are no guns it's > likely a few thugs with them will move in. This rather suggests we > need them to keep the peace, but it doesn't justify any general > right. I'd like to see is more generally skilled in defence methods > through National Service - this extends well beyond guns and engines > of death - in order to ensure democratisation in our armed services. > This seems a bit more sensible than relying on a bunch of hillbillies > with assault rifle fetishes. I don't think it of any use to allow me > and others to hold guns in case we have to kill gang members and so on > - but do think we should clamp down on such bastards and kick them off > our streets. I'm not necessarily averse to armed, official vigilantes > to do this. Some believe this would be a slippery slope, but I > believe the slope has already been slidden down. We should throw > these louts into work and if they don't stay of their own accord, > chain them to it. > > On 31 Jan, 20:11, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Neil, > > I'm not a hunter. > > > On Jan 30, 11:24 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I note that animals that borrow and hibernate are less likely to go > > > extinct - no doubt because Craig can't get a bead on them 24/7! Our > > > local Plod has clamped down on guns in Manchester, so now they are > > > killing more frequently with knives. > > > > On 31 Jan, 03:41, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Its one type of forum grenade that I'm always willing to throw. ;) > > > > > On Jan 30, 7:44 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Agreed. The problem that pro-gun and anti-gun folks agree on is guns > > > > > in the > > > > > wrong hands. It's only the solution in which they differ. > > > > > This is also a forum hand grenade, and I'm pleasantly surprised at the > > > > > discourse. > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:37 PM, archytas <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > We have a beer called Punt Gunner - a distasteful brew. The trick > > > > > > is > > > > > > getting guns out of the hand of unworthies. Our local plod has been > > > > > > very successful over the past year, simply by doing something about > > > > > > it. Even punt guns would fail to overthrow governments, but would > > > > > > have some effect in keeping my car clean as we are overflown by > > > > > > geese. This leaves me in favour of rearmament for the same valid > > > > > > reasons Craig supports. > > > > > > > On 30 Jan, 18:21, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > That sucker would shoot a pound of shot at a time?! Holy crap! > > > > > > > That > > > > > > > must have been a lot of fun. I can see how that would have a huge > > > > > > > effect on the population of water fowl in no time though. > > > > > > > > I think when you start talking about limitations on firearms in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > United States you run into conundrums. The rationale behind the > > > > > > > second amendment is that the populous be armed with military type > > > > > > > weapons. Reasons being, if the populous is armed with military > > > > > > > type > > > > > > > weapons, then they can be at least semi-effective in repelling > > > > > > > invasions, forming militias, and not to mention, overthrowing > > > > > > > corrupt > > > > > > > governments. So if you start talking about limiting the weapons > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > their abilities, you begin to rationalize away the reasons behind > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > constitutional right. > > > > > > > > If anything, under the rationale of the second amendment, limits > > > > > > > placed on handguns would make the most sense. Handguns are > > > > > > > worthless > > > > > > > in forming a militia, repelling invasions, or overthrowing corrupt > > > > > > > governments. Pistols are not really military weapons, even though > > > > > > > officers carry them. > > > > > > > > So the so called "assault weapons" bans, I think, are per se > > > > > > > unconstitutional. The weapons included in those bans include all > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > weapons that would be used in the military. I'm okay though with > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > restriction on fully automatic weapons. Not because I think fully > > > > > > > automatic weapons are significantly more dangerous than > > > > > > > semi-automatic > > > > > > > weapons, but on the contrary I think semi-automatic weapons (like > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > AR-15) are nearly just as effective as their automatic relatives > > > > > > > (the > > > > > > > M-16), and so it doesn't really bother me that they ban the > > > > > > > automatic > > > > > > > versions. > > > > > > > > nominal9 wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm not much of a "Gun Guy" myself, but I have good friends who > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > hunters. Which is to say, that I have "moderated" my views even > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > than my own previous somewhat "liberal" , as in let 'em have > > > > > > > > the guns > > > > > > > > if they want 'em, stance. But still..... what do you more avid > > > > > > > > supporters of gun rights think.... shouild there be any > > > > > > > > limitations at > > > > > > > > all, in your opinions?.... Fully automatic... how about > > > > > > > > "calibers" or > > > > > > > > bore size..... I remember reading about "Britsh Punt Guns" for > > > > > > > > hunting..... I always wanted to have been around when one of > > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > > little pea shooters went off.... > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punt_gun > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUiTBC0AfVE > > > > > > > > nominal9 > > > > > > > > > On Jan 30, 10:29 am, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I got an email today from one of the gun groups I subscribe > > > > > > > > > to and it > > > > > > > > > had embedded in it a video from Britain about gun rights. I > > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > shocked and astonished to learn that there are people in > > > > > > > > > Britain who > > > > > > > > > are fighting for their gun rights. I guess Britain isn't a > > > > > > completely > > > > > > > > > lost cause. Here's the video. > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE-Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
