PDA

View Full Version : Gun Laws



Dria El
June 9th, 2001, 06:26 PM
I have no idea if this is real (I didn't even attempt to check it out) but I got it in an email and thought it was cute and so I thought I'd share...

Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you gotta love this!!!!

I was listening to the radio the other day, and I heard one of the all-time best comeback lines in my life. Note: This is an exact replication of National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster, and US Army General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?"

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting."

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?"

GENERAL REINWALD: "I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range."

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?"

GENERAL REINWALD: "I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm. "

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "But you're equipping them to become violent killers."

GENERAL REINWALD: "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you? "

The radio went silent and the interview ended. And all I could think was, "Go Army!"

Earth Walker
June 9th, 2001, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Dria El

I have no idea if this is real (I didn't even attempt to check it out) but I got it in an email and thought it was cute and so I thought I'd share...

Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you gotta love this!!!!

I was listening to the radio the other day, and I heard one of the all-time best comeback lines in my life. Note: This is an exact replication of National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster, and US Army General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?"

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting."

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?"

GENERAL REINWALD: "I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range."

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?"

GENERAL REINWALD: "I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm. "

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "But you're equipping them to become violent killers."

GENERAL REINWALD: "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you? "

The radio went silent and the interview ended. And all I could think was, "Go Army!"


GENERAL REINWALD: "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?"

Typical Patriarchal Mindset.:rolleyes:

Wyrdsister
June 11th, 2001, 04:02 PM
Regardless of how I feel about guns and gun laws, I think that response from the General is horridly sexist and ignorant. I highly doubt that if the interviewer was male the General would have made the same comment.

Call me a hard-core feminist (a badge which I would proudly wear ;)), but I find his remark more of a personal attack on the interviewer than a witty point-making statement. Surely, if he was indeed an intelligent, well-versed person, he could have come up with a retort that wasn't based on his verbal opponent's sex organs.

</rant>

Wyrdsister

eaglewolf
June 12th, 2001, 02:51 AM
The Army equiped me to become a violent killer, but I'm not...


Originally posted by Wyrdsister
Surely, if he was indeed an intelligent, well-versed person, he could have come up with a retort that wasn't based on his verbal opponent's sex organs.

Nah, he/she's too hardcore for that... hardcore what, I couldn't say for sure.

:p

~ew

Greenthumb
June 12th, 2001, 09:21 AM
Ouch!!!
The General could have pulled ahead rounding the bend,, but then slams into the wall with being too pollitically(?) incorrect...subtract 500 pts. from his score.


I remember when it was common that little boys played with toy guns, pretended to be G.I. Joe etc.... It was just something that most boys(some girls) did. I think that for the most part as the children got older they understood that these were games of "pretend" & didn't think of carrying them into the "real world". Not sure why. But at any rate, the world is a different place now, and I think if we are going to let our children be exposed to weapons-pretend or not- than we do need to also make sure that they KNOW the difference between fantasy & reality with them.
If the parents of the scouts knew the agenda of the day to the base(I would know) & let their child attend- than I would think that it would be their responsibility to follow up with their child on appropriate ethical issues. Why would one think that weaponry would not be part of a military establishment? That would be like going to a candy factory & only seeing the wrappers.

peace
greenthumb

Daniel
June 12th, 2001, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Wyrdsister
Regardless of how I feel about guns and gun laws, I think that response from the General is horridly sexist and ignorant. I highly doubt that if the interviewer was male the General would have made the same comment.
The General did not specify that the interviewer was properly equipped for prostitution by virtue of her gender. Additionally, it would seem that your conclusion about how he might've treated a male interviewer appears to be born of a stereotype regarding the "typical" behavior and attitudes of military men, much less men in General.

I find this reaction very interesting, coming from someone who who finds sexism offensive.



Surely, if he was indeed an intelligent, well-versed person, he could have come up with a retort that wasn't based on his verbal opponent's sex organs.
Surely, if she was indeed an intelligent, well-versed person, she could have come up with a line of questioning that was not fueled by the latest media-driven, irrational fear -- a fear that a child trained to use a gun becomes a killing machine. Were this the case, I would not have survived Boy Scout camp many years ago.

Believe it or not, you really can kill something larger than a gnat with a .22 bolt-action rifle.



To explore a different angle: If teaching children to shoot is a terribly dangerous, irresponsible activity, why is it not similarly irresponsible to teach children about sex without stressing abstinence?

Not that I have a problem with educating children about sex, you understand. My problem, at that age, was never with the lecture but the absence of a lab section.

Greenthumb
June 12th, 2001, 11:24 AM
After looking at the instant replay, race officials have retracted the 500 pt penalty to the General, and now awarded both "racers" with a deduction of 100 pts each for "bad form". This is a slick slick race track folks.

greenthumb

gunner
June 18th, 2001, 12:53 AM
i've seen this one before and it's turned up at an urban legends site as "never happened" which i'd tend to believe. you don't last long enough to wear stars by pissing off the press and the politicians the press complains to.

"I think if we are going to let our children be exposed to weapons-pretend or not- then we do need to also make sure that they KNOW the difference between fantasy & reality with them."

you do, by the way, make a very good point there

Greenthumb
June 18th, 2001, 12:58 AM
Well you just took all the fun out of this topic. Thanks Gunner.

greenthumb

gunner
June 18th, 2001, 01:12 AM
sorry 'bout that greenthumb, i got a chuckle out of it when first i heard it too but i've pulled time in service and there are things you don't do, one of them is screwing with the media, they can kill a career in a heartbeat and enjoy doing it.

Greenthumb
June 18th, 2001, 01:23 AM
I had thought about it(really really briefly), but then thought eh,,, he's a general.They're trained to have no fear.

O.K., I lied. I didn't think about it at all. I'm sure you're right about the media angle. Thanks for the cue.

peace
greenthumb

Rick
June 18th, 2001, 11:24 AM
...Um, when is this thread gonna get around to gun laws?

Dria El
June 18th, 2001, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Rick
...Um, when is this thread gonna get around to gun laws?

I'm all for it!

Dria El
June 18th, 2001, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Dria El


I'm all for it!



That would be the guns, not the laws!

Greenthumb
June 18th, 2001, 01:13 PM
Cool. I'm ready for that too.


peace
greenthumb

Armitage
June 18th, 2001, 02:16 PM
I think training kids *isn't* a bad idea...They will be taught respect for life and for weapons at an early age, something that might undermine the influence of the casual use of guns on tv. I don't really blame television for us needing gun laws, but it *is* a very influential form of media and a lot of people, for some reason, take it waaay to seriously.
Kids should be taught respect for life and others from very young, so it is almost instinctive. The problems I see are not in gun laws but in how our country raises kids. There isn't much time spent teaching kids a good set of morals or to care for others.

Greenthumb
June 18th, 2001, 02:51 PM
Yes, and I am sort of leaning toward the necessity of NEEDING gun laws that do more than take up space on the paper their written on.
I'm a firm beleiver in having the right to bear arms. I think that hunters & sportspersons should be able to continue to persue their interests. But, there are WAY too many guns on the streets and that has absolutely put us into a crisis situation. Therefore I think we need to enforce the laws we have, make it REALLY difficult to legally attain weapons that are not commonly used for sports purposes, and continue the "buy back" type programs I've seen around.
Personally, I would really like to start seeing a campaign similiar to the "Truth" campaign being used toward tobacco, aimed at the misuse of guns.
My mom in law also has a little ditty posted in her home that reads;
Have I taught my children to respect anything other than themselves? Do they value my life as much as their own? Do they understand this is the only world we have?
I think that says it all.

peace
greenthumb

gunner
June 18th, 2001, 10:04 PM
i'm afraid this is one of my "hot buttons" but i'll try not to let it get to be a rant, to start i'm hardly "neutral" on the subject, i've carried a gun for a living most of my adult life one way and another and i've lived and worked in places where "gun laws" varied from non existent to a summary death penalty for mere posession of a gun. from what i've seen basically people, gun owners, who are willing to go through the legal hurdles to own and/or carry a gun legally are not the problem. nor are the guns they buy in legal sales channels, the people you want to fear having guns are the predators in our society and they will arm themselves regardless of any laws we might pass nor does banning all guns work, currently britian and australia are turning into gun runners heavens as the criminal and hoodlum element start carrying guns as almost a "fashion statement" (a descriptive statement heard from british police sources) nor are the guns being smuggled into england and australia the common pistols and revolvers that some would like to see banned, they're getting full automatic military class arms. in contrast here where we are told the "guns are a problem" the crime rates have been dropping for some years and the sharpest drops are seen in states where law abiding citizens are permitted to choose to be armed (though most in even these states may not choose to go armed, the perception by potential criminals that there is a good chance of running into an armed citizen is a damper on intentions) interestingly the places in the u.s. with the highest armed crime rates are the cities with the strictest gun bans, new york and los angeles as cases in point and most of that crime is centered around drugs. that, i think will do for starters as discussion points.

Greenthumb
June 18th, 2001, 10:33 PM
So you don't think we should have gun laws?

gunner
June 18th, 2001, 11:23 PM
yes, we should have some gun laws, most of which already exist but get "plea bargained" away in the courts, laws against posession of firearms by convicted felons, laws barring posession by persons adjudged clinically insane. laws adding punishment for use of a gun in a crime or for posessing a gun while committing a crime. against posessing a gun under the influence of alcohol and certain "psycho-active drugs". basically, laws punishing misuse of guns just as there are laws punishing misuse of a car. on the other side of the coin i would like to see it made law that any law-abiding citizen could choose to apply for a permit to carry and if that person had no criminal record/history of violence "the authorities" would be required to issue the permit. (n.b.: a history of "domestic violence" would be a disqualifier and grounds for removing any firearms already owned) there are 33 states where such laws are now in effect, in almost every case when those laws were in debate the gun control advocates raised the specter of "dodge city" and "blood running in the gutters". and in every case that has not come to pass. instead as noted in my previous post the crime rates actually fall. greenthumb and armitage both have good ideas,

"Have I taught my children to respect anything other than themselves? Do they value my life as much as their own? Do they understand this is the only world we have?
I think that says it all."

that is one key, one that seems to have gotten lost over the last some years and we desperately need to begin teaching it again. both at home and in our schools. self respect and respect for others. (self esteem is something else entirely, genghis khan and hitler had bags of that but no respect for other's lives).
i'd also teach basic firearms safety in the schools, beginning at the lowest age level with "don't touch, leave the area, tell an adult" up to a safety course at high school level much like "driver ed." is taught now, with a police officer as a teacher and graphic on range demonstrations of a bullet's effect (i use a cantalope for that demo and put a hi-speed hollow point through it, messy and convincing.) i realise these are not "perfect" solutions but they are worth a thought. certainly the bans do not seem to work even at the most draconian levels, and do we want to lose even more of our rights to "block sweeps" and house to house searches for "contraband guns" a notion seriously proposed by some "gun control" types. we could also discuss the racist and elitest aspects of "gun control" but this is a long post already.

EasternPriest
June 19th, 2001, 02:06 AM
just a few thoughts........


Urban legend or not, nowhere in the post does it say that the General was a male. In the Army, that rank would be called General regardless of gender. Interesting how we all seem to make that assumption?

Is the General stereotypical, or are we?

Perhaps the general's question was uncalled for.....

But, so was the interviewers question..........

Dria El
June 19th, 2001, 02:28 AM
I guess I just don't understand the big deal about guns. My dad always had a gun. He was always in some form or another involved in law enforcement. If we asked, he had no problem showing us the gun. We checked it out, held it, etc. and lost interest. We knew it was there but it didn't consume our thoughts. Sure, we knew if we touched it without permission we'd get our @$$ kicked but that wasn't the reason we didn't 'go after it'. It just wasn't a big deal.

I wholeheartedly agree with gunner. We (for the most part) have plenty of laws. And just like sex and drugs, I think education is the answer.

'If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them' rings true to me.

Daniel
June 19th, 2001, 05:01 AM
I have to go with Dria El on this, in terms of experience. I come from large family that includes representatives from the three traditionally inherited professions: teaching, military service, and law enforcement. My father, in addition to holding a lifetime membership in the NRA and nursing a small but respectable collection, never bothered to lock up his weapons.

The reason was simple, and twofold. First of all, he couldn't make use of them in a pinch if he locked them up, and since we live in the middle of nowhere depending on a rural police response time of (up to) 20 minutes is like bending over and grabbing your ankles. Secondly, the instant any of my siblings or I so much as pointed a water gun at one another (when were much younger, mind you), swift and severe punishment followed as if it were a law of physics. It wasn't until we were old enough to handle a firearm responsibly that we could look crosseyed at his service Ruger while he cleaned it without drawing a look of death.

The man was not a tyrant about it, but there was no doubt in our minds: he was a veritable force of nature when it came to the safe use of a gun of any sort, and we learned that lesson well.

At least, that's what I tell my therapist.

Greenthumb
June 19th, 2001, 08:37 AM
Eastern Priest, thump on the head acknowledged- I did assume the general was male. I'm guilty, guilty, guilty.
Thank you for pointing that out.

Trying to get over the shame,
greenthumb

gunner
June 21st, 2001, 04:41 AM
"I'm guilty, guilty, guilty."

nihil magna culpa greenthumb, we all mess up now and again.

gunner
June 21st, 2001, 04:52 AM
"the instant any of my siblings or I so much as pointed a water gun at one another (when were much younger, mind you), swift and severe punishment followed as if it were a law of physics."

my kids would say your father sounded just like me. i never allowed "toy guns" because i didn't want them getting in the habit of pointing anything that "looked like a gun" at people because they were going to grow up to have real guns that forgive no mistakes, at age 14 my son threw one of his "friends" out of the house for touching his .22 without permission. i backed him up completely. they're both adults now and responsible gun owners.

Daniel
June 21st, 2001, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by gunner
... at age 14 my son threw one of his "friends" out of the house for touching his .22 without permission.


Very, very smart. :cool:

Rick
June 21st, 2001, 09:52 AM
... I always showed my children where the guns were kept, taught them proper "gun ettiquette" & usage. When the mystery was removed, so was the danger (at least in our home). Both my older son & daughter can hit most anything within the range of their rifle or shotgun (just wish we could get away to hunt more. Yes, I eat whatever I shoot, except home invaders. Exceptions to that rule could be made on a case-by-case basis :D ). The 7 yr. old has shown no interest in firearms yet (& if he doesn't, that's OK, too).

SeekerSandy
June 21st, 2001, 11:08 AM
Daniel, Rick and Gunner are good defenders of our Second Amendment rights. Very well put. Then Gunner has to come up with support of gun laws which restrict the rights of 'domestic violence' criminals. I agree that no violent person should possess a firearm, or a knife or axe or pointed stick. Unfortunately, I personally know several people who have been nailed with such labels, including my own son. They were, and are, no more violent than your pet goldfish. I don't want to get off on the sexism angle here but let me tell you; at least in my state, all it takes is an accusation for the stigma to be applied - for life. There is no justice when it comes to such charges.
Agreed, there are wife abusers, husband abusers, kid abusers and pet abusers. Before anyone is stripped of their rights, I want to know for a fact that the conviction is legitimate.
Back to the other soap box. My kids were trained in firearms safety before they were old enuff to handle them, they never had toy weapons, always taught that guns are very real and very deadly. My daughter is in Europe in the Navy, like me, I expect to see her sniper-qualified shortly.
My father and step-mother live in the People's Republic of California and hate weapons, even put a big sticker on their front window proclaiming to all that their house is weapon-free. They have lost count of the number of burglaries there......
Vermont has a simple system, anyone not convicted of a felony may carry a concealed weapon, without any permitting required. Their crime rate is among the lowest in the U S of A.
The Second Amendment guarantees our First Amendment rights! It wasn't written to allow us to hunt.

gunner
June 21st, 2001, 02:58 PM
"Vermont has a simple system, anyone not convicted of a felony may carry a concealed weapon, without any permitting required. Their crime rate is among the lowest in the U S of A."

both of these statements are true, though you cannot carry a loaded rifle or shotgun in a motor vehicle here, this is a fish and game law, intended to deal with illegal "deer jacking" at night and/or out of season and handguns are exempt as "defensive weapons". (by the way, that law did come in handy, some years back the klan came up here recruiting, in most places they get around pistol permit laws by carrying rifles and shotguns to intimidate opposition. here they were caught in violation of the "loaded rifle or shotgun in a vehicle" law and had the guns confiscated and were fined. they crawled back under their rocks with a strong feeling they were/are not welcome in vermont.) our vermont cops do find ways of legally dealing with the goblins while leaving the law-abiding free to enjoy our lives without fear.

gunner
June 21st, 2001, 03:12 PM
you're referring to the "lautenberg domestic violence act", i agree with you that is bad law written as broadly as possible and too it's an "ex post facto" law, reaching back to punish acts committed previous to the laws existence. as well there is no reasonable standard of proof required, no provision for judicial review or appeal and mere allegation is sufficent "proof" of "offense". it is already in court, (search "emerson case" in texas) and the state has already lost "round one"). more later this evening.

SeekerSandy
June 21st, 2001, 03:40 PM
I would love to have seen that, Gunner. What really gets those guys running is when they go trolling through a Black or Latino neighborhood and discover the inhabitants to all be armed. They get real considerate and respectful!
Bottom line in all this, those who pimp for gun control will have no right to complain when they lose their other rights.

Mythrel
July 6th, 2001, 07:25 PM
I was taught at a young age how to handle a gun, how to take care of a gun, how to shoot a gun and hit what I shoot, and most importantly how to be safe with a gun. In how to be safe with a gun it meant that I didn't touch one without supervision and it meant I never aimed it at a person. I truly believe in my second amendment rights.

SeekerSandy
July 6th, 2001, 08:29 PM
Well said, Mythrel. I wish that all Americans would learn how to use a weapon and weapon safety, even those who dislike them. Most importantly, whether or not a person likes firearms, they should understand why the Second Amendment was written and why we must keep it forever.
My wife served two hitches in the army and never fired a gun. Her ex husband wouldn't let her shoot one. Now she loves to shoot and gained a greater respect for firearms.

gunner
July 6th, 2001, 11:30 PM
i suppose this is a good place to let off a bit of steam on this subject. i've just given my son an old fashioned, regulation marine issue arse chewing. my son in law was about to cross the river into new hampshire to go shopping at "wallyworld" so he asked my son to take his pistol and drop it off here for safe keeping. instead my son goes honking off himself over to keene n.h. with his girlfriend, with the pistol in the glove box and no n.h. pistol permit. all it would have taken was a traffic stop and i'd have been trying to make bail for him on an "illegal gun" charge and my son in law, scott's, $500.00 new pistol would have been gone as "contrabrand". my son was lucky, that didn't happen but this was as incredibly stupid a move as i've seen in a long time. what ever we may think of these "gun laws" they are the law until and unless we get them changed, and we that have and choose to carry guns need to be thinking what we do every minute. no "mistakes" allowed because none will be "forgiven".

Mythrel
July 7th, 2001, 03:32 AM
Wow, I feel for ya on that one Gunner. I myself own 2 firearms. A 12 gauge double barrel shotgun and a 22 caliber rifle. I leave them at my parent's house due to the fact that I am currently in the military and don't want to have to worry about getting stupid licenses just to transport them across state lines. I know exactly what you are talking about.

SeekerSandy I am glad someone knows what it means to have the 2nd amendment laws. I like the fact that the government can't make me surrender my weapons because they feel like it. Granted I am in the military and very patriotic but I don't like it when people try to take away rights. I won't even get started on my issues with the 1st amendment rights that I have lost by joining the military or the fact that convicted spies against our nation get to go to a county club prison instead of being executed for treason like they should be!!! Yes I am getting a little psycho right now. I will sign off...
more to come..........muhahahaha

Mythrel

gunner
July 7th, 2001, 04:14 AM
what outfit mythrel?, lesee, colorado springs? usaf?

Draedon
July 7th, 2001, 09:15 AM
I hate sexism almost as much as I hate feminism. For **** sake, you are who you are, and no one is 100% male or female. Its pathetic enough limiting yourself to dichotic thinking, but making judgements (positive or negative) based on those stereotypes is truly pathetic.

Feminists are women who can't handle men - they are too weak.
Sexists are men who can't handle women - they are too weak.

We base gender on physical appearance, ie male body = man, female body = woman. However a person has more than one gender:

Body: Can be anything from 100% male (through 50/50) to 100% female in terms of build and muscle definition, etc. Which are you? One or the other or a combination?

Gender: Can be anything from 100% male (through 50/50) to 100% female in terms of having penis or vagina, etc - at birth, surgery is performed on 1 in 10 babies to make clear distinctions. Which were you? One or the other or a combination?

Sexuality: Can be anything from 100% male (through 50/50) to 100% female in terms of preferring men or women in bed, etc. Which are you? One or the other or a combination?

Brain: Can be anything from 100% male (through 50/50) to 100% female in terms of cognitive functions, etc. - eg male brains navigate using a visualised map, female brains navigate using landmarks and directions (ie a route). Which are you? One or the other or a combination?

Need I go on?

SeekerSandy
July 7th, 2001, 09:43 AM
What was that all about, Draedon? Are firearms phallic?

Gunner, ain't it a shame that you need "papers" to travel with protection in our 'free' nation?
I prefer jail time to death and travel with at least one of mine, even when crossing into the Peoples Republic of California. Too many nutsos out there to travel unarmed. Save our skins a few months ago!
Good question, Gunner--Air Force, Mythrel?
My step son just left the army after one hitch. Had one hell of a time registering his religious affiliation as Wiccan. Then our best friend's son is in Germany (army) and they even have a Wiccan priestess as chaplain.
Go figure.
My daughter is Navy, based in Sicily and doesn't know what she can get away with.

Draedon
July 7th, 2001, 09:54 AM
Actually, if you think about it, yes, firearms are phallic. They are extremely phallic. However, I was responding to the original post that began the thread, in which the complaint is about sexism, not firearms. The thread has moved onto the subject of firearms for no adequately explored reason, presumably because of the impact upon people's trains of thought of the thread subject.

Mythrel
July 7th, 2001, 01:32 PM
Yep I am in the Air Force...been in way too long...hehehe
Currently stationed at Schriever AFB...I fly Global Positioning Satellites(GPS)...
Mythrel

mol
July 7th, 2001, 01:46 PM
MODERATOR - MOL MODE

Please watch the language you are using in this and other forums here. This is a family site. They can learn that kind of thing from their parents. NOT US.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

gunner
July 21st, 2001, 02:23 AM
sorry to take so long answering, my late younger brother was a lifer in the air force first with sac then finishing as an atc at mcguire afb. among the scenic places uncle sam sent him was thule afb, it wasn't high on his list of favorite places. unfortunately he retired after 28 years and died of a brain tumour 2 years later.

SeekerSandy
July 21st, 2001, 03:04 PM
Ain't it the pits, working hard for years for a decent retirement and not living long enuff to enjoy it? I have had that happen to more friends of mine.
I guess it goes to show us that we should make the most out of each and every day.

gunner
July 22nd, 2001, 12:21 AM
you got that right sandy, i don't know how long i've got left (i am healthy) but i plan to enjoy it while it lasts

Illuminatus
July 26th, 2001, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Draedon
I hate sexism almost as much as I hate feminism. For **** sake, you are who you are, and no one is 100% male or female. Its pathetic enough limiting yourself to dichotic thinking, but making judgements (positive or negative) based on those stereotypes is truly pathetic.

Feminists are women who can't handle men - they are too weak.
Sexists are men who can't handle women - they are too weak.

We base gender on physical appearance, ie male body = man, female body = woman. However a person has more than one gender:

Body: Can be anything from 100% male (through 50/50) to 100% female in terms of build and muscle definition, etc. Which are you? One or the other or a combination?

Gender: Can be anything from 100% male (through 50/50) to 100% female in terms of having penis or vagina, etc - at birth, surgery is performed on 1 in 10 babies to make clear distinctions. Which were you? One or the other or a combination?

Sexuality: Can be anything from 100% male (through 50/50) to 100% female in terms of preferring men or women in bed, etc. Which are you? One or the other or a combination?

Brain: Can be anything from 100% male (through 50/50) to 100% female in terms of cognitive functions, etc. - eg male brains navigate using a visualised map, female brains navigate using landmarks and directions (ie a route). Which are you? One or the other or a combination?

Need I go on?

Ooooh gotta contest this one. Let's see my stats:

Body: 100% Male. (I know two of you at least have seen it, they will attest there is nothing female about my form)
Gender: 100% Male. (surgery performed on 1 in 10 babies? c'mon, do you have a source for that, or are you just blatantly making stuff up? male circumcision doesn't count. Oh yeah, you just said nobody is totally male, n/m) Besides, this one is really more about a chromosome that's either one shape or another.
Sexuality: 100% Male
Brain: 100% Male

Look I'm 100% a guy, no gender confusion here. Just because you're screwed up, don't assume everyone else is.

Flame away!

Ken

gunner
July 26th, 2001, 06:51 PM
Illuminatus , the party who posted that is "no longer with us", he brought an arrogant "know it all" attitude with him and rather quickly wore out his welcome and was "invited to the road" when he attempted to lay a curse on some of our folk. (did he think he was the only one able to read latin?) so there's no one there to answer you and "flames" here are considered bad manners in any case. reasonable and courteous discussion is, however, strongly encouraged and wanted.

EasternPriest
July 27th, 2001, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by gunner
Illuminatus , the party who posted that is "no longer with us", he brought an arrogant "know it all" attitude with him and rather quickly wore out his welcome and was "invited to the road" when he attempted to lay a curse on some of our folk. (did he think he was the only one able to read latin?) so there's no one there to answer you and "flames" here are considered bad manners in any case. reasonable and courteous discussion is, however, strongly encouraged and wanted.

here here!!

Happydog
July 27th, 2001, 12:37 PM
Personally I don't like guns at all. I have no interest in them and I avoid them. I also get creeped out by people who own guns (sorry, but it's true) and I tend to avoid those kinds of people. I just don't think, personally, that anyone who's not a policeman or soldier really needs to own a gun in a civilized society.

There are just too many instances of folks who own a lot of guns freaking out, and going into a restaurant and just starting to shoot. You always find out they were "gun collectors."

That being said, the Constitution guarantees one's right to own a gun, and that's that. No matter how bad it creeps me out, people have the right to own guns.

My problem is with folks who have the desire to own assault weapons, machine guns, and the kind of stuff that basically would, to me, rank as military equipment - weapons of mass destruction.

I think there should be some kind of law specifying what kinds of guns citizens can own, and that law should be enforced. I don't care if Joe Blow down the street has 42 Colt revolvers and 17 shotguns, but when it comes to things like M-16s and machine guns, sorry, I don't think you need one of those unless you are in the Armed Forces or the police.

I somehow seriously doubt anybody will be using a machine gun to fire off a few dozen rounds to scare the crows out of the cornfield. The desire to own something like that leads me to wonder *why* someone would want to own a machine gun, and *what* they would use it for. And I think those are valid, legitimate questions.

SeekerSandy
July 29th, 2001, 03:20 PM
Happydog, the reason you have your rights to these beliefs is because we have an armed citizenry. The only way to retain these rights is for us to be as well armed as our government, this includes your 'weapons of mass destruction.'
The founding fathers didn't write the 2nd Amendment so that we could hunt ducks or old cans.
Appreciate your views muchly, even the misguided ones.:p

BrightStar
July 30th, 2001, 02:56 AM
Interesting.
We can have weapons of mass destruction?I've sometimes thought that the idea of an armed citizenry to counteract tyranny might reach this far.
If it does,should I be allowed a bazooka?A tank?A fighter jet?An Inter Continental Ballistic Missile?Just a nuke in a briefcase?
Something to think about.
Peace and Love
BrightStar

Happydog
July 30th, 2001, 11:55 AM
//Happydog, the reason you have your rights to these beliefs is because we have an armed citizenry. //

Respectfully, no. The reason I have the right to these beliefs is because, according to the Constitution, I have an INALIENABLE RIGHT to those beliefs. Having an armed citizenry does nothing but terrify people. We have an INALIENABLE RIGHT to freedom. We are born with it. It has nothing to do with whether Joe Bob Tobaccospitter down the street has an M-16.

The government of the United States is a democracy, which means that the citizens have agreed to invest power in the government, with the provision that the government is under the citizens' control; that is, the powers that be, can be voted in or out of office.

The reason for the Second Amendment was twofold. On the one hand, the founding fathers did want to make sure that their citizens could resist invasion, but at the time it was written the United States was a very new country and was constantly in danger of being invaded and retaken by Britain, as happened in the War of 1812. Since there was no U.S. Army as we know it now, having an armed citizenry was necessary to defend the country at a moment's notice.

The other reason for the 2nd Amendment was that many families survived through hunting, and depriving a man of his gun was depriving him of his livelihood.

Now, we have an organized United States Armed Forces. Anyone who tried to invade us would have to deal with them first. Anyone who could invade this country, and who would be powerful enough to destroy the US Armed Forces, would wipe out an "armed citizenry" without blinking an eye. Therefore, having an "armed citizenry" is of no help in protecting the security of the United States. "Red Dawn" was a cute little fantasy but real life would be very, very different.

The only reason for any citizen to have weapons of mass destruction would be if that citizen essentially did not trust the government, or more accurately, did not believe in the viability of the democratic system of government. That would mean that this person would be, essentially, anti-democratic; that is, he would believe that his will superseded that of the will of the people of the United States and their duly elected government.

Someone who arms himself with weapons of mass destruction is effectively stating that he does not consider himself a citizen of the country in which he resides, because he does not consider participation in a democratic government to be adequate protection of his human rights. They are also stating by implication that they are willing to use these weapons of mass destruction against anyone they feel deserves this treatment, which is essentially usurping that power from that branch of the government that the people of the United States have specifically designated should have that power, i.e. the United States Armed Forces.

If someone believes the United States is in enough danger to where they need to have access to weapons of mass destruction, why not join the U.S. Armed Forces then, or attempt to help them in some way? If the country needs help, then join up; they'll happily train anybody to use weapons of mass destruction.

But the "armed citizens" who feel the need to own weapons of mass destruction aren't interested in doing that. What they want is to own weapons of mass destruction, not to protect the country, but to protect themselves. But since ownership of a weapon of mass destruction in our society ensures that you have more firepower than anybody outside of the police or the military, just exactly what is that person asserting by having a weapon of mass destruction? Are they protecting themselves from their next door neighbors, who are most likely unarmed, or at best maybe have a shotgun or small caliber pistol in the house? Or are they, by asserting their "right" to have a weapon of mass destruction, imposing the values of a feudal society on their neighbors and asserting that they have the right to essentially be the most dangerous person on the block? In other words, it's a form of bullying, and it implies that the person owning the weapon of mass destruction does not respect the duly elected government of the United States.

Mistrust and dislike of the government is quite common these days, but the democratic system of government is the most workable and the most fair system in the world. I certainly would not trust the kind of people who run the NRA to guarantee my personal freedoms.

The answer that some people give then is, "OK, arm yourself! That way you can protect yourself against them!" No, that way you BECOME them. It ends up being little well-armed fiefdoms facing off against each other, with an explosion likely to happen any moment, and government degenerates into nothing. The country would become a mass of little kingdoms with no centralized method of communicating, and no guarantee of democracy or any personal rights outside of that enforced by the barrel of a gun.

To me that would be a nightmare. I believe in the Constitution. I do not believe that the Constitution is meant to be interpreted the way the NRA and the far right wing survivalists have interpreted it, and I believe that a lot of these people do not really believe in democracy or in the United States. That's why I'm afraid of them. And that's why I oppose them. And that's why I must respectfully disagree with you.

thefluiddruid
July 30th, 2001, 09:56 PM
QUOTE] Respectfully, no. The reason I have the right to these beliefs is because, according to the Constitution, I have an INALIENABLE RIGHT to those beliefs. [/QUOTE]

FYI It is people like me who have spent years of their lives training with and using guns to secure those freedoms.



Having an armed citizenry does nothing but terrify people. We have an INALIENABLE RIGHT to freedom. We are born with it. It has nothing to do with whether Joe Bob Tobaccospitter down the street has an M-16.

We have these rights because the constitution says we do.
In reality there are no inalienable rights, just ask anyone in Cuba.



The government of the United States is a democracy, which means that the citizens have agreed to invest power in the government, with the provision that the government is under the citizens' control; that is, the powers that be, can be voted in or out of office.

I can't believe that you even said this after Bushes "election".



The reason for the Second Amendment was twofold. On the one hand, the founding fathers did want to make sure that their citizens could resist invasion, but at the time it was written the United States was a very new country and was constantly in danger of being invaded and retaken by Britain, as happened in the War of 1812. Since there was no U.S. Army as we know it now, having an armed citizenry was necessary to defend the country at a moment's notice.

Have you ever read the Federalist Papers??
They were written by the founding fathers, and say totally the opposite of what you are saying.
The right to own firearms wasn't just to defend against foreign enemies, but also to allow the people to defend themselves against a potentially corrupt government, and criminals.
IE Enemies foreign and domestic.



The only reason for any citizen to have weapons of mass destruction would be if that citizen essentially did not trust the government, or more accurately, did not believe in the viability of the democratic system of government. That would mean that this person would be, essentially, anti-democratic; that is, he would believe that his will superseded that of the will of the people of the United States and their duly elected government.

Once again I refer you to the last "election".
The people didn't elect Bush, the folks counting the votes did.
Also I would like to point out that this is not a democratic government.
We do not elect our president, instead our votes recommend who the electoral college should vote for. But there is no law saying that the electoral college must vote that way.



If someone believes the United States is in enough danger to where they need to have access to weapons of mass destruction, why not join the U.S. Armed Forces then, or attempt to help them in some way? If the country needs help, then join up; they'll happily train anybody to use weapons of mass destruction.

Unless you admit to being gay, or are overweight, or many other factors under which they can and will reject you.



But the "armed citizens" who feel the need to own weapons of mass destruction aren't interested in doing that. What they want is to own weapons of mass destruction, not to protect the country, but to protect themselves.

First of all a M16 is not a weapon of mass destruction.
Explosives are.
You obviously have never handled weapons, or you would know this.
I have defended my home on a few occasions over the years.

Once when a burglar was dumb enough to break into my house while I was inside. (I was asleep when he came through the door, but was woke up by the noise he was making looking for , I presume, silver in my kitchen.)
He had a gun, so did I.
I lived through it, he will never steal again.

When I was a child I saw the KKK burn a old black woman alive in her own home.

As an adult they tried to do the same to me because I was a "Witch". A few well placed rounds through their gas cans made their white sheets turn brown in back and yellow in front.
That is how an armed citizen can deal with terrorist...
Unlike an unarmed old black lady who would never harm anyone.





I certainly would not trust the kind of people who run the NRA to guarantee my personal freedoms.

Like it or not, it is exactly those type of people (soldiers, vets, police, and many other members of the NRA) that DO guarantee your personal freedoms.

(hey, where did that soap box come from??)

gunner
July 31st, 2001, 12:29 AM
first fliuddruid, thank you for stating my thoughts. i've made my living with and around firearms for longer than many here have been alive and while happydog has a right to his opinions i'm not pleased to hear people i've known and worked with and learned from characterized as "joe tobaccospitter". to be frank the people i've met in the "firearms world" are rather more polite than the average in the street and as a rule rather better educated and generally a bit more intelligent than average, much like, on a different level the folks here in mystic wicks. as for the proper uses of privately owned firearms fluiddruid describes three very good reasons for that, nor are those "isolated cases". i could, if i wished, fill a forum here on a daily basis with cases of lawful self defense with guns but we have forums enough and we've outgrown a couple of servers already. as for myself, i neither chew nor spit tobacco and i go out of my way, as an armsman, to treat the people around me with courtesty as i go about my business in a day.

(fluiddruid, you forgot to mention the sharp downward trend in crime statistics since florida passed its ccw law)

gunner
July 31st, 2001, 08:59 AM
historically gun (or weapons in general) control has never been about "fighting" or "controlling" crime, it has always been about self anointed elites keeping the "peasants" under control lest they revolt, in the middle ages certain weapons were barred for the peasantry, in more recent times after the war between the states the southern states passed laws barring the posession of guns by the newly freed blacks. a bit later in both england and america in the early 20th century restrictive laws were passed to prevent immigrants and "anarchists" from having guns. then in the 1920s those laws were tightened in fear of a communist revolution and down to the present when the government becomes daily more intrusive in our private lives, the career politicians see the growing dislike for, and distrust of "big government" as a threat to their power and privilege and we get the same old story, "gun control" in the name of "fighting crime" when it is obvious that criminals by definition do not obey laws, gun control laws included.

thefluiddruid
July 31st, 2001, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by gunner


(fluiddruid, you forgot to mention the sharp downward trend in crime statistics since florida passed its ccw law)
Actually I wasn't aware of it, I just moved to florida in Jan.
However It doesn't suprise me. I know that it had that effect in Arkansas where I spent the last 10 years.

SeekerSandy
July 31st, 2001, 10:36 AM
Fluiddruid and Gunner, you responded so much more eloquently and factually that I could have. "Arguments" presented by Happydog are so typical of those who would rule us with their "logic." No facts, only thoughtless emotions with no intellectual backing.

I would add that the NRA is comprised of nearly 4 million Americans, representing over 80 million armed Americans. It is not a faceless entity like the million moms or handgun control or the ACLU (which used to be one fine organization that I contributed heavily to). The NRA, stands foursquare for Constitutional rights, rights which were specifically written to enforce the limitations on government. Let's not forget other great patriotic groups such as GOA and NAHC.

I don't know which is sadder, those misguided souls who know nothing of what they speak but insist on their infallability; or those who would rewrite history. You'd think people would have learned from Hitler, wouldn't you?

Happydog
July 31st, 2001, 10:58 AM
It appears that my viewpoints are "Hitlerian" and "elitist." Funny, I don't feel Hitlerian or elitist. I'm just an average guy who has to stay inside every New Year's Eve because the armed citizenry of New Orleans goes outside at midnight and fires machine guns and automatic weapons into the sky to celebrate.

I'm just an average guy who grew up in Mississippi and had to give up walking in the woods behind my parents' house during hunting season, because of the "deer hunters" who drove their 4 x 4's over the trees and bushes, shooting everything in sight with semiautomatic weapons. And after having a high caliber bullet zing into a tree next to your head and blow a huge chunk out of the tree, it tends to discourage you from walking in the woods. Especially when you can hear gunfire and bullets zinging among the trees even when you stay at home.

80 million armed americans ready to overthrow the government at a moment's notice. Well, let's DO IT, let's get it on. I mean, if you folks have had it with democracy, then DO IT. I would love to see what you'd come up with as a substitute.

As far as the NRA, if you trust those folks, you either haven't read the literature they're putting out these days, or else, well, you're a member, and nothing I say will make any difference. Happy shooting.

A final note: the person who protested about George Bush being appointed president - the NRA supported Dubya All The Way. So aren't you arguing against your man?

LilMan
July 31st, 2001, 09:00 PM
I am seriously NOT appreciating thesegun/NRA slams. Im only 13, ill say that now, but some jack@$$ broke into my house about a year ago. I was watching TV when the window broke. The dude came barging through and came at me i smacked him in the face a couple times in the face with my 30-30(and no, im not a "killing machine" because i have access to guns) and my dad came in, shootig the man twice. He will never hurt anyone again, of that i am grateful. Without easy access to my gun, i would have been dead. But you are right, were out to protect ourselves, not our country. BTW, i am appalled by you calling an M-16 a weapon of mass destruction....You are merely choosing the ones that "look scary". You have a right to your opinion, but please, you are being nuts on some of this.


Lil Man Out

thefluiddruid
July 31st, 2001, 09:08 PM
The NRA may have thought that Bush was the lesser of 2 evils, but Many of the members voted against him (including me).
I am not currently a member of the NRA, but agree with much of what they have to say.
I am not against Democracy. In fact I have and will defend it.


80 million armed americans ready to overthrow the government at a moment's notice. Well, let's DO IT, let's get it on. I mean, if you folks have had it with democracy, then DO IT. I would love to see what you'd come up with as a substitute.

Give me a break!!
I have never been against democracy, in fact I spent 5 years in the Army defending what passes for it here.
You need to look beyond whatever propaganda you have been reading and actually look at the figures.
Most gun owners have spent time in the military.
That means that we took an oath to defend our country against all enimies foreign and domestic, and to defend the constitution.

If you don't like hunters in your local woods then buy the property and post no trespassing signs on it.
If you are not willing to take steps to legally keep hunters out of it you don't have the right to cry about it.

I recently moved here from Arkansas, hunting is a major thing there. But I have never had any problems walking in the woods.

BTW, No one compared you to Hitler.
The point he was making is that the first steps that a dictator takes is to disarm the people.

Yvonne Belisle
July 31st, 2001, 09:22 PM
I may not have guns in my house but I do have bows and daggers and other assorted weapons. OK I have a bbgun but thats it and I have no bb's or co2. I would just like to point out that even should we get all the guns off the streets you can make weapons of mass distruction in your kitchen. Odds are you have many things that you use every day that can be used to kill. Personally I don't want a gun in the house too noisey for me but that doesn't mean I'm defenseless. I feel sorry for anyone who threatens the safety of my family because they will wish I had a gun it would have caused less pain and damage than I would.

thefluiddruid
July 31st, 2001, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Yvonne Thomas
I would just like to point out that even should we get all the guns off the streets you can make weapons of mass distruction in your kitchen
I know what you mean.
While in the Army one of the things I did was teach classes on improvised warfare.
I can easily make firearms out of things found in the average hardwear store. Of course NO gun of any type is a real weapon of mass destruction.
Machine guns waste more rounds than those that actually hit a target.
Maybe you could call a grenade launcher a gun....
I also know how to make REAL weapons of mass destruction (explosives) from easily obtained household items.

Yvonne Belisle
July 31st, 2001, 11:12 PM
Odds are it's stuff found under the average american sink. I've been taught about a few interesting combinations myself. As for weapons when I lived in Salt Lake City I went to enter the mall with my dagger legally being carried in plain view. Security had me put it in my purse they said I couldn't have weapons that easily accessable in there I then asked him if that ment I needed to shop naked. The look on his face was priceless when he asked what I ment I proceeded to tell him how to use stuff he was carrying. His pen, keys, the heels of my shoes ect... he gave a second astonished look when I told him any woman who has been in a rape prevention class learns many of them. Now if only more people knew perhaps they wouldn't stress guns so much.

thefluiddruid
August 1st, 2001, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Yvonne Thomas
Odds are it's stuff found under the average american sink. I've been taught about a few interesting combinations myself. As for weapons when I lived in Salt Lake City I went to enter the mall with my dagger legally being carried in plain view. Security had me put it in my purse they said I couldn't have weapons that easily accessable in there I then asked him if that ment I needed to shop naked. The look on his face was priceless when he asked what I ment I proceeded to tell him how to use stuff he was carrying. His pen, keys, the heels of my shoes ect... he gave a second astonished look when I told him any woman who has been in a rape prevention class learns many of them. Now if only more people knew perhaps they wouldn't stress guns so much.
LOL!!
Yep, people often overlook the most obvious things.
I have just over 20 years martial arts experance, and taught quite alot to my ex-wife.
She was a topless dancer.
I remember the shocked look on a bouncers face when a 200+ pound biker tried to cop a feel and she dropped him to his knees and made him beg for mercy!!!
With knowladge of leverage you can even use someones own body as a weapon against them..

Next thing you know thay will pass a law keeping kids out of martial arts classes because it will "turn them into trained killers"...

Earth Walker
August 1st, 2001, 12:53 AM
I learned Aikido, and when I have to, I can put knots on their
foreheads faster than they can rub them!:D

Yvonne Belisle
August 1st, 2001, 01:00 AM
It wouldn't surprise me except for the number of women in matial arts for self defense. For some wierd reason if large groups of women are doing it the mentality is that it is nonviolent. Odd but I think the female of any species that raises it's young is far more deadly and vicious than the male when home or children are endangered. It's kind of frightning but I know I'm guilty of it and I know every other female I know personally can come up with stuff to curl mens toes with the thought she wants to do what?!!! As long as it is a fitness craze it is safe like I said I don't know why it just is.

Mythrel
August 1st, 2001, 11:03 AM
I haven't had a chance to read this post for a bit. The funniest thing I have read though is the M-16 as a weapon of mass destruction. I am currently in the military and I know how they shoot. The bullets are barely larger than a .22 caliber round. This thing couldn't kill unless it was a direct shot to the head or vital organ. Sorry to say, the M-16 is far from a weapon of mass destruction.

Next, seems the topic is changing to martial arts. Someone made a comment about keeping kids out of martial arts. If it is taught correctly as a tool for self defense and not to go out and pick fights then I see no problems with kids learning how to defend themselves, getting away from the stupid TV or video games or computer games. Too many children in today's society are lazy and almost afraid to walk outside. I think it is a crying shame that so many of today's youth are overweight. I understand some people may not be able to help there weight, but alot of these kids just don't exercise and eat everything they can get there hands on...mainly junk!!! Enough ranting for now...
Mythrel

Mythrel
August 1st, 2001, 11:05 AM
BTW thefluiddruid...I love your avatar that is very nice!!
Mythrel

SeekerSandy
August 1st, 2001, 06:13 PM
I AM the NRA, proudly an Endowment member. Also life member of GOA and NAHC. This doesn't mean that I won't listen to you, or anyone else, when sensible arguments are made. My mind can always be changed by a logical argument. Gun grabbers arguments are illogical and built on raw emotions, distortions of truth and outright lies, willfully or otherwise.
I served my REPUBLIC during the Vietnam "conflict." and continue to defend my REPUBLIC and her citizens to this very day.
Calling common firearms 'weapons of mass destruction' is as assinine as is calling them "assault" weapons. Know your nomenclature before using such inaccurate terms, please.
As for dubya, he was the lesser of evils, so I voted Libertarian.
He will unfortunately turn out to be as phony a conservative as his father was. His pseudo-religious stand certainly ticks me off as well.
The 'hunters' you speak of, Happydog, aren't. They are idiots who have no business possessing or using firearms. Please don't equate or confuse them with the majority of firearms owners who are responsible.
My uncle and I have both been shot by hunters as well.
I was also shot by friendly fire.
stuff happens.

Yvonne Belisle
August 1st, 2001, 08:07 PM
In the event of war or military/police action when they are calling for volunteers it is the people that are responsible gun owners that will keep us free. The military is not a large enough body to truely fight a war anylonger. Everyone that is capable should know how to work a gun even if they never own one. That way in the event of a hostile action you could be called to defend the freedom that you enjoy. No government is perfect and much as I dislike Bush and his policies I would defend his life in the event that it was nessesary with my own life. It is the same I would do for any of you. I have said before and will say again here I may not like everything people choise to do with their rights and freedoms but as long as it is the law that a person posess those rights I will defend it. One of those rights is the right to own a gun. No one legitamitly needs an automatic weapon but taking them out of the hands of private citizens will not take them off our streets. Smugglers have existed most likely since the first human said to another you can't have_____. They will be here long after we are gone. I would much rather maintain my right to defend myself from those than to lay myself down and give it up so that I can be terrorized. Responsible gun ownership is what each and every one of the people who are for the right to own guns believes in. The main word there is responsible and sadly not everyone is responsible but you can help by talking to the people you know about taking a course and keeping their guns where they are safe.

Myst
August 1st, 2001, 08:13 PM
We don't (and will never) have a gun in our apartment. There's no need for it, period. We don't have to hunt for food (that's why we have a grocery store), though I understand some people hunt to supplement their diet when money's tight, tho I do disagree with killing for sport, especially if an animal is left wounded for any amount of time. Meanwhile my fiance carries staffs and other (often sharper) weapons from and to class and plans on buying display swords when he has the money to build or buy a safe display for them. One of my best friends is licensed and goes hunting regularly for sport though. I guess what I'm saying is that it's all up to the individual, and I appreciate that it is, but you'll never find a gun in my home.

feywytch
August 3rd, 2001, 11:39 PM
Personally I am for having the right if neccessary to bear arms. I have always respected guns..spent time in service, never shot anyone .......

I understand alot of the laws are in answer to the violence with guns spreading....but and this is just MHO......

When a law is passed, lets say a real major check out of you before bying gun...I mean thorough to the max. You get the gun. You have no children. You keep it in a safe place....your nephew who is having problems visits occassionally. Children are quick... and thru waht ever event finds said gun and decides to take it to kill soem kid who pi$$ed him off......

My query is how did the new law save the child now dead????


Guns are like anyhting else in life teaching our children to respect these things and hold what is important dear is far more important to me then these ridiculous gun laws...

We had one up (not sure if it passed) about felons could not buy a gun......EXCUSE: but do felons normally try to buy a legal gun???
LOL

Yvonne Belisle
August 4th, 2001, 01:24 AM
During the time of westward expansion many people wore guns including children carrying shotguns and knowing how to use them. Yes there was a lot of crime but it was no worse than it is today. My point is that if the children of yesterday could be taught responsible gun use how about the children of today? How many of our grandfathers remember getting a gun as a boy quite a few I think and they learned how to safely use them. I think we let our fears blind us to the fact that in states where it is legal to carry a gun that gun crimes are lower. People tend to be less willing to whip out a gun and hold someone up when they could be looking at many guns being turned their way. A rapest in an alley could be stopped by a sameritan holding a gun. There would be no need to fire just the knowledge that a person has a gun because newsflash you can't hold a fighting woman down with one hand and hold a gun it just wouldn't work.

SeekerSandy
August 5th, 2001, 12:16 PM
Very well put; Yvonne and Feywytch.
Swords are cute, but don't bring one to a gun fight......

Yvonne Belisle
August 5th, 2001, 07:49 PM
Actually my ex scared some gangbangers who saw my bow on the wall and stuck their noses into our window. A katana coming toward your face can leave a yellow streak in the front of even a tough guys pants. :):cool: :D

feywytch
August 5th, 2001, 09:08 PM
THis is not part of guns laws but it is funny.

When I was first out on my own I shared an apartment with another friend. Well the area we lived in had suffered a few break ins and such and all the neighbors were scared. This was one of those little semi rural areas where the worst crim is usually a cow tipping :)

Well both of us recently had been working crazy shifts. So it would have been somewhat hard for a would be thief to figure when we came and went on a regular schedule. One weekend we boith were off. We went out and enjoyed the break. Well late at night we both heard breaking glass ( our door was half glass ) and I crept on all fours to our kitchen. Out side of kitchen a figure was rifling thru my friends hutch I guess maybe he thought we had silver or something? Anywya at the time there was no gun in our house. I was silently thinking of something to grab I reached up and was carefully seeking the knives on counter and came across something long and hard and grabbed it.

I jumped up and ran and put it in the thiefs back and he froze. I yelled for my buddy to call the cops. When the cops got there and all the lights came on the cops started rolling.....I was holding the thief off with a banana!!!!

That poor thief heard about it the whole way to the station....LOL

Yvonne Belisle
August 5th, 2001, 11:13 PM
ROTFLMAO!!!! That is priceless!

Mairwen
August 6th, 2001, 12:32 AM
8O 8O 8O 8O 8O *choke* 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O

gunner
August 9th, 2001, 09:39 AM
"I was holding the thief off with a banana!!!!"


was that a colt, smith and wesson or chiquita?

xjsjaglvr
August 9th, 2001, 02:46 PM
For those of you either curious as to the validity of this story or of the Generals "sexism". The story is false, another in a long line of urban legends which the internet has allowed to flourish. The next time you get an e-mail with some story in it that may not sound completely true or you are curious about it go to www.snopes2.com, it is a clearing house for various urban legends some of which go back years and have been recycled with updated versions.

kuja14
August 9th, 2001, 07:17 PM
guns should be banned!

Myst
August 9th, 2001, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by kuja14
guns should be banned!

Why? Feel free to read the discussion in this thread and then post your own opinions :)

gunner
August 9th, 2001, 08:19 PM
"guns should be banned"

you'll have to do better than that, and you'll need some facts, real facts not sarah brady's prattle to back up that statement. several of us here have seen what happens when the predators have it all their way.

though you've come to the right place to "learn about wicca" and a lot of other things too.

SeekerSandy
August 9th, 2001, 08:58 PM
I don't know why xjsjaglvr is so hell-bent on discrediting a great story, think about it; Anyone remember Monty Python's:
"How to defend yourself when attacked my a man armed with a bannana... (what about pointed sticks?, shut up about yer blasted pointed sticks)
Come now, there must be some truth in this or they wouldn't have gotten so much mileage out of it.

I think people who hollar, "Ban all guns" should be forced to sit in a room with copies of the Constitution, Federalist Papers and 10 years worth of the Armed Citizen for as many days as it takes for them to learn how to think for themselves......

gunner
August 9th, 2001, 10:01 PM
i borrowed this, i don't think the cops will mind,


"Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead
in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty
hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got
that fatal bullet wound."


and;
"Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis
telum est" ("A sword is never a killer, it's a
tool in the killer's hands")
Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC -
65 AD)

Earth Walker
August 9th, 2001, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by gunner
i borrowed this, i don't think the cops will mind,


"Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead
in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty
hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got
that fatal bullet wound."


and;
"Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis
telum est" ("A sword is never a killer, it's a
tool in the killer's hands")
Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC -
65 AD)

Typical patriarchal mindset :mad: :G:


Patriarchy had a specific beginning in history.
It will also have an end. :smash:

gunner
August 9th, 2001, 10:46 PM
read that again mystique, it says that a woman should have the right and means to protect her person and privacy against invasion and murder. that a woman's life is important enough that she has the right and duty, to herself, to defend it. not for some man's sake but for herself. that she should not live or die at the whim of a predator, nor should she be required to wait and endure until, hopefully, a man can ride to her rescue if there happens to be one handy. the idea that a woman can and should be responsible for and capable of her own defense is hardly "patriarchal" as i read the word. to paraphrase an old english saying, "a woman's body is her castle, and she must have the right and the means to defend it"

Myst
August 9th, 2001, 10:53 PM
I don't think she necessarily meant YOUR opinion was typically patriarchal, maybe she meant the people like the ones who believe that it's better for a woman to be raped is typically patriarchal?

Can't speak for her, but that's what I would think, if anything.

gunner
August 9th, 2001, 11:03 PM
"maybe she meant the people like the ones who believe that it's better for a woman to be raped is typically patriarchal?"

if that was her meaning then i would agree with her, my comments were not intended to attack her personally.

thank you for helping with the clarification.

Earth Walker
August 9th, 2001, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Willow Raven
I don't think she necessarily meant YOUR opinion was typically patriarchal, maybe she meant the people like the ones who believe that it's better for a woman to be raped is typically patriarchal?

Can't speak for her, but that's what I would think, if anything.

Exactamundo!

gunner
August 9th, 2001, 11:15 PM
"Exactamundo!"

noted and taken and apology offered for jumping a bit too quickly.

Earth Walker
August 9th, 2001, 11:41 PM
No problemo mi amigo :)


Patriarchy had a specific beginning in history.
It will have an end. :smash:

SeekerSandy
August 10th, 2001, 07:34 PM
gotta admit, WillowRaven's reply had me a bit confused as well.
As a former cop, teaching women self-defense and defense of their homes was a big priority during those days. It was patriarchal or paternalistic, just common sense realism.
My wife was raised to hate guns, now very glad to not only be trained in firearms safety and use, but to own one of her own.

Pagans ain't pacifists.....

thefluiddruid
August 10th, 2001, 10:55 PM
When I got married one of the fist things I did was teach my
(ex)wife how to defend herself.
Weather with a gun, a pipe, a belt, or with no apperant weapon.
The point is that she could defend herself if needed.
Not only did i teach her how to shhot, load and care for a gun,
But also the 3 most important things to know about guns:

1) Never pull one out unless you are going to use it.

2)If you need one, you should get it out as soon as possible.

3)Bullets don't turn corners, but they can bounce..

(and a fourth for those rednecks who like to fire guns instead of buying fireworks: What goes up, MUST come down...)

Sounds obvious, but you would be suprised how many folks can't figure that out.

gunner
August 25th, 2001, 07:41 PM
"Never initiate force against another. That should be the underlying principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are sure that he will never wish to harm -- or never be capable of harming -- you or yours again."

makes sense to me.

SeekerSandy
August 26th, 2001, 04:58 PM
Right Gunner, this philosophy is what maintains an armed neutrality. By giving no quarter and not backing down, others will generally allow you to live your life most peacefully.....

Mythrel
August 28th, 2001, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by gunner
"Never initiate force against another. That should be the underlying principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are sure that he will never wish to harm -- or never be capable of harming -- you or yours again."


Gunner I think you have it!!! This is a great quote and I appreciate you view on the matter. Thanks
Mythrel

Yvonne Belisle
January 8th, 2003, 03:23 PM
bump