Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are you in this country if you feel no loyalty to same? No one is forcing you to stay.
Actually it is very hard to get out of the USA to someplace where you would actually want to go. I believe they have made it that way by design. For now you can still get out but the paper work process is getting longer and harder especially to go to Russia or any eastern European states. Plus you have to have a job lined up which is not easy and if you want to travel back and forth to visit family and such the US does not make it easy. I believe a time is coming very soon where you will have to smuggle yourself out of the USA if you want out and it will be much harder to get some place like Russia to host you when you do sneak out.
For now its still slightly better in the USA but we are at a cross roads.
Actually it's true. You can defend yourself against someone who is armed with martial arts. That's exactly what they teach you. You can be a man and defend yourself or be a coward who needs a gun.
These are the same people who say snipers are cowards because I could take you out while you are eating dinner with your family. Who wants to get their a** pummeled in a fist fight, I just assume shoot you and be done with it, I have other things to do with my day than have some mortal combat fantasy where girls are dancing around in bikinis to suck the winner off . The only issues are the legal ones.
Then you wouldn't criticize others who can do the same without a firearm.
I would advise you to learn some martial arts. Unlike a firearm, it doesn't run out of bullets, it is always with you, it works in all situations and it can't be taken away and used against you.
Have you ever won a gunfight with martial arts?
The martial arts is a legal weapon, correct?
A gun is legal to stop someone attacking you with their martial arts.
MOST people here in the G7, or even the G20, do not have animals attacking their livelihood. Even in small towns.
And yes...I've been over that...obviously if you live far away from a civilized area, where the police could not easily come to your aid, a firearm might be needed. Gun control would not prevent you from using a hunting rifle to kill an animal which is threatening you, or using a pistol for self defense if for some reason you can't fight. But these are not usual situations.
Agree. I would add that, since a firearm is a lethal
weapon, the government is justified in regulating its use.
Sure, so long as that regulation falls within the bounds of the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Quote:
They could acquire the skill set, if they felt their life was in danger. They
don't have to be a master, just know some basic techniques. You can learn that
kind of thing in a one day course.
You're just being ridiculous. You're actually advocating that an 80 year old go out and learn martial arts to protect themselves against a much younger criminal? Get real.....
Quote:
Yes, it is your right. Within reason. ALL RIGHTS ARE LIMITED BY THE RIGHTS OF
OTHERS. You have the right to say "Fire!". You don't have the right to say it in
a crowded theater when there is no fire. It places others in danger.
I'm actually glad you brought that up. You anti-gunners love to use the "fire in a crowded theater" example of a limitation on our Rights but very few of you understand it's origins or the how and why of it. It's time for a History lesson, which I will try and make as short as possible..... Being a former Service member, you should enjoy this.....
It all started back in 1919, when the US was in the midst of WWI. There was a war protester named Charles Schenck, in United States v. Schenck. Schenck was advocating AGAINST compulsory military service, claiming it was a form of slavery and thus a violation of the 13th Amendment. He had a valid point, and the Gov't didn't like that one bit so they tried to silence him through the legal process. He reasoned that it was his 1st Amendment Right to say whatever he wanted. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and they ruled in favor of the government, saying that:
“when a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right" The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
And so that is where we get the "yelling fire in a crowded theater example.... That still doesn't give us the "why" of why we can't yell fire in a crowded theater, so let's examine that further, shall we?
According to Schenck, freedom of speech is always protected EXCEPT when that speech presents a “clear and present danger” to the nation or to individuals. In the theater example, yelling fire when there is no fire causes a panic which can cause people to be trampled and killed. The injury and death of the patrons is an immediate and direct effect of the word “fire” being shouted, and is a predictable effect of the person’s actions. The person knows exactly what the impact of his actions might have, and it is the malicious intent which exempts them from protection under the First Amendment.
I want to highlight that. It is because (1) the person knows that his words will cause immediate harm, (2) the person uses his speech solely to cause harm, and (3) that the end result is predictable, that the speech is not protected under the First Amendment.
So let's apply this test to the topic at hand.... the owning and carrying of a firearm. (1) does the person who carries a firearm for self-defense KNOW that doing so will cause immediate harm? If you're being honest, the answer to that question is no, they don't. (2) Can it be said that the only reason one might carry a firearm is solely to cause unjustifiable harm to someone else? Again, the answer to that is no. (3) Is the end result of someone carrying a firearm predictable in that they will use it to cause immediate and unjustifiable harm to another? Again, the honest man would be forced to admit that the answer to this question is undeniably, NO.....
So sorry, but restricting someone's right to carry a firearm does not pass the "yelling fire in a crowded movie theater" test set by the courts in the Schenck decision, which by the way is considered junk case law today and has been reversed by nearly a hundred years of new case law. It's important to note that even in the theater example, the person who yells "fire" retains all of his 1st Amendment Rights right up until the point he abuses them. Restricting someone's Right to own or carry a firearm on the premise that they might abuse that right, would be the equivalent of putting a muzzle on everyone before they enter a theater or crowded building.
Quote:
None of which matters...because the probability of encountering that as a
civilian on us soil in peacetime is near zero. This is a stupid argument because nothing remotely close to your scenario is going to happen in real life.
It happens every day in this country. The odds of it happening to any one of us individually is nill, but the brick does fall on someone every day. Wake up! Watch the news. Ignorance is not bliss. Willful refusal to acknowledge something happens on a regular basis does not mean that it will suddenly quit happening. The truth is, it doesn't happen, until it does. Do you think when it does happen to someone, that they will be comforted to know that the odds of it happening to them specifically were nill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x
Well, if your reasoning is correct, then why did the
murder rate not climb dramatically in the UK and Australia when they banned
handguns?
According to Nigel Farndale of The Telegraph, a UK based news outlet, it did.....
But, on the other hand, the strict regulations have done nothing to stop the
trade in illegal guns. The weapon Reeve used was, after all, a handgun, which
no one has been allowed to own in this country since 1997 – not even the
British Olympic pistol shooting team, which has to train in Switzerland. And, a cruel irony this, gun crime has doubled since then
In the case of Australia, their crime rates were already at a ten year low at the time they implemented gun control, and continued that trend afterwards.....
You guys like to compare these other countries crime rates to ours, and credit their low rates to their gun control, but that's not really a proper comparison. A better comparison would be to look at their crime rates BEFORE they implemented tough gun laws and compare those rates to ours. If you do that, you'll find that their crime rates were a lot lower than ours even before they brought in tougher laws on guns.
Quote:
And our gun violence rate is much higher than any of those places.
Correct, and it was much higher than those places even before those countries adopted tough gun laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x
Why are you in this country if you feel no loyalty to same? No one is forcing you to stay.
Not trusting the government is a sentiment as American as apple pie.
Quote:
That is your attitude toward guns....not mine. Having military training in
firearms, I know a firearm is a WEAPON. My point is that YOU, as a gun nut,
treat them as toys. If you saw them as weapons, you wouldn't take one around
with you to prove your manhood.
Now you've gone off the rails and are officially not worth wasting any more time on. Your inability to engage someone with opposing views without using a demeaning and belittling tone says a lot about the worth of the arguments you're making.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 10-30-2014 at 01:29 AM..
Actually it's true. You can defend yourself against someone who is armed with martial arts. That's exactly what they teach you. You can be a man and defend yourself or be a coward who needs a gun.
This is a hair-brained argument even by your standards nat. Seriously. I guess you also think all cops who carry a firearm are cowards to, correct?
I'm honestly unsure of my answer to that question. Culturally speaking, the thought of citizens walking around with guns, particularly out in the open like they do in certain parts of the country, is just foreign to me, even shocking. And that's after almost 18 years in the US. I simply did not grow up with it in Canada, though there is a strong hunting culture. Though millions of Canadians own firearms (mostly hunting rifles), the concept of open carry is unthinkable.
On the other hand, I'm very open-minded and willing to consider other points of view. I's also a firm believer in the When-in-Rome rule, so if I live in a part of the country where open carry is common, I must adapt to that. And I have to a certain extent. I have family members in the US who are firm open-carry proponents, and I now have valued friends who are, as well. I am trying to understand.
If you've lived here for 18 years, you've had more than enough time to get used to the city/syate you live in, and the country itself. You should know Canada has very low crime rates compared to the US. Speaking of places like Somalia(I know it wasn't you) isn't even relavent, now comparing the likes of the UK would better serve, or Australia, where guns are illeagal, except hunting- almost like Canada. Most criminals don't use guns for the fact it yields higher charges if caught, they may use melee weapons or blades. We've all tried to give rational reasons to carry, but taking it, and running with it saying the whole country is still like the old west is a bit asinine. No one is looking for trouble to be a hero, the country as a whole, even bad areas are not akin to Basin City. The point is to be aware, and prepared, for the likes of a convenience store robbery, school shooting, gangs, forced in to an alley at knife point on your date, some thief in your darkened home at night, or the day.
I have a gun, but I have far more blades, personally I think blades should be more easier to carry than guns, they and melee weapons have so much more restrictions, it's insane. I think just about anyone has more chance of survival against some non-proficient bat wielding thug, or fool with a fleah market sword. I'd prefer to carry a pair of machettes, or even my bokken, than my gun anyway, but you got too many idiots running around with guns and malice, and the knife, and knuckle duster I do carry, with my hand to hand skills aren't always going to cut it. Police here, have about a 30min response time, 15 for serious stuff, in that moment, it's up to you to takes action, the criminal isn't going to wait for you to call the cops, and them to ahow ip, unless they want to hold you hostage.
^^^ I agree! I wouldn't feel safe with a person so paranoid.
I don't know where you overnight, but normally people try to find a safe hotel/motel areas, where they don't need to fear for their life. A riffle could be justified when visiting some very shady ghetto, or sleeping in a tent somewhere in the wilderness.
There have been news stories on how UNSAFE hotels and motels can be for women traveling alone....and at ones that you would think that you would be safe at.....
As far as traveling. It depends on where I am going and what I'm doing. How I'm traveling is another factor. As far as a rifle, again several factors influence that decision.
A few years back I was going deep sea fishing out of Freeport Texas, I was driving down 288 at 3 AM I was about 30 miles out of Houston and it was as dark as it could get....A car going the other way turned around and tried to force me off of the road.....I'd given anything then to have had pistol or a rifle...I could see at least two men in that car...I got away from them by going over 100 miles per hour and they didn't give up until we hit this little town...
Same thing happened to my wife on 59 coming home from her sisters from Victoria Texas...She was able to pull into a 7-11 and call the police...
Both of these happened before cell phones....
So you never know when or what is going to happen!!!!!!! Better safe than dead.....
Go live in an underground bunker somewhere, if you feel that way. The rest of us are going to live life, knowing all these silly scenarios have a very small likelihood of occurring.
My silly scenarios, as you call them, are no different than your videos of people not using guns to defend themselves. Duh on the small likely hood- we aren't rhe ones over exagerating simple examples, to carry is simply a choice, many who carry uabe stated, they hope never to draw their weapon, I've carried a knife for three years, never needing to use it defensively. You think you don't need to carry, good for you. Being a gov't lapdog doesn't make your opinion more right, niether does berating people. Nesides, if you are such a grandmaster, shouldn't your hands be registered as deadly weapons, which really makes them no different than a gun. I don't need to live underground, I'm not worried about some thief jumping from around the corner, actually, no one messes with me, am I a little paranoid about being out at night afyer all that mob violence in march, yep, since my friend was shot a few blocks from my house that night, and almost died as no one driving by would help as he drug himself across Chases parking lot, and it took ems and lmpd over 15minutes to get there. But no, I don't have a itchy knife finger- which is good, because when I am bothered on the street- it's lmpd, not some 16 year old punk with a gun.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. The only issues are the legal ones.
