Obama's Inauguration /Good Riddance "W"

Yep, I agree to just let our part in this discussion die. The few of us obviously disagree strongly.

I have NOTHING against those of you who I disagree with. It would be a shame for this stuff to come between our love of the: \m/

Over and out!

-Joe
 
Is that an order? :lol: Sorry, I won't follow.
I judge you based on anything you say here just like you do with me.
And the picture I have of you isn't getting any better with your useless remarks, trust me on this one.

Is it wrong to defend myself? Are you sure you are serious?
Please elaborate.

I'm just joking man. I know we don't see eye to eye on this and we probably never will so I'm just havin a good time ;) Sry for my lame sarcasm! I TRY! BTW you probably have a really warped sense of what I look like because you probably stereotype horribly based on some of things you have said :lol:
 
Of course if I would stand here and I'd have to defend my family and there would be no other choice I would be violent too because of protecting them from those who attack.

So you would admittedly defend your family from an attacker. I would do the exact same thing, and I don't see you as any less of a pacifist because of it. At the same time, it only confuses me more when it comes to your stance on guns. I would say that there is less of a chance of having to resort to violence when defending yourself or your family with a gun, than there is using your fists or a knife. How are guns such a bad thing when they can be effective at actually deterring violence?
 
Get ONE
gun_guitar.jpg

3587374405104706.JPG
 
FWIW, if I lived in the States, I'd probably have a conceal & carry permit too.


But as it stands, I don't see the necessity of owning a gun in Canada... ...target shooting is a lot of fun, though!
 
The model "less guns" works in Europe. That is not a theory, it is a fact.

(rhetorical question) what "model" works? "our" criminals have more guns than ever (a good percentage at least). and from what i notice, they use them.
it`s simply less guns than in the US.

(when the old USSR system collapsed and the eastern germany border was gone, Germany was flooded with guns).
 
Peace only works if both sides are peaceful. You'll agree with me here.
If there wouldn't be any attackers, there wouldn't be a need for defenders.

yea, too bad there's shitloads of sick fucks out there who spend a good amount of their time either hurting other people, or attempting to do so

having a gun to draw against these people is really the best defense you can ever have

i just saw something today about some crazed chinese guy at virginia tech attacking a girl IN PUBLIC and completely decapitating her with a knife in front of several bystanders. guess what? if one of those onlookers had a gun, they could've possibly shot the guy and saved her ass.

same thing goes with the crazy fuck who decapitated that kid on the greyhound bus in canada...no one wanted to stop the guy because he was wielding a huge hunting knife, but one bullet would've put an end to the shit.
 
i just saw something today about some crazed chinese guy at virginia tech attacking a girl IN PUBLIC and completely decapitating her with a knife in front of several bystanders. guess what? if one of those onlookers had a gun, they could've possibly shot the guy and saved her ass.
.

Damn Virginia Tech is fucking just getting slammed with crap.
 
James, reading that was certainly interesting and very applicable. To some extent you have actually changed my mind, believe it or not, although the current situation with guns is not a good one in my opinion. I can see that gun ownership in the right hands can save lives, but I still think they can sometimes be taken away unncecessarily.

Another thing I need to ask regarding the constitution. It states that everyone has the right to bare arms, but in what context? If memory serves me right then it is not as straight forward as that. Anyone care to elabourate?

Joe
well glad to see that logic, reason, and just plain common sense actually can reach through, even to a small degree, the idealized dogma that seems to seperate the schools of thought of our two continents. i would never suggest that you should carry a firearm.. just that it should be your individual choice to do so or to not. here in the US our country's constitution guarantees the right to bear arms and to maintain a well-armed militia. it leaves the individual rights to each state, and each states outlines it's own guidelines.

Florida allows licensed concealed carry and co-operates with something like 30 other states, so my CCL is good in all those states as well (i have the list filed away.... i refer to it when i travel). We also have a "castle law" here in Florida.... which basically allows me the right to defend my home and family with lethal force if i deem it necessary, given certain conditions. the intruder need not necessarily be armed, simply capable and likely to render bodily harm. Police here in Florida are progressive in admitting that they cannot gaurantee your safety on the streets, much less behind the gates and doors of your home.

all this probably makes it sound as though we live in a veritable war zone here in the US.... but the reality is far different, it's very peaceful where i live and in my entire life i've only had to pull a weapon once, the incident in 1990 that i already described in this thread... and i didn't even need to aim it.

still, there was a home invasion only 8 miles from my home last year, and the mall where i do all my shopping for clothes and music had a shooting incident not too long ago, gang related..... i'm sure you won't have to look very hard to find nearby scenes of violent crime in your own backyard, even in Germany.

the US has 300mil pop. while Germany has about 84-86 mil.... and on a per capita basis, comparing by each one million in pop. averaged, the US has 6 times the violent crime as Germany. we also have no socialized medicine and many other social issues that contribute to this. so yeah, we have a worse situation here, but neither you nor i will solve those issues today... so i will be keeping my guns. i would keep them anyway, to be quite honest, even if the US were on equal footing with Germany in terms of violent crime rates and social services. Anyway, as 26 pointed out, the situation in Germany is only likely to get worse, not better, sadly.

the good news for you is that to be forewarned is to be forearmed.... so vote your conscience on these issues when they are put to a vote in your country.... you may need to defend your loved ones one day... and i can't imagine a worse feeling of betrayal than the one you'd likely feel knowing that you were made powerless to defend your home and family by your own country's laws.

anyway, i'm getting over this thread, lol.... none of these issues are really a focus of my life, because my life is very peaceful and rarely touched by anything remotely violent. As for my stance on these issues in light of my actual circumstances..... as my ol' grandad used to say... "better safe than sorry".
 
the good news for you is that to be forewarned is to be forearmed.... so vote your conscience on these issues when they are put to a vote in your country.... you may need to defend your loved ones one day... and i can't imagine a worse feeling of betrayal than the one you'd likely feel knowing that you were made powerless to defend your home and family by your own country's laws.

This is a big issue here in Australia. It seems the current laws expect us to sit down and take it if our homes are invaded, or if we are attacked on the street. Self-defense is only applicable if we're armed with equal or less force than our assailant.

The 'castle' law is one of the most rational laws I've ever heard of. I see absolutely nothing wrong with using lethal force on somebody who has forced their way into your home and is willing on potentially inflicting harm. Hell I would even go one further and say if anybody were to enter your domain without your permission you should be allowed to assert lethal force (I'm sure you guys have places in the south that give that mentality a work-out).

I'm a pacifist at heart and hate the idea of general citizenry being armed with weapons solely designed to kill or maim other human beings. It just doesn't sit right with me on some fundamental level. HOWEVER, given that our respective societies are so fundamentally flawed, the need for adequate self defense will not be going away for a very long time. I'm a big believer in taking an eye for an eye, or even taking a torso for an eye. I will not instigate violence, but if it is instigated against me, it's no holds barred. From what I hear, citizens in the US are quite justified in carrying concealed firearms. I don't really have anything against you guys for it. I would do the same if I lived there. Christ, I'd be packing grenades and tear gas if I ever had to work a session up there (some Will Spector-esque musician motivation).

It's not necessarily the citizens' fault for such a sorry state of affairs. It's both part of the human condition and poor work on part of the government over the years to craft a society that won't chip away at itself.

I live in a suburb that borders the 'ghetto' definition. We have a predominant middle-eastern immigrant population. My house has been broken into a number of times, and as a result I've upped my insurance and rarely leave the house unattended. When some local terrorism plan arrests were enacted a few years ago, the news broadcasts were done from in front of the mosque that's on my street. If I had the right to own a gun here, I'd be packing without hesitation.

I guess I see both sides of this whole thing. My experience with war early on in life gave me an amazing and unclouded insight. When you're so young, you can interpret what you see either as being tinted with rose colored glasses, or just the pure unadulterated state of affairs, without the bullshit mitigating factors. I like to think the latter. The simple truth is that firearms and their purpose suck. In a perfect world they shouldn't exist, and we should all be trying to figure out ways to create a society in which people don't need to pack them. This 'don't infringe on my liberties, I'll shoot your ass' gung-ho shit has no place in a civilized society IMO. If the police force is inadequate, or there are reasons to feel reasonably doubtful about the safety of oneself or one's own, then yes, pack away. But in all honesty the right to bear arms is not ingrained into our personal, divine, set of freedoms and liberties.
 
This is a big issue here in Australia. It seems the current laws expect us to sit down and take it if our homes are invaded, or if we are attacked on the street. Self-defense is only applicable if we're armed with equal or less force than our assailant.

The 'castle' law is one of the most rational laws I've ever heard of. I see absolutely nothing wrong with using lethal force on somebody who has forced their way into your home and is willing on potentially inflicting harm. Hell I would even go one further and say if anybody were to enter your domain without your permission you should be allowed to assert lethal force (I'm sure you guys have places in the south that give that mentality a work-out).

I'm a pacifist at heart and hate the idea of general citizenry being armed with weapons solely designed to kill or maim other human beings. It just doesn't sit right with me on some fundamental level. HOWEVER, given that our respective societies are so fundamentally flawed, the need for adequate self defense will not be going away for a very long time. I'm a big believer in taking an eye for an eye, or even taking a torso for an eye. I will not instigate violence, but if it is instigated against me, it's no holds barred. From what I hear, citizens in the US are quite justified in carrying concealed firearms. I don't really have anything against you guys for it. I would do the same if I lived there. Christ, I'd be packing grenades and tear gas if I ever had to work a session up there (some Will Spector-esque musician motivation).

It's not necessarily the citizens' fault for such a sorry state of affairs. It's both part of the human condition and poor work on part of the government over the years to craft a society that won't chip away at itself.

I live in a suburb that borders the 'ghetto' definition. We have a predominant middle-eastern immigrant population. My house has been broken into a number of times, and as a result I've upped my insurance and rarely leave the house unattended. When some local terrorism plan arrests were enacted a few years ago, the news broadcasts were done from in front of the mosque that's on my street. If I had the right to own a gun here, I'd be packing without hesitation.

I guess I see both sides of this whole thing. My experience with war early on in life gave me an amazing and unclouded insight. When you're so young, you can interpret what you see either as being tinted with rose colored glasses, or just the pure unadulterated state of affairs, without the bullshit mitigating factors. I like to think the latter. The simple truth is that firearms and their purpose suck. In a perfect world they shouldn't exist, and we should all be trying to figure out ways to create a society in which people don't need to pack them. This 'don't infringe on my liberties, I'll shoot your ass' gung-ho shit has no place in a civilized society IMO. If the police force is inadequate, or there are reasons to feel reasonably doubtful about the safety of oneself or one's own, then yes, pack away. But in all honesty the right to bear arms is not ingrained into our personal, divine, set of freedoms and liberties.

I'm jumping back into the topic for a bit lol.

While I agree with you almost 100%, I do believe that certain anti-gun advocates DO infringe on my liberties as a gun owner. Yes, guns were designed to maim and kill, but they were pretty crucial in the forming of our country as it exists today, and most gun owners haven't lost sight of that.

I'm not of the, "don't infringe or I'll shoot your ass" mentality, but MANY gun laws (especially in the least friendly gun-owning state) of NJ can get quite ridiculous and are simply unnecessary. Also, the way that law enforcement are trained to handle gunowners needs to change as well. I shouldn't have to feel like a thief when i drive to the range with my rifle in the trunk of my car.

Listen, maybe a society without guns would be much more peaceful, but most American gun owners including myself see this as a right that they possess. Look at it this way, it has been considered a right for so long that to change that simple fact now would be ludicrous in my eyes.

I know some of you believe that our counstitution should be able to be reformed and tweaked, but most of us Americans don't. We hold it very sacred and hope that our world leaders can abide by it and that our individual rights (as stated) aren't trampled on.

Who knows what this country would be like if we never used guns?

Let me put it this way. While some of you wish guns never existed, I can repsect that. I'm glad that they do. Not only for my protection, but mainly for sport.

I think some of you would be surprised to see how most peaceful and non-threatening shooting enthusiasts enjoy their time at the range safely. I go to a beautiful outdoor range on watershed property that is gigantic and hosts outdoor events all the time. Families come out, spend quality time together, and shooters enjoy eachother's company.

I know we will probably go back and forth about this many times, but I'm just trying to paint a different picture of Americans than most Euros seem to have of us.

Take care,

-Joe
 
I've got nothing against sport shooting (provided we aren't using 'sport shooting' as a euphemism for 'hunting').

However, if that were the only factor at play, then I wouldn't see the need to possess a firearm whatsoever. I would not see a reason to keep it in one's home, nor feed it with live ammunition. The firearms could be kept and issued at the range, with rubber bullets, or various non-lethal alternatives. But given that sport shooting *isn't* the only factor, I do see the reason.

You can't really go down the 'but I just like to shoot a few rounds at the range' argument to justify gun ownership. It simply isn't enough. The fact that your neighbourhood is unsafe and you rightly feel threatened within your own home, *that* may entitle you to own a gun. Using one purely for a hobby does not, IMO. If it's only to be used at the range, then it can be kept at the range. Military aircraft are a big hobby of mine. I have little plastic models of them. The US government isn't going to let me keep an F-22 in my backyard, though.

I'm just trying to explain this in the best way I know how. In my opinion, there are certain conditions that need to be met to entitle you to keep a firearm at your residence. Hobbyism *does not*. The valid and real threat of crime *does*. Mistrust of the government *does*. Though I would like to think the western world is a place where we can reform peacefully via our democratic institutions. Let's also keep in mind that your .45 is not going to stop an Abrams flattening your house. I truly hope none of you ever have to see a militia taking on an armed military force in open warfare, much less be a part of one.

So once again, I don't think the gun range argument really holds any water regarding gun ownership. I respect it as a hobby, but simply don't see the need for you to store the firearm at your residence, alongside live ammunition - provided hobbyism is your only reason for possessing it. You need something more substantial.
 
I've got nothing against sport shooting (provided we aren't using 'sport shooting' as a euphemism for 'hunting').

However, if that were the only factor at play, then I wouldn't see the need to possess a firearm whatsoever. I would not see a reason to keep it in one's home, nor feed it with live ammunition. The firearms could be kept and issued at the range, with rubber bullets, or various non-lethal alternatives. But given that sport shooting *isn't* the only factor, I do see the reason.

You can't really go down the 'but I just like to shoot a few rounds at the range' argument to justify gun ownership. It simply isn't enough. The fact that your neighbourhood is unsafe and you rightly feel threatened within your own home, *that* may entitle you to own a gun. Using one purely for a hobby does not, IMO. If it's only to be used at the range, then it can be kept at the range. Military aircraft are a big hobby of mine. I have little plastic models of them. The US government isn't going to let me keep an F-22 in my backyard, though.

I'm just trying to explain this in the best way I know how. In my opinion, there are certain conditions that need to be met to entitle you to keep a firearm at your residence. Hobbyism *does not*. The valid and real threat of crime *does*. Mistrust of the government *does*. Though I would like to think the western world is a place where we can reform peacefully via our democratic institutions. Let's also keep in mind that your .45 is not going to stop an Abrams flattening your house. I truly hope none of you ever have to see a militia taking on an armed military force in open warfare, much less be a part of one.

So once again, I don't think the gun range argument really holds any water regarding gun ownership. I respect it as a hobby, but simply don't see the need for you to store the firearm at your residence, alongside live ammunition - provided hobbyism is your only reason for possessing it. You need something more substantial.

Well, to be 100% honest I disagree. I respect your right to believe that owning one simply for sport shouldn't be an option and it shouldn't be in my home, but I completely disagree.

I've explained my reasons for why I believe the way I do, and my local and federal laws allow me to own a firearm which can be used for sport, even if the document that was originally drafted that allows me to do so was referring to protecting oneself and one's family. My local and federal laws allow me to go to my range and shoot, for fun and to store my firearm in my home. I'm grateful to have that option.

Also, like I said earlier in the thread, I have no doubt that my rifle wouldn't be any match for an Abrams or a fighter jet. I'm not of that mentality, I'm not an idiot lol.

To illustrate my views as simple as possible, for the final time: I own a gun because I enjoy shooting it at my range, for protection if I am ever put in the unlikely and unfortunate spot to fend off a violent attack, and I have NO problems with someone owning one in their home merely for sport alone. I don't personally believe I need more substanital reasons for owning one, even if you do.

It's clear we disagree fundamentally, so I'm gonna end it there.

No hard feelings...:)

-Joe