im an anti w/ questions

Status
Not open for further replies.
trooper, I followed this thread off and on for some time. I didn't post because members had said it better than I could have. I recently bought a couple of the "Innocents Betrayed" tapes. Why not offer one to someone on the fence? If James takes me up on it great. If not, so what?
 
My god 11 pages!

Well just let me leave you with these thoughts...

Vermont, the only state with unconstricted concealed carry, has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.

Texas, where I live, gots its CC permit in 1995, soon to be followed by a 33% drop in murder, and similar drops in rape, aggravated assault, etc.

Most, if not all of the larger cities that have strict gun laws have high crime.

Washington. L.A.
There's plenty more, and the research is out there.

tryp www.ncpa.org, a place that basically collects info and studies. It has many topics, one of them being crime.

p.s. I would only trust studies by universities and government or state agencies. For example the Texas one was by a state organization.

Non-state/university organizations usually swing left or swing right, depending on who funded it.
 
Why is my car capable of going over 75MPH when there are no highways zoned for speeds in excess of 75MPH?

Just wondering... I didn't read the last few pages... maybe this was answered.
 
I know my post will get lost in the shuffle, but I have something to add...


Anyone who is anti gun, in my book, is a FINE individual, so long as two conditions exist:

1.) They arrived at their conclusion because they actually BELIEVE it, not because they're adopting a party platform.

and

2.) they don't try to force their beliefs on me.

So, I don't hate people who are anti gun. I hope they never have a situation where they wished they had one. I respect ALL viewpoints arrived at through true belief.

Now, that said: the gun grabbing, my way or the highway types, make me want to puke.

And the gun toting rednecks that think you arent a "real man" if you DON't own one, well... they piss me off just as much.

The point is: that's what is so great about America. You don't like assault weapons? Awesome! Cuz guess what? you don't have to own them. That's what's beautiful is that you can do what you please, or at least it's supposed to be that way.

Anyways, let me add my kudos for being the non typical anti. Most I meet are not as open and inquisitive as you. Most are just mindless numbskulls...

Although, now that I think about it, maybe THAT's a stereotype along the lines of the gun toting redneck. Maybe you've just caused me to reevaluate how I feel about someone when they say "I don't like guns"

Anyway thanks for coming. I'll extend another invite to the range if you're ever in the San Diego area. I don't have much, but I do have fun.


James

P.S. You have a cool name... ha
 
If he did, the grenade was a dud! I think the serious responses made here, were some of the best I have ever read, on ANY gun board.
 
If he did, the grenade was a dud! I think the serious responses made here, were some of the best I have ever read, on ANY gun board.

Yes they are....and that wasn't what I was saying.......Mr. Castilla made one post and we haven't heard from him again.......now do you understand?? The replies to Mr. Castilla question are some of the best you will find anywhere.........cause we have some very bright and talented people on this board......just like we had on TFL and I KNOW that a lot of the folks here came from TFL. My reply was not intendend as a put down for any one on this board.
Have a nice day, Sir.:)
 
I live in the rockies and see the workings of nauure. The mountain lion will always kill many deer. If you had to pick, would you pick being a mountain lion with plenty to eat? Or would you be a deer that makes a mt lion worry about it's safety because you can protect yourself? Or would you go defenseless...for a limited time?
 
Why for the love of anything holy would you want to let a thread as fine as this fade into obscurity?
Click to expand...

Well, that single person whom those eloquent answers were directed towards obviously went away and didn't bother to answer.

While it was a fine exercize in writing (and many great pieces were produced in the process) there's really no point in continuing "preaching the choir."

Do we really need to assure each other in our beliefs again and again?


Trooper
 
You post motivated me

To register and post a reply. I have been reading THR for several weeks now and was finally motivated to register and post.

Your questions about (paraphrased) a tyranical government taking away our freedoms is to the heart of the RKBA debate. The Bill of Rights and Second Ammendment allow the citizenry a tool to guard against tyranny of government. Self-Defense, sport shooting and hunting are merely bonuses.

I would direct your attention to an essay from Bill Whittle that will explain freedom and responsibility much more eloquently than I ever could.

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000013.html

Also, food for thought and another parapased quote:

"Invasion of the United States would be impossible because there would be an American with a rifle behind every blade of grass."

General Tojo, Japan, 1941 (someone please correct me, but i think i'm close here)

The above being true, the American citizen is and has always been the last line of defense for our soil.

I have to say James, that I am impressed with your questions. I'm glad you asked them, but I'm just about elated that you went to the source.

This is truly the most wonderful thing about our country. You are free to ask questions, debate and disagree. I for one (being a newbie myself) welcome you to THR.

jpthegeek
 
"Invasion of the United States would be impossible because there would be an American with a rifle behind every blade of grass."
Click to expand...

Isoroku Yamamoto

Concerning "disliking" guns. If in had not been for the existence of the United States, I probably would have never heard of guns being hated. Where I live there are relatively few privately owned guns, but still there are millions of them. And I know of only two kinds of my fellow countrymen: those who like guns and those who just never think of them. Though sh-t happens, of course, there are shooting accidents now and then (never on the firing line :) ), but the idea of blaming guns just never occured to the collective mind.

Best regards
 
A question for you

Hello all,

I recently met a member of this board who sent me a link to this thread after we had some discussions about the right to bear arms. I just spent the last 2 hours reading every single post. It has been said several times in this thread, but I will repeat - this is the most sensible, logical string of message board posts that I have ever seen in my life - especially when concerning a dissenting viewpoint.

I consider myself to be semi-Libertarian with my politics, and agnostic with regards to religion and general views on life. I think I have an open mind, and I pride myself on not forcing my viewpoints upon others who do not agree. However, I reserve the right to state my opinion, and I believe (after reading through this thread) that most of you would support that right.

The reason this thread was sent to me is because I am not exactly what you would call a gun enthusiast. As a matter of fact, I share many of the same concerns that James talked about in his initial post. I do not wish to unearth those initial concerns, since so much has already been talked about. However, I did want to provide another viewpoint from someone who is still not wholly convinced.

I am firmly aware that my logic here may have holes in it, and I welcome your criticism, as this is the best way that I can think of to challenge myself and my beliefs on this issue.

Quite frankly, walking down a city street (or driving through the backwoods, for that matter) knowing that some of the people I see are carrying guns (whether legally or illegally) frightens me. The reason for this is because I know that the majority of gun owners in this country have not had any training whatsoever. While it seems that a fair share of people (if not the majority) on this message board have had formal gun training, most people have not. Therefore, one of the most deadly weapons in the world is freely available not only to skilled, responsible people like yourselves - but also to untrained, inept, and possibly malicious people. (I think you probably know the types of people that I speak of.)

Does this mean I should go out and buy a gun to prevent being put in danger by these untrained, unskilled gun owners? Does that not create and perpetuate a vicious cycle of potential violence?

I support required training for any and all people that own guns in the USA. In other words, making training required for acquisition of a gun license - just like getting a drivers license. Show your license, prove that you're trained, and buy a gun (or ammo). Thereby legitimizing guns and showing that they can indeed be used and owned in a responsible manner.

Yes, I understand that criminals will still acquire guns without training. I understand that people will still be roaming the streets with guns and without training. However, wouldn't it put legal gun owners in a more favorable, safe position if they were trained better in the use of that firearm than someone who illegally owns a gun? And wouldn't it also compel more people to get training, reducing the amount of untrained, unskilled, and careless gun owners out there? Also, wouldn't it make anti-gun people feel safer without a gun - or maybe even more likely to go ahead and legally buy a gun and get trained?

I respect the right of every single person on this message board to own a gun. The quotes that stood out the most to me were posted by Thundercleese:
"If the 2nd amendment is the first to go, the 1st will be the second".
"When guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns."

The thought of only the government owning guns concerns me. I am not a supporter of a ban on firearms. I am fully aware that the Constitution is sacred and I believe it should either be followed to the tee, or amended after a voting process occurs.

However, I am a supporter of a ban on selling guns to untrained and irresponsible people.

Thank you for reading -
Chris
 
Wow, this thread is destined to be resurrected every month or so, for the life of THR...

Dont get me wrong, there is no thread that is more deserving of undying omnipresence.

keep on keeping on.
 
Chris, allow me to add this.

Guns are the same as anything else that is potentially dangerous, and regulated by some governing body.

Just as you must show competence to drive an automobile legally, you must show competence to carry a gun legally (in a concealed manner).

Granted, there may be some misfits that carry guns illegally, just as there are people who drive an automobile, with NO license or a suspended one.

Take comfort in the fact that the people here at THR, and the other law abiding citizens who choose to protect themselves and their families with a carried firearm are doing so legally, and with proper competency.

Those who are not, are criminals....and even if guns were "outright" illiegal in this country, these same criminals would still possess them.



Firearms were invented. They cannot be UN-invented. We can take reasonable measures to keep them out of the hands of criminals, but we CANNOT KEEP them out of the hands of criminals.

The legal possesion and carry of firearms by law abiding citizens makes this country safer.

If the only people with guns were criminals, it would be open season on decent people.
 
Chris, the greatest danger to our rights, to any right, is not from mustache-twirling men in capes, it's from well-meaning individuals who think they're helping people out. A nation in which the government decides who may or may not exercise a right can easily become a nation in which all but a select few are prohibited from exercising a right, regardless of the intent behind the original law.
 
Chris, I hope you will not take it personally when people disagree with you and continue to read with an open mind.


Quite frankly, walking down a city street (or driving through the backwoods, for that matter) knowing that some of the people I see are carrying guns (whether legally or illegally) frightens me.

Why exactly should that frighten you? I think it’s great that these people are taking responsibility for their own safety.

The reason for this is because I know that the majority of gun owners in this country have not had any training whatsoever.

I disagree. The VAST majority has good training. What is bothering you is that this training was done at home by family and friends that took time to instruct the people they love to respect and safely use firearms instead of in a large class with “certified†instructor like police officers. Have you any idea how many police officers shoot themselves and others with negligent gun handling? Who is going to pay for this training? If a person can’t afford training then he is too poor to exercise his rights? How much training did you get to vote?

Does this mean I should go out and buy a gun to prevent being put in danger by these untrained, unskilled gun owners?

No, you should be responsible enough to have someone teach you what you need to know. Then, if you decide that you need a firearm to help ensure your safety against predatory criminals (or for any other reason) you should certainly be able to procure one with absolutely no wait, background check, or mandatory training, ID card, registration or other government involvement.


Does that not create and perpetuate a vicious cycle of potential violence?

No. If you happen to be forced to shoot a predatory criminal one day however, it may end one.

Thereby legitimizing guns and showing that they can indeed be used and owned in a responsible manner.

Guns are already legitimate. Millions of people use them every year in a responsible manner. What is illegitimate is gun control beyond that needed to hit your target.

We don't need a rubber stamp, a certificate or approval. The right (and responsibility) is ours to decide if and when we are ready for gun ownership.


David
 
Just thought of this: As an addition to my above post, consider the example of Britain. Early in the turn of the century, it became necessary to get police permission before you could get a handgun. Without any public discourse, the related documents were even classified, the policy was changed and the requirments for proving you needed a handgun were toughened. Eventually, by about 1960 or so, the official policy was that no one had reason to need a hand gun. Again, all without public discourse or knowledge.

All of the above is just from memory, anyone should feel free to clarify/correct.
 
Geech

"All of the above is just from memory, anyone should feel free to clarify/correct."



Excellent (long) scholarly piece on history of gun control/england at the link below. Any gun control scholars on the board should read anything/everthing that this guy has written.



FEAR AND LOATHING IN WHITEHALL:
BOLSHEVISM AND THE FIREARMS ACT OF 1920

http://www.claytoncramer.com/firear~1.htm
 
I know this is beating a dead horse but I have to respond to Chris:
If you are concerned that there are a lot of gun owners who are not trained, why not encourage voluntary training?
If the money that gets spent every year trying to ban/control to the brink of extinction guns was spent offering training courses in firearm safety then we would not only retain our rights but be safer.
Gun control isn't about making people safer.
 
I said MISFITS....not good ol' boys in arkansas.

I dont care about THOSE guys, i am talking about urban misfits...aka, criminals, predators....

Dont barf at me...:D
 
However, I am a supporter of a ban on selling guns to untrained and irresponsible people.
Click to expand...

The only problem with acting on that sentiment is that every time someone or some body of people got authority to determine who is tranied enough and responsible enough, that authority has been misused. That's true even for the recent US effort (i.e. 1980s Washington State case where official trining was required but not provided). Further, even if it was possible to have this administered fairly, such requirement would be as much a violation of fundamental rights as applying that criterea to publishing tools (such as computers or typewriters).
 
ok, arin ...

"misfits that carry guns illegally" could imply that anyone who carries without a license and associated formal training is a misfit.


As far as "training" - how hard is it to learn the 5 rules:
1. Gun is always loaded
2. Don't point at anything you don't mean to kill
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot
4. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.
5. Front sight, press.
 
Wow....this is the longest threadI've ever followed. Just goes to show the importance of it....


"I support required training for any and all people that own guns in the USA. In other words, making training required for acquisition of a gun license - just like getting a drivers license. Show your license, prove that you're trained, and buy a gun (or ammo). Thereby legitimizing guns and showing that they can indeed be used and owned in a responsible manner"

I almost agree with that, EXCEPT....It would be yet another law forced upon the masses to control the few numbskulls who can't take responsibility for themselves. I truly belive that the majority of gunowners take responsibilty for their actions and get decent training.

I would accept your proposed legislation if gun control advocates ceased to exist and let gunowners own whatever firearm they wanted after completing their "mandatory class". Sounds fair right? I get a drivers' license and I can purchase and drive any type of car that I wish.

On another note, if people needed to take mandatory gun training to prevent unwanted deaths, shouldn't people take mandatory sex education classes to prevent unwanted births? How about a background check to prevent people with defective genes from getting their state issued "Reproduction Card"....

"Sir, I'd like to have sex with somebody". "Here, fill out these forms, we'll do the background check and if you are "Not dissaproved" after the mandatory seven day waiting period, you may have sex once this month, assuming you've completed the state sponsored mandatory training. If you wish to have sex again, you may complete this process again after thirty days. You may have sex only once in a thirty day period"(Note the abundance of sarcasm here as all of this mirrors Maryland's handgun laws)

Hoorah for your openmindedness!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Unbelievable conversation w/ an anti at work.....
Replies
23
Views
2K
HankB
H
J
  • Locked
TacticalGunForum.com Invitation
Replies
18
Views
1K
js
J
C
  • Locked
anti-firearm friend
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Zundfolge
Zundfolge
D
  • Locked
Ok, I'm lit up, but.....
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Mike Irwin
M
S
  • Locked
new here, amazing Gaza footage inside.
Replies
1
Views
422
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
Back
Top