A Black day for America's safety and democracy... [Archive]

MetalMilitia

Sep 13th, 2004, 6:12 AM

2003 Crime Rate Steady at 30-Year Low (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040913/D852HFVO0.html)

Even so there are strict state laws and procedures for buying and registering a gun. California, Massachusetts, New York and Hawaii - have passed their own laws curbing the use of assault weapons. Some of those are more harsh than the federal ban. Even gun shop owners say the expiration of the ban will have little effect on the types of guns sold.

The civilian version of a Colt AR-15 manufactured before 1994, could be sold last week just as easily as it can be sold this week.

The DC sniper (from 2002) used a banned gun - he got a hold of it while the ban was in effect. Remember the bank robbery in california a few years ago, where the guys had assult rifle AK's? They got them during the ban.

2/3 of those polled said they would renew the ban - I would probably also renew the ban, but I do point to the fact that our own Constitution says we can own guns. It doesnt say what kind or style - it says quite clearly WE CAN OWN THEM, and the right can't be taken away.

Period.

dutchie

Sep 13th, 2004, 6:16 AM

"Period"?!?

A bit of a blunt way to end a discussion, wouldn't you say, MM?? :uh:

And what about the NRA being able to dictate which laws are installed and which aren't? What about GWB promising to prolongue the ban, and now not keeping it under NRA pressure?

Defiant Noquisi

Sep 13th, 2004, 6:41 AM

And what's more, 70% of all Americans agree semi automatic guns should remain to be banned. Let me make a correction to that...it should be 70% of the poll. I can guarentee you that they did not poll every single American in the US for this so you are not getting the full picture.

Dutchie, those laws were originally written so that the government and military would never be strong enough to subject its people like had been happening across the water. I know you and I will never agree on this and it would be hard for you to see it from our perspective so I really cant explain it to you any other way....

This land was stolen from my ancestors and I dont need to go into details but we lost because we didnt have the firepower neccessary to eliminate the enemy. We got spanked. When this country was being developed by the founding fathers, there were certain "guarentees" citizens gained, one of them being the right to keep and bear arms. If you think people in the US that insane then why is it that Indian people havent gathered up their own militia to defeat the enemy and take the land back? Do you think us uncapable?

No, some people actually do have brain cells and use them.

I really dont give a rats ass whether it is an Uzi, my lil .380 or a single shot Derringer, we, as citizens of the US were given specific rights that have slowly eroded away over time because in one way or another the American people have become apathetic and many can no longer see the forest for the trees. Our rights have slowly been taken away because people are blind to the truth.

You go ahead and believe what you want Dutchie, but like hell am I going to let some desk jockey in Washington DC tell me what I can and cant have or use. If I want an Uzi, if Im not killing anyone or anything with that Uzi, and I have a safe place to fire that Uzi then gawdammed I should be able to. Its not up to you to decide for me what things are enjoyable to me and that I can participate in.

I have also participated in figure 8 racing, smashing up cars and getting bumped and bruised while doing it. It is far more dangerous than any shooting I have ever done. I have NEVER even gotten a scrape during a firing round. Should we also outlaw smashing up junker cars too?

I remember you questioning me about a post in which I stated that the US and the UK/Europe are very different from each other. This is one of those times. We live in different cultures. While I agree with many things regarding your country, there are other things that I dont. I wont sit here and make like your country is full of crazy fruit loops because I disagree so I do not see any reasoning behind you directed that kind of rhetoric towards us. We are different and we will always be different. It makes neither one of us better or worse than the other.

Just because you deem it unneccessary doesnt mean that I do. Call me what you want but I will take my freedom fighting AND my firearms with me to my grave.

I ask you to look into the many elements that sport shooting is comprised of as well as the many good things that sport shootists do, rather than focusing on the blood and sensationalism. In other words, get the other side of the story before making like I and other people like me(such as MM) are some kind of crazy lunatics.

Dont make like your people are all innocent lambs while trying to put the spank on American sport shooters either. Why dont you talk to the fine participants of the Royal Shooting Association of Belgium and the Royal Dutch Shooting Association and ask them why they enjoy sport shooting? Get it from your own countrymen's point of view instead of from some crazy ass broad gun nut from the US. To be as good as they are Im sure they have been shooting long hours and many years WITHOUT killing people. Maybe they can explain it to you and you can give up slamming American sport shooter enthusiasts. :bird:

dutchie

Sep 13th, 2004, 7:08 AM

Wow, DN - I don't think I deserved that powerbashing, to be honest...

- crazy fruit loops; can't remember calling you that... Don't I have the right to be amazed about those cultural differences?!?
- some kind of crazy lunatics; again rethoric I did not use..

Why do you get so irritated and annoyed about what my opinion is about the constitutional rights of you and your fellow Americans?!? And that middle finger icon at the bottom topped it off rather nicely too...

BTW, you leaned quite heavily on the "sports" aspect of owning a gun. Did I ever said there was anything wrong with that? Hell, I am a member of an archery club.. Why would you however need a constitutional right to bear arms, if you're just going to target practice in a sports club?? We don't.

DN, many POV's have been discussed repeatedly on these forums; planet X, Yellowstone, the existence of God, just to name a few. Now all of a sudden I have to shut the fuck up, just I bring guns up for a second - or even a third time? Where's the freedom of speech in that? The lifting of the ban of semi automatics was a news topic on Dutch television this very morning. Why shouldn't I have brought it up?

I am truly amazed by your anger. Must be a cultural thing (???)...

Strife

Sep 13th, 2004, 2:50 PM

I'd like to say that I'm the first american to post here telling you all, that I agree with dutchie on this. I also don't plan in my life time to ever own a gun if the risk becomes necessary, but it is easier to say that now when nothing seems to be a hostile threat.

Donsun

Sep 13th, 2004, 3:07 PM

I am a gun owner and i have a concealed weapons permit. I carry my pistol with me sometimes. Its no big deal if you abide by the rules. I had to have a full background check before they would give me my license.
Now as far as assault weapons i dont see any real use for them on the streets. We have enough guns already. They are fun to shoot though. :crs: :shot:

Emerald_Dragon

Sep 13th, 2004, 6:32 PM

I don't completely agree with DN. But I stand to be counted with her as a gun owner. Part of our strength lies in our right to bear arms, its also our weakness, in that we can't seem to be without them.

I don't believe our culture has evolved to a level where guns are a none-issue. I agree with Dutchie, that we may be taught that we can't live without them. But well, considering how our country is de-evolving, guns may be our last bastion of defense against our own gov't going awry.

As for assault rifles and semiautos, are they really unbanned? Can I buy a FAL now? Guns are only as dangerous as the person wielding them. I agree that they are a bit OTT for duck or quail hunting and should not be used for concealed carry, but why shouldn't you have one? *American brainwash showing* :alcoholic

DontBeAfraid

Sep 13th, 2004, 6:44 PM

Our right to arms was not originally meant for pistols and duckhunting.... It was meant for assault rifles and military grade weapons so that a standing army/militia could be organised quickly and cheaply in the event that we needed to defend ourselves as a nation. Not as individuals. It was meant to protect the common citizen from the tyranny of a corrupt government. It was meant to make sure there was no KING of america or anything equivalent to such a power...

We are slowly moving away from the freedom that our founders fought and died for.

TheJesterRace666

Sep 13th, 2004, 7:26 PM

ugh, guys..were not living in the 1700's....no more kings.....i mean we have an army capable of protecting us...and if in the event that were needed to fight...(which wont be any time soon unless fucking china invades us, lol) well have enough time to get the proper weapons we need to kick some ass...know what i mean? whoever said that "we have enough guns going around" is right, we do...i can protect myself and my family, or go hunting with the guns we have today. i dont need an m4a1 with a 50 round clip....unless im going to take on a shit load of people....

Defiant Noquisi

Sep 13th, 2004, 7:42 PM

Im sorry Dutchie, I didnt mean to post it angrily. Im distracted by moving and am rather stressed at the moment so it apparently is coming out in my post.

The intent of my post was that we have had alot of freedoms since the founding fathers drafted the Constitution that are being drained away. Keeping and bearing arms is one of them. Again, I dont give a damn what kind of firearm it is, there is absolutely no stipulation whatsoever what we can and cant have. At least until the "assault" weapons ban. The dumbasses picked things with big and quick firepower and magazines, rather than directing it where it belongs and thats with the people who abuse the privelege.

What got me "excited" about your post is it seems you think we dont "need" these firearms, and you are correct. However, it not the firearms that concern me as much as some government desk poof or you and people of the same belief telling me Im better off without them. You tell me you dont understand pro-gun Americans thinking regarding this. Thats why I suggested you talking with people in your own country and ask them why they like to shoot. Shooting is a sport no matter what type of firepower you are using.

First and foremost, I dont like anyone thinking for me. *I* will decide for *me* what is and isnt good for me and I dont care what country they come from. Secondly, what the hell is an "assault" weapon anyway? Anyone who thinks that only the firearms stipulated in that ban are "assault" worthy are fooling themselves. Ive seen more death and damage from domestic violence aka someone getting the shit beat out of them than I ever have by firearms. I am capable of killing someone with a spoon and I dont see them getting banned. Gun control nazi's are confusing sport with crime.

The kind of mentality behind that ban is dangerous to our Constitution, our freedoms and our way of life that had been written into law hundreds of years ago. It is dangerously eroding our condition as just better than turning this country into a gigantic police state.

I will NOT EVER SUPPORT the eroding of our Constitutional rights NO MATTER WHAT THAT "RIGHT" entails. EVER! I wouldnt mind having more rights but certainly not less.

Bringing up Columbine is moot. It has NOTHING to do with our Constitutional rights. It has EVERYTHING to do with tracking down how those children attained weapons in the first place and prosecuting every person that broke the law. Do NOT ask me to willingly get punished because of someone else who IS guilty when I am not.

You say you dont understand why someone would want an Uzi. Asking someone like me that would be like me asking you why you like faster, bigger motorcycles. Quite frankly there are more interesting things than Uzi's. I prefer shoulder mounted grenade launchers and mortar shells. Yes, I enjoy blowing things up for fun and I dont get to do it often enough. :D

Lets not forget that speed kills more people than firearms. Should we outlaw big, fast bikes? Do you see the parallels here? Go ahead and bring up that guns were designed to kill, but so is anything else even though it may not have been meant to be. Lets outlaw banana peels while we are at it. Those damn evil peels are killing people!

Whats annoying to me is people who think they know whats best for me and whats safest for this country, all while the guilty parties are gleefully sneaking around behind these same people flipping them off behind their backs and usurping the law. Go after those bastards and use the law against them, not me enjoying shooting up and blowing up some old washing machine in the middle of a secured field. I am SICK of being looked at and punished as guilty when the guilty parties are out abusing a great thing.

No anger intended and definately NOT a cultural thing. To each his own and I like mine big, powerful and fast. :P

DarkAce

Sep 13th, 2004, 8:20 PM

It's useless to answer to these posts because like in all our gun threads it just goes in circles with the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude.

Be contempt with that there must be an underlying problem in the psyche's of these individuals and glee cheerfully as you watch their society degenerate because they can't reflect upon their own faults and have to constantly shift blame onto others for their 'pains', dutchie.

DontBeAfraid

Sep 13th, 2004, 9:27 PM

The Jester missed the underlying point of my post.... Yes, we have an army to protect us from foreign enemies... We have the right to bear arms to protect us from enemies of the domestic type, and I dont mean burglers.

humanhybrid

Sep 13th, 2004, 9:37 PM

Well I sincerely think that DM should like others be able to carry any weopons they deem nessesary why? OUR CONSTITUTION ALLOWS IT! For me I dont know. I worry sometimes that I need one and have owned a few in the past. But where Im at I am not able to have one. I say lets keep them all. Our goverment has been taken freedoms one by one. And like DM I plan to have a few surprises if allowed. good day!

Zyztem

Sep 13th, 2004, 10:55 PM

Secondly, what the hell is an "assault" weapon anyway? Anyone who thinks that only the firearms stipulated in that ban are "assault" worthy are fooling themselves.

Well, according to the "ban," an assault weapon has any two or more of the following items:

1) Bayonet lug

2) Pistol grip

3) Folding stock

4) Flash suppressor

Before the ban ended, you could get the exact same rifle, just minus the nifty extras. Many political supporters of the ban have stated that the ban was a sop to throw to the liberals.
On a side note, I agree with some of what they say. I believe there is too much gun violence. But you know what? Laws that get passed do nothing to defeat criminals. Does anyone actually believe that a criminal would say "Oops, they passed an assault weapons ban, I guess I can't use one to commit a crime? Gun laws limit the common person and leave criminals that much more. If you want to put a dent in the violence, use crime control, not gun control.
I myself don't immediately plan on running out and getting one, but "shall not be infringed" means exactly that.

CELL

Sep 14th, 2004, 12:38 AM

i'm just gonna skip all that i've read. I'm niether for or against these guns becoming legal again. i AM however, pro-common sense...and i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say...it's the person BEHIND the trigger that we should be worried about...a bullet is a bullet...and i'm pretty sure the average citizen isn't walking around with protective vests on. Be it one bullet at a time, or multiple bullets in a split second...if the aim is to kill someone, then someone will be killed. So called assault weapons being legal now isn't really going to make a difference. "criminals" if they really wanted to...could get there hands on any weapon if they wanted. Thats why theyre criminals...because they BREAK LAWS. So who's REALLY in danger now? NOBODY is in anymore danger now, then they were 24 hours ago...due to the expiration of this feel good "ban"

dutchie

Sep 14th, 2004, 1:30 AM

It's encourageing to see that there are many different opinions here.

DN, I read your post a few times - BTW apology accepted wholeheartedly; I moved recently too, and I know how stressing that can be - and I must say that there a few things that drew my attention:

I resent being compared to some bureaucrat telling you what to do. I would never dream of doing such a thing. I just vented an opinion, that's all. And I agree that losing weapons in the USA (other than for sporting purposes) would have to be a totally voluntary process. If you collectively want to keep guns, fine, by all means, keep the goddam guns. Your country is based on democratic principles.
There is no wrong in using weapons for sporting pleasure. I told you this in my last post, and I will tell you again. But - as I gathered from others posting here - the initial purpose of civilians owning a gun, namely to be able to raise an army quickly, is really outdated. So why not make legislation that regulates guns into the realm of sportive use? So you'd be happy to be able to blast away a few old washing machines with heavy ammo or target practice in the local gun club, and at the same time guns stand a MUCH smaller chance of ending up in the wrong hands.
Gun ownership is regarded as an exponent of the American freedom (by those who are in favor of gun ownership, I might add). Is this really true? In our country there are people who own guns, and have a permit to do so. BUT, storage and transport of guns are strictly regulated (One MUST store them in a safe, and carry them in the locked back of a car to the club. There are alterations of the law under way to have the clubs store the guns in safes, so the guns don't need to be transported at all anymore). But - this aside - what does gun ownership have to do with "freedom"? Personally (don't get offended, this is just my opinion..) I would feel much more free in a country where the only guns around were in the hands of the law enforcement and the military (and criminals, of course - but that makes them punishable also, so in a way that is no advantage to them...).
The argument that you can kill with a spoon is not a real argument. You can kill with your hands too. But guns were designed to be shot. Designed to mame and kill, and a spoon was not. You can't say all guns were designed to be ued on the target practicing range, that's obvious nonsense. Knives were initially not designed to kill your neighbour, they were designed to hunt and cut meat. It's a false argument, and I could imagine it being used in NRA TV commercials.
Although there were pro and contra posts, I'm still amazed that NO ONE adressed my statements about the controlling power the NRA obviously has in the USA. This fact amazed me most: a club of gun owners and gun industrials being able to torpedo laws in a "free" democracy... So what happened to your "freedom" when it is controlled by some intrest organisation?!?

CELL

Sep 14th, 2004, 2:00 AM

you're absolutely right...every tool has its purpose. But tools are just that....tools. They require the help of a human to make them work. Others can argue about guns falling into say...a childs hands....I blame the irresponcible parent. No matter if it's a knife, a sword, a spear, a hand gun, a hunting rifle, an assault rifle, a bazooka, a tank, or a missle....the hand that delivers its deadliness is the one whos responcible. If hunters want to use assault weapons to hunt...so be it.I'm sure theirs other laws outlining hunting that they will have to answer to. If my neighbor wants to carry ANY kind of weapon because he thinks that terrorists are going to strike at any moment (if kerry gets elected lol) then so be it. AND if my neighbor thinks I'M a terrorist..and wants to kill me....he's going to follow thru with that idea no matter what it takes.
Oh and ...the NRA isnt beating my door down to put a gun in my hand...so I dont give a shit what there percieved control is. why? refer back to what i said above.

MetalMilitia

Sep 14th, 2004, 2:52 AM

Guns don't kill people, Apes with guns kill people!

Defiant Noquisi

Oct 12th, 2004, 10:20 AM

If you want to put a dent in the violence, use crime control, not gun control. <snip> I myself don't immediately plan on running out and getting one, but "shall not be infringed" means exactly that. The most stupendous two statements on the subject I have read yet. :2thumbs:

Defiant Noquisi

Oct 12th, 2004, 11:04 AM

I resent being compared to some bureaucrat telling you what to do. I would never dream of doing such a thing. I just vented an opinion, that's all. True, but they way you posted it made it sound/read very similar to what the anti-gun lobby says.

There is no wrong in using weapons for sporting pleasure. I told you this in my last post, and I will tell you again. But - as I gathered from others posting here - the initial purpose of civilians owning a gun, namely to be able to raise an army quickly, is really outdated. So why not make legislation that regulates guns into the realm of sportive use? That would require a constitutional amendment and I am not willing to give up my rights. Its the saying "give em an inch and theyll take a mile" that scares me. Our government will take 10 miles. I see no reason to make new laws making all guns sportive. Its against the law for the average citizen to kill someone and if you claim self-defense you already almost have to have evidence the size of the immaculate conception to keep yourself out of prison. Like Z said, crime control not gun control.

So you'd be happy to be able to blast away a few old washing machines with heavy ammo or target practice in the local gun club, and at the same time guns stand a MUCH smaller chance of ending up in the wrong hands. That is every gun owners dream Dutchie, believe me. There again, why punish me by regulating me more when its the "wrong hands" that are doing the bad stuff? Thats really a backward way of dealing with a problem.

Gun ownership is regarded as an exponent of the American freedom (by those who are in favor of gun ownership, I might add). Is this really true? There are also many people who by personal choice will never own, carry or use a firearm but support constitutional rights and better crime dealing methods. They do not support the punishment of innocent people.

In our country there are people who own guns, and have a permit to do so. BUT, storage and transport of guns are strictly regulated As it is here but it is not as strict and we also have states which allow concealed weapons permits.

I would feel much more free in a country where the only guns around were in the hands of the law enforcement and the military (and criminals, of course - but that makes them punishable also, so in a way that is no advantage to them...). Yeah, my ancestors felt that way too. Same for Jewish people. :bs:

The argument that you can kill with a spoon is not a real argument. You can kill with your hands too. But guns were designed to be shot. Designed to mame and kill, and a spoon was not. You can't say all guns were designed to be ued on the target practicing range, that's obvious nonsense. Knives were initially not designed to kill your neighbour, they were designed to hunt and cut meat. It's a false argument, and I could imagine it being used in NRA TV commercials. Uh, not a real argument? My posing to you that there are many mundane things one could use to assault and kill another is not valid? My bringing up that just because it doesnt have some kind of warning label that states "This was designed to kill." doesnt neccessarily you cant use it to do that very thing is not real? I havent noticed much in the way of design changes in knives. Cut the crap. Its not the item its the intent. The INTENT OF USE changed! That means a PERSON decided to use something that was not manufactered to murder people in cold blood for that purpose.

BTW, the reason I brought up spoons as knives came from my step-brother who worked in maximum security prisons. Before the advent of plastic the most common weapon found among inmates were spoons that they hid and then wore down into crude but deadly knives.

Dutchie, quit blaming everything else and put the blame back where it belongs. Its not the guns, its not the knives, its not the NRA. Its the people who commit these heinous crimes that are the ones at fault. If some asswipe beats up my kid for no reason should I punish my kid for allowing the other kid to get the best of him? NO! Dont tell me its different or its not valid. Its the same thing. Put the guilt and the blame back where it belongs and quit pointing at people like me who do not do these things.

Although there were pro and contra posts, I'm still amazed that NO ONE adressed my statements about the controlling power the NRA obviously has in the USA. This fact amazed me most: a club of gun owners and gun industrials being able to torpedo laws in a "free" democracy... So what happened to your "freedom" when it is controlled by some intrest organisation?!? Ill address it...I wish they had more. About the only thing I like about Bush is that he is pro-gun. That was the best special interest move Ive seen in along time and I hope it happens more often. ANY special interest group that has the protections of our freedoms as its goals gets my support.

LC Jeffries

Oct 19th, 2004, 8:22 PM

Well if they ever banned weapons, I believe the new weapon of choice for killing would be anti-freeze. There was a lady who murdered her husband and her boyfriend here in Atlanta. There has also been another anti-freeze attack not too far from Cartersville.

Hmm! :bondage: :yummm:

dutchie

Oct 20th, 2004, 12:58 AM

DarkAce is right. This is going nowhere. :ohmy:

jesterbr549

Oct 22nd, 2004, 5:21 PM

DontBeAfraid

Oct 22nd, 2004, 7:13 PM

Your post has NO TITLE and is not a rebuttle to my post. I explained very clearly why we need military capacity weapons as civilians but I will say it again.... Its so we can stand up to OUR MILITARY should there ever be a serious conflict of interests.... And if our military is defeated by a foreign enemy we would need to fight then as well.... You cant do this with pistols and other short range low power weapons.... Those are used for murder and suicide. Assault weapons are used for war.

I know this is a bit over your head jester......

Bigsky770

Oct 22nd, 2004, 7:42 PM

. . . Hans, between yourself and I, (we have gone on) with this issue 'ad infinitum' ourselves, of course in the end respecting each others' stance upon the 'firearms issue', but seemingly not coming any closer to the understanding of WHY "Americans" feel thier right to "Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed", and also why many within YOUR Country/ locale' feel us so-strange in this matter, this clinging to a hundreds-year-old concept of "being able to have a well-equipped militia" SHOULD the need arise.

. . . Though here and now, (I must ask) with NO AFFRONT INTENDED (believe me, this comes as a question to yourself from only the bestest of buddies)

. . . Not so long-ago, during WWII, what did your own country do when Nazi invasions were proliferate among the many countries dominated by them, either collectively (or) singly, person-by-person, to fight and engage the dreaded "goosesteppers" blitzkrieg across the many, in order that victory would prove to be more costly (if not impossible) for the partisons they would be forced to be faced with? And I am aware of the "Underground" efforts there were to initiate acts of sabotage as well as outright attack against the Nazis, (as soon as these could be organized) BUT, [conversely] how much DIFFERENT would this whole scenario have played-out IF the "mindset" of these many peoples within Europe have played out HAD the people been better prepared to fend-off the attacks of the Nazi invasion forces? Is there no memory to this? I ask because this MUST be so-much more ingrained within your minds/as Europeans what had to be suffered BY the Nazis, and as well, the collapse of the Gov'ts THERE that could not insure the safety OF their own citizenry FROM the "dreaded huns".

. . .As we had communications between ourselves already on this issue, I stand ready to declare here and NOW, that, YES, *IF* I could know that every single firearm/cannon/grenade launcher, (read that as weapon of war of ANY type) were absolutely eradicated from this planet w/o exception, I'd BE THE FIRST to gladly beat by 12-gauge pump shotgun into a plowshare. What need would I have? Those that I would have to concern myself with otherwise would be as stripped of the ability to MAKE war as I would be to defend myself FROM it. I would happily trot-around -w- an english longbow (or) crossbow, firing arrows or bolts at game animals if I should want to continue hunting. Big deal.

. . .But sadly, that time has not yet come. My firearms are tools, and I attempt at every turn to instill a sense of RESPONSIBILITY in the use thereof, when I train my children in the use of them *RESPECT* is first and foremost, they understand this. For all the thousands of rounds fired, we have never had a mishap. Under my close supervision, I vow that they NEVER WILL. (There are what is known as "The Ten Commandments" of Firearms handling) these were handed down to me from my mother and father/as well as THEIR parents before them. Sadly though too, there are MANY PARENTS out there (YOU know who you ARE!) who DO NOT spend the time and effort needed with their children explaining the responsibilities that follow with the use of said firearms. They have forgotten the way, and that weapon-of-war collecting dust in the corner can wreck havoc @ a school like yes, "Columbine". The children not being aware of the responsibility of wielding such 'power' have this mistaken belief that all problems with their enemies can simply be cured with a 'pull-of-the-trigger'. HEAR ME! PARENTS LIKE these SHOULD NOT EVER have items of this death-dealing capacity lying-around, let alone for the fact that they should re-think their rolls as "Parents", PERIOD.

. . .I myself am an on-again/off again member of the NRA. I belong (when) I can muster the membership dues. If I feel the time has come that the strength of my convictions is such and my rights are threateningly being beseiged, then I'll find a way to send the dues in. Then yeah, I'll be a card-carrying-member AGAIN.

. . .In closing I just want to add here and now that I once thought a scenario like 9/11 IMPOSSIBLE. With the 'porous borders' this country STILL suffers from I am of the "mindset' that ANYTHING may be possible. I just hope to be ready for it. This is AMERICA, my COUNTRY, and if need be, YES, I'll defend her to the DEATH from all-comers. That's just what we're all-about.

(Still in friendship and understanding of your views) Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

DarkAce

Oct 24th, 2004, 1:18 AM

It's clear now, we should have firearms to prepare for the zombie invasion, you know, just in case right?

In all honestly do you think having a firearm would help you prevail from an invading force? If this force can take out your army, or even if your army turns on you, do you honestly think you would be able to stop them?

The mongols, huns, etc. when they invaded places often those citizens had weapons, but did it stop them most of the time? No. The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't matter much unless your able to organize yourself into quite a formidable force, with the right equipement, weaponary and know how, aka the army. Average Joe with a shotgun grouping up with his neighbours doesn't quite cut it for the scenarios you're thinking of.

Also presumably you'd know that in these worst case scenarios if you really cared about your family that it'd probably be a greater chance of survival by surrending than trying to fend off an invasion force inadequatly and end up having them all slaughtered.

So do you and your community practice drills for when this day comes, or is it something you just pull out of your ass whenever someone brings up the gun issue? :)

dbcooper4

Oct 24th, 2004, 1:50 AM

It's better to have a gun when you don't need it, than to not have a gun when you do need it. Personally I'd rather just settle any problems with dialogue,or I guess face to face,fist to fist,but in this day & age(And especially in the U.S.),that doesn't cut it anymore.What if 100 people were killed in the next few weeks with spoons? Would you want to outlaw spoons? Certain "freedoms" were allowed to the people in the Bill of Rights,but seeing how the U.S. is a land of majority rule,I suppose a majority could override them.Just another tough issue that divides. You can never satisfy everyone.

Bigsky770

Oct 24th, 2004, 7:05 AM

. . .This is the "Internet" and you certainly have a right to your opinion [which I respect] BUT:

Also presumably you'd know that in these worst case scenarios if you really cared about your family that it'd probably be a greater chance of survival by surrending than trying to fend off an invasion force inadequatly and end up having them all slaughtered.

. . .Something in WHAT you said sounded so . . . So *French*

Pardon et moi? Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

DarkAce

Oct 24th, 2004, 12:54 PM

It is our second language :)

You're entitled to your opinion and I'm sorry if you took offense to my mocking manner ( I respect most of your views) but honestly you know what I said was relative.

jesterbr549

Oct 24th, 2004, 2:17 PM

Your post has NO TITLE and is not a rebuttle to my post.
I know this is a bit over your head jester......

Ah, if you follow this link:

http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?p=52904#post52904

You will see the title of my reply to your post over YOUR head.

It says, and I quote : This is what I think of them and their Technology:2fu:

And, even though you may have missed the message, I can assure you, they read it loud and clear, which was why I posted it, thank you very much.

I was not rebutting your post at all which, actually, was an understatement to begin with...:shot:

DontBeAfraid

Oct 24th, 2004, 6:30 PM

How is that post a response to my post when I DIDNT POST IN THAT THREAD.... That thread isnt even in the same forum...... I know you beleive in a young earth but this site isnt that hard to figure out.....

dutchie

Oct 25th, 2004, 2:29 AM

Sorry, Joe. I agree with Dark Ace on this. Our country DID have an army when Germany invaded. The whole thing took the Jerries a couple of days. Many of our soldiers were shot for nothing. Germany invaded us like a tidal wave sweeping in, and there was not a thing we could had done.

But this is totally besides the point.

It's better to have a gun when you don't need it, than to not have a gun when you do need it.

THAT is the point really. Americans just can't get it into their thick skulls that THEY DON'T NEED GUNS!!
30,000 gun related deaths, 100,000 gun related disableds... Good Luck America, hope you're really happy with that. Want to see Dutch statistics? And be ashamed?

You just keep your goddam toys-fer-boys and be happy with them... Freedom... Constitutional rights... Hah.. What a joke.

Joe, the reference to the French is starting to get rather stale...

dutchie

Oct 25th, 2004, 2:30 AM

Guns don't kill people, Apes with guns kill people!
My point really. 130,000 apes firing their God given guns each year!!

Bigsky770

Oct 25th, 2004, 3:24 AM

. . .That IS your opinion and you certainly have a right to it, though I may disagree. YOUR COUNTRY had to live with WWII "Up-Close-And-Personal" in ways "America" did not, I Live in hopes that "America" WILL NOT have to live with WWIII in the same manner, though as stated before (and there are many that feel as I do here) after 9/11, all bets are OFF. You Hans, are a product of all that you have seen and experienced within your total life, just as I am the sum total of all that I have. And that's cool.

We can leave it at that. :2thumbs: Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

niteflyer

Oct 25th, 2004, 11:19 AM

You seem to believe in the overall policies of your government and from the little research I have done it seems to be a pretty humane and responsible institution.
On the other hand, I do not feel this about my government, not even a little. I am scared at the almost total erosion of the constitution of my country. I believe in the constitution, but the current governmment scares me. It is seriously off course, and no longer "by the people, for the people." Our forefathers had the foresight to give me not only the right but the sacred duty to overthrow this goverment should it become to oppresive. They gauranteed this the best they could in our constitution. I am being oppressed by the current government and reserve the right to overthrow it. If it gets worse and enough of a movement forms I will participate. I need some first rate military hardware to do this. This hardware has been in my family since its been in America (1652) and I have added to it. I do not want to even consider giving up my constitrutionally protected right to overthrow this goverment. I view it as akin to suicide. The main problem is uneducated impoverished idiots who abuse their birthright and some otherwise responsible folks who dont educate their children and secure their weapons..
Consider this a viewpoint from a pretty strong American.

jesterbr549

Oct 25th, 2004, 11:52 AM

This site isnt that hard to figure out.....

Apparently you didn't figure out that you were not talking to the right Jester.

I'm a newbie - I have an excuse (need four more posts to get my Avatar :2thumbs: thanks for the 'contribution').

What's your excuse for being a :dork:

:smokin:

DontBeAfraid

Oct 25th, 2004, 7:49 PM

I see..... Why would you respond to me though?

DontBeAfraid

Oct 25th, 2004, 10:25 PM

Yes, you are very amusing.... We already have an MD and he isnt a fundy....

dutchie

Oct 26th, 2004, 12:42 AM

I am being oppressed by the current government and reserve the right to overthrow it. I view it as akin to suicide.
To be writing stuff like that in this day and age... I pity you and your country...

The main problem is uneducated impoverished idiots who abuse their birthright and some otherwise responsible folks who dont educate their children and secure their weapons...
The aforementioned apes... Although I must say I don't think "impoverished" necessarily means than one is irresponsible.. I could imagine plenty of those 30,000 deaths are caused by wealthy people's guns, don't you? It's in the mind, not in the wallet.

Bigsky770

Oct 26th, 2004, 1:42 AM

. . .Not everyone feels like "niteflyer" here. What he expresses here are views "anarchist" which I am TOTALLY against; I don't feel 'oppressed' by my gov't here, sure, everythings' NOT perfect, but 'anarchy' IS NOT the way; being "pro-active" within your community, petitions, door-to-door, visits to your state reps/senators, campaigns ARE the way, and does help bring about 'change'. And I've done ALL of these. It can take awhile, but the wheels of justice move slowly and patience is a necessity. That's just the way it is. Perhaps I am the eternal "Optimist" in a way, in the END, I think everything will be fine, getting there is the hard part.

. . .Niteflyer, (note to you) I was kinda surprised at your post; no-matter WHO wins this election, we are STILL a 'DEMOCRACY' and there are ways of handling things you're not happy about far and away BETTER than what you state here; You are an "American" and I would expect better of you than this. Get "involved" in the community/Become "pro-active" and you will see, YOU CAN effect CHANGE. {I KNOW} Trust me on this. Back to topic: Yes, I am a "Gun-Owner" but there is something mightier still than this:

"The Pen IS mightier than the sword" (or gun, for that matter)

Think about it. Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

dutchie

Oct 26th, 2004, 1:49 AM

I didn't think for a second everybody in the USA shares niteflyer's POV, Joe. If this were the case, the USA would have turned into a banana republic centuries ago. I don't even think the minority that shares his ideas is very large at all. It's just another lame excuse for wanting to own toys-fer-boys. Constitutional liberty and all that blah blah blur bleh belch burp...:smokin:

Rynotek

Oct 26th, 2004, 7:13 AM

You will get guns, dont worry about it, Con. Gadaffi was more that happy to sell us as many AK47's, SAM missiles and the Slovacks, enough semtex to level Dublin and Belfast combined, there is no need to keep guns in your house, what use is rising against your govenment without co-ordination. Too many people who dont want to fight and would only hinder your struggle would get caught up in it, when the time comes for your uprising, the guns will appear. dont worry and dont let your kid be the next one to blow his head off with your house hold protection peice.

jesterbr549

Oct 26th, 2004, 10:59 AM

When the time comes for your uprising, the guns will appear. dont worry and dont let your kid be the next one to blow his head off with your house hold protection peice.

The reason why you boys don't understand Americans is because you didn't grow up hunting deer, rabbit, partridge etc.

We grew up with guns and it is the MINORITY that don't understand them, or know how to properly raise their children around them.

The right to keep and bear arms is not just a deterrent against a corrupt government (although that is the main effect isn't it), it is also the right for us to feed our families in times of emergency - like when the economy craps out.

The reason why they overran your country - Dutchie - is because they had a cake walk through the rest of Europe - like Belgium for instance, which had gotten rid of all their guns just before the war began...

niteflyer

Oct 26th, 2004, 11:06 AM

First of all my guns are well secured and have never killed anyone. My children are adult men having survived childhood and never killed anyone. I dont hunt or shoot for sport. I trained my children thoroughly. I very seldom carry a gun, last time I did I was going to Oakland CA with 50K in stones in my case, in 1992. I am extremely active in politics, and getting very frustrated. Its mainly why I havnt had the time to post the things Ive promised Dutchie, its election time. I too pity our country Dutchie, its being run into the ground primarily by greed. Poverty does breed stupidity Dutchie. Put yourself as an American of modest means, sending your children to public schools full of crime and stupidity and never being able to afford higher education for them...after a few generations your descendants will likly be uncivilised morons...mine would too...Its really bad in the inner cities Dutchie, only 40% are getting thru hi school, and many of them are in special programs, with lower standards. This country is slipping fast, mostly in my lifetime.
I reserve the right to overthrow this country if need be. I am not a radical. I am not some nut that will go off on a sniping rampage. Like I said before, if conditions become intolerable, and if there are enough with a like mind, I will join, and do what I percieve as my duty, under the constitution, to protect the people of this country from tyrants. I am not an anarchist Bigsky, I believe in the constitution of this country, all of it, and am merely saying I will defend it thru militant means if that is the only option. Right now I see plenty of other options and its not bad enough. I do realize the chaos that violence brings, and I wish it on no one. Especially the citizens of my own country. If it ever gets to that point, and it sure seems to slowly be heading there, I have the hardware by birthright and constitutional right, and I will do my duty to remove the tyrants and replace them with a duly elected constitutional government. I am not giving up my guns. I am not a threat to anyone (nor are my guns) except to those who would take the rights given by my forefathers away from me and the citizens of this country. Its folks like me that have ensured that we havnt become a banana republic Dutchie. Too many of us, everywhere, with guns....just like the founders pictured. If everyone took the ownership of guns as seriously as I do, there wouldnt be any problems with guns. The problem is the moral decay of our populace, caused largely by poverty, and it is wreaking hell on our society, and it dosnt help that they are armed.
I am not a minority here in the US Dutchie; I am an outspoken, well known responsible citizen that advocates totally for gun possession. There are lots of us, a majority, hence guns are legal. Guns will stay legal too. The only scenario that will cause me to give up my guns is if the people duly vote to change the constitution in this matter. They wont get my vote. But if thats the law of the land, so be it, I will comply; with mental reservations (but no guns). Such a bill has NO chance of passing in this democracy, but the outspoken gun critics are slowly changing the perceptions of the citizens, but it will take years, there are to many affluent educated Americans who, like I, believe in gun ownership.

jesterbr549

Oct 26th, 2004, 11:07 AM

Speaking of my opinion Dutchie, you might want to read this URL :

http://www.geocities.com/jesterbr549/collateraldamage.html

you might be interested in the second link. And if you want the background for that post, you can browse through the ones contained at this URL :

http://www.geocities.com/jesterbr549/editorial20040325.html

And by the way, just in case you missed it, that quote was from the :dork: 's bio...

Rynotek

Oct 26th, 2004, 11:11 AM

How do you honestly propose to overthrow a govenment with automatic weapons, you will need explosives, RPG, SAM and all that other shit that can only come from China or ME, so take your pissant semi's and fully automatic, try shooting one of them even at an armoured police van, they will not help you over throw the government, i know the americans are not used to see soilders on the streets, do you see the shit those lads carry???.

As for hunting, buy a shotgun,

As for Germany, are u seriously telling us that the dutch nation would have stopped the Blitzkreig??? or Belgium ??

That is bullshit, but keep buying your guns, keep shooting each other, keep going to your NRA meetings,

jesterbr549

Oct 26th, 2004, 11:15 AM

How do you honestly propose to overthrow a govenment with automatic weapons...

Actually, we arn't going to overthrow our own government.

The adversaries of this country are going to take care of that little problem for us...

jesterbr549

Oct 26th, 2004, 11:18 AM

Are you seriously telling us that the dutch nation would have stopped the Blitzkreig??? or Belgium ??

If all the countries in Europe had armed citizens it, obviously, would not have been a cake walk - the dominoe effect...

Bigsky770

Oct 26th, 2004, 1:42 PM

. . .T/Y for clearing that up, I was afraid you were one-a-them-thar-a-few sandwiches-short of a full picnic-basket types, iffya catch my drift. Never lose hope, and keep-up the pro-activeness re; "gov't". Carrying a positive force of attitude with you throughout can help you in the long-run/"The squeaking hinge gets da grease". . .[ya know] :2thumbs:
. . .Back to topic. let's talk about:

Australia
(What went wrong?)

The Results Are In:
The following is a synopsis of an interview conducted by Ginny Simone with Keith Tidswell of Australia's Sporting Shooters Association. The entire interview is available as "Surprise, Surprise" in the "Archive News" section of:

http://www.nralive.com/http://www.geocities.com/gunpamphlets/AustralinBan.pdf

One year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, a program costing the government over 500 million dollars, the results are in...
A dramatic increase in criminal activity has been experienced. Gun control advocates respond "Just wait... we'll be safer... you'll see...".
OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm"
From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions
The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".

"...The best organization you've got there, the biggest organization you've got there is the NRA. We don't have an organization that size. We didn't have an organization that size, and as a consequence, we suffered. And we hope that you don't suffer..."
--Keith Tidswell
Sporting Shooter's Association

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html

Also:
http://www.geocities.com/gunpamphlets/AustralinBan.pdf

(are there any of our "Aussie friends from down under" who would care to comment?)- - -Submitted by Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

niteflyer

Oct 26th, 2004, 8:40 PM

Well Bigsky, yup is all I got to say; and Dutchie, consider that Hitler first disarmed his nations citizens, and then went on his conquest. If the citizens of Germany were well armed could he have done it?? If Poland and Belgium and France and your country were well armesd would he have got so far so fast?? Might someone have stood up for the Jews?? We could debate what could have been ad nauseum, just consider the point...

dutchie

Oct 27th, 2004, 12:52 AM

The reason why you boys don't understand Americans is because you didn't grow up hunting deer, rabbit, partridge etc.

We grew up with guns and it is the MINORITY that don't understand them, or know how to properly raise their children around them.

The right to keep and bear arms is not just a deterrent against a corrupt government (although that is the main effect isn't it), it is also the right for us to feed our families in times of emergency - like when the economy craps out.

The reason why they overran your country - Dutchie - is because they had a cake walk through the rest of Europe - like Belgium for instance, which had gotten rid of all their guns just before the war began...
Hahahahaha!!! Between the lines you say you want to hang on to your precious guns because you might have to feed the kids with it?!? Ridiculous! I might give you the benefit of the doubt when you were living somewhere deep in the woods, surrounded by angry grizzly bears and mountain lions, but I gather that's not the fact?!?

You obviously are not very educated in European history.. Hitler COULD do what he wanted to do, because
a. Germany was in deep economical crisis for the second time, and he saw a way out of that;
b. The USA was NOT posing any threat to him and his goals, and continued to be for a large number of years.
c. The economic depressions and crises did wear out most of Europe's countries military systems.
d. Germany was an ENORMOUS country and could raise a HUGE army.
e. Belgium and Holland are both the size of an big postage stamp compared to Germany. The taking of these countries can be described in two words. Gulp. Burp. :smokin:

We did have an army. It was wiped out in a few months.

dutchie

Oct 27th, 2004, 12:55 AM

OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%

A. I have my doubts about these numbers, as they were obviously provided by the pro-gun lobby;
B. You present the figures from ONE YEAR. There is BOUND to be an initial negative effect of banning guns in the short term. We should talk again about this in a year or 10, 12.

dutchie

Oct 27th, 2004, 1:01 AM

If the citizens of Germany were well armed could he have done it?? If Poland and Belgium and France and your country were well armesd would he have got so far so fast?? Might someone have stood up for the Jews?? We could debate what could have been ad nauseum, just consider the point...

Check your history books, man. It's all there!! When you obviously know NOTHING about the historic backgrounds of the second world war other than the conclusion of it (the part where the US came into view), don't post funny questions about it.

Bigsky770

Oct 27th, 2004, 9:02 AM

. . .You say:

A. I have my doubts about these numbers, as they were obviously provided by the pro-gun lobby;

. . .And also:

B. You present the figures from ONE YEAR. There is BOUND to be an initial negative effect of banning guns in the short term. We should talk again about this in a year or 10, 12.

Then read the following:

The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales Publication Date: November 2003
Publication Format: Public Policy Sources Author(s): Gary Mauser, Professor
Email: mauser@sfu.ca Executive Summary: Widely televised firearm murders in many countries during the 20th Century have spurred politicians to introduce restrictive gun laws. The politicians then promise that the new restrictions will reduce criminal violence and "create a safer society." It is time to pause and ask if gun laws actually do reduce criminal violence.

Gun laws must be demonstrated to cut violent crime or gun control is no more than a hollow promise. What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns and, more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms.

In this study, the author examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations: i.e., Great Britain, Australia, and Canada. The widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearms crime. Since firearms are only a small fraction of criminal violence, the public would not be safer if the new law could reduce firearm violence but had no effect on total criminal violence.

The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates because the criminal justice system there differs so drastically from those in Europe and the Commonwealth. Not only are criminal penalties typically more severe in the United States, often much more severe, but also conviction and incarceration rates are usually much higer. Perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the United States passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit.

The upshot is that violent crime rates, and homicide rates in particular, have been falling in the United States. The drop in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world. ISBN/ISSN 1206-6257

Which can be found @ this link:
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=604

(those who presented this data above have no connection to any gun-lobby organizations/this is just cold statisical analysis)- - -Submitted By Joe (Bigsky770)

jesterbr549

Oct 27th, 2004, 11:19 AM

Hahahahaha!!!

I detect a guilty conscience

Between the lines you say you want to hang on to your precious guns because you might have to feed the kids with it?!? Ridiculous! I might give you the benefit of the doubt when you were living somewhere deep in the woods, surrounded by angry grizzly bears and mountain lions, but I gather that's not the fact?!?

Apparently, you've never been to America, much less New England where I am from, or Denver in the foothills of the Rockies and, in fact, there is a Mountain Lion problem - but, where I come from, we don't kill mountain lions for food. These are going to be your famous last words, for the time is coming when the Breadbasket of the World (thats America) will no longer be feeding the World and you will just be another pawn in a Global Government Foodline.

You obviously are not very educated in European history.. Hitler COULD do what he wanted to do, because
a. Germany was in deep economical crisis for the second time, and he saw a way out of that;
b. The USA was NOT posing any threat to him and his goals, and continued to be for a large number of years.
c. The economic depressions and crises did wear out most of Europe's countries military systems.
d. Germany was an ENORMOUS country and could raise a HUGE army.
e. Belgium and Holland are both the size of an big postage stamp compared to Germany. The taking of these countries can be described in two words. Gulp. Burp.

I know enough about European history to know that America had to bail your asses out on at least two occasions, and will probably have to do it again in the near future - your point b above. Further, dipshit, if the CITIZENS were armed, as well as the MILITARY in those European countries than it wouldn't have been a cake walk depression or no - point a, c. And, I have been to Belgium and Holland, and Italy and France etc, and they are just alittle bit bigger than a postage stamp - d,e.

We did have an army. It was wiped out in a few months.

Proves our point exactly...

dutchie

Oct 27th, 2004, 11:29 AM

...dipshit?!?

Micky is right about your faecal preoccupation...

You DO obviously know "shit" about history; name those two occasions where the USA had to bail us out!! The Canadians were the ones to liberate the Netherlands.

...guilty conscience?!?

If the Dutch and the Belgian people would have been armed, tens of thousands more would have died for NOTHING. I guess you would know how that feels from experience.

At least I stay polite.
For now.

Bigsky770

Oct 27th, 2004, 11:42 AM

Between myself and Hans, [YES] we have a difference of opinion on the subject. We are still able to debate said topic logically and carefully w/o namecalling. We can *RESPECT* each other.

Just IN CASE you're wondering, you're not making any friends HERE by referring to people as "Dipshit".

Hans (as he has stated) is being "polite". FOR NOW.

You don't wanna make him angry. You wouldn't like him when he's angry.
"TRUST ME"
. . .Just consider yourself forewarned.

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

jesterbr549

Oct 27th, 2004, 11:47 AM

...dipshit?!?

You catch on quick

You DO obviously know shit about history; name those two occasions where the USA had to bail us out!! The Canadians were the ones to liberate the Netherlands.

The Topic was European History 101 not Nederlands History 101 and if we hadn't bailed out Europe, I sincerly doubt the Canadians would have been much help to you hey...

...guilty conscience?!?

:thumbs:

If the Dutch and the Belgian people would have been armed, tens of thousands more would have died for NOTHING. I guess you would know how that feels from experience.

Well, now we get to the fart of the matter - you are a passivist. Gee, maybe I was wrong about you and :dork: - maybe its the other way around...

At least I stay polite.For now.

It ain't polite to delete someone's post, without telling them why, just to cover your :Bott: especially when there are alot worse posts on this site than that one - like your buddies bio...

Bigsky770

Oct 27th, 2004, 11:55 AM

I DID [insert] within the "reason" box that "that" was:

Uncalled for/Cheap Shot. Though you didn't QUITE spell-it out, it's all-to easy for me to TELL when someone is being referred to as a(n)

"D_ _ K S_ _ _ _ R" especially given the context of the sentence. (Hoop, there it is!)

Now, can we be "civil" about this @ get back to topic? PLEASE?

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

jesterbr549

Oct 27th, 2004, 2:40 PM

Though you didn't QUITE spell-it out, it's all-to easy for me to TELL when someone :dork: is being referred to as a(n) "D_ _ K S_ _ _ _ R" especially given the context of the sentence. (Hoop, there it is!) Now, can we be "civil" about this @ get back to topic? PLEASE? Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:
slightly edited :smokin:

Actually, I thought it was called for since he started slinging first - but as long as you recognize where that quote originated...

PS Are you telling me I pissed off two Mod's in one week?

Must be some kind of a record here somewhere...

Bigsky770

Oct 27th, 2004, 4:50 PM

ACTUALLY, the count is:

1 Forum Administrator,
1 Forum Moderator.

And if you would like to directly quote me in the future, I suggest you do not add EXTRA 'smileys' inside the quote-box. I didn't put that there, and I suggest you not either.

Sometimes, YES, DBA gets a little mouthy, as I recall he did apologize for this, though you seem all-too ready to keep upping the ante' here. Let it GO. ALL YOUR LIFE you are going to run into people who are sometimes going to make you feel as though they've gotten the better of you; you have to learn to deal with this. I don't REALLY consider myself "Christian" myself, BUT there can be forgiveness. Why not we just let this go? We can start fresh, and just move-on from here, K? If it gets that annoying for you, (yah know) you DO HAVE 'options' here. Just hit "iggy" and the problems gone. NOW: BACK TO TOPIC!

A Black day for America's safety and democracy...

GUNS: Do we need them? (or not?) Feedback Please!

Phew! - - Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

jesterbr549

Oct 27th, 2004, 7:43 PM

Sometimes, YES, DBA gets a little mouthy, as I recall he did apologize for this, though you seem all-too ready to keep upping the ante' here.

I recall no apology

Let it GO. ALL YOUR LIFE you are going to run into people who are sometimes going to make you feel as though they've gotten the better of you; you have to learn to deal with this.

Speak for yourself. Or were you? Or were you speaking for Ducky? Or the :dork: Or SOMEONE ELSE perhaps?

If it gets that annoying for you, (yah know) you DO HAVE 'options' here. Just hit "iggy" and the problems gone.

Actually, there is another option, and, unlike :dork: I don't lie.

See ya...

Bigsky770

Oct 27th, 2004, 8:17 PM

. . .The "Ball" was in your court, you chose to carry-it on. Might I suggest? there is a board for you where you may feel right-at-home, it's called: "True Christians Unite" (TCU) {Home away from home and seems more suitable to one of your (ahem) "ilk"}.

. . .Any more of your "weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth" over this, and I'll be forced to use the dreaded "Mod Cannon".

NOW: BACK TO TOPIC!

A Black day for America's safety and democracy...

GUNS: Do we need them? (or not?) Feedback Please!

Yet Again? - - Joe (Bigsky770)

dutchie

Oct 28th, 2004, 1:23 AM

The Topic was European History 101 not Nederlands History 101 and if we hadn't bailed out Europe, I sincerly doubt the Canadians would have been much help to you hey...
Well, to my knowledge the topic was about guns. And I don't think I'm the only one who thought you said that the outcome of the war would have been different for both the Netherlands and Belgium when their citizens would have been armed.

Well, now we get to the fart of the matter - you are a passivist.
.....a WHAT?!? Wait, I'll have a peek into the dictionary... Nope... not there... Let me see... passivist... Is this a person who is passive?!? Well, considering my postcount, I couldn't exactly fit that description... eehhrmm...

AH! Pacifist you mean!!! Now let me see: Pacifist [n] someone opposed to violence as a means of settling disputes.

Well, clearly YOU do not fit that description at all.

Gee, maybe I was wrong about you and :dork: - maybe its the other way around...

IMO you have been very busy confirming my darkest suspicions about you. Please do carry on...

It ain't polite to delete someone's post, without telling them why, just to cover your :Bott: especially when there are alot worse posts on this site than that one - like your buddies bio...

Administrators and moderators have a right to edit and/or delete any post, even without giving any reason. You should have read the forum disclaimer and rules BEFORE you started posting away here... Bigsky kindly and politely took the trouble informing you about his reasons to delete your post. Why whine about it? To help you out, here's a quote from the disclaimer:

Modification rights and/or duties
Moderators and administrators have the ability to remove or edit objectionable messages from the MOC and will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if in their judgment they should determine that removal or modification is necessary. As this is a manual process, however, members should understand that AO moderators and administrators may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately or they may overlook such messages. The administrators and moderators are not obligated to explain the reasons behind their decisions to edit or remove messages from the MOC to the AO members.
Seems clear 'nuff to me....

...there are alot worse posts on this site than that one - like your buddies bio...

...buddies... makes me wonder.... do YOU have any?

niteflyer

Oct 28th, 2004, 10:54 AM

Flames, flames, flames...maybe thats a reason for people to not have guns; although here in America we just let everyone shoot each other..evidenced by the disenfranchised blacks in the inner cities.. Oh well, me (and my guns) are staying out of this one...my back has to be against the wall before I whip out a gun...
Dutchie, I do have a pretty good education on European history, and spent 9 months of my youth as a motorcycle bum wandering on the continent and worked in Stockholm for 16 months.
Let me try and expand on the point I was trying to make. If every German citizen had a sten gun, some grenades, and a bazooka do you think Hitler would have risen to power?? I would like to think not...but who really knows?? There WERE folks that were very scared for the future of their country when he took power, but I must admit he did appeal to the masses of the poor.
If all the small countries that were over ran had citizens this well armed might Hitler have reconsidered some invasions?? Switzerland has well armed citizens (and formidable geography) and has managed to stay neutral?? Might the well armed citizens there also have been some deterant?? Isreal has a well armed populace, and its actually a pretty safe place.....despite all the folks that hate them....
My point is that as long as there are tyrants in the world guns can provide a pretty powerful deterant. I was not trying to belittle any countries lack of military strength, and I know the basics of the economy at the time. I was speaking in a hypothetical manner.....if all the european countries had troops and armor massed on the German border, waiting for Hitler to try something, it would have progressed differently. Maybe there wouldnt have been a war at all.....Hitler invaded because he knew he could win. That was all I was trying to point out.

Rynotek

Oct 28th, 2004, 11:24 AM

No govenment in their right mind would let the people run around with military grade hardware, as for training a population to use them thats another thing but of course the same people who would train you are the people you want to overthrow. I hear what you are saying about the swiss, but that is a different kettle of fish, there were a lot of politics involved in Germany not taking them, number one, whos gonna launder our stolen booty. To go back to the original question, i think its mad that the American people would even want to hold a license for an automatic weapon, it would not solve anything if it did come to the crunch. There is no need for them in the cities, there is no need for them in the countryside. If you shoot a bear with an AK your a pussy. This is NRA and white supremecy talk i think. If you didnt have them then they wont be stolen, wont be used to rob a bank and the stray bullet strike kill an innoccent person.

niteflyer

Oct 28th, 2004, 6:44 PM

Are you saying that the governments of Israel and Switzerland are mad?? I agree that under present circumstances there is not much of a reason why ordinary citizens should have military ordinance, but things can change, and abruptly. I will keep my guns, and make sure they dont fall into the wrong hands, thank you....

DontBeAfraid

Oct 29th, 2004, 6:14 AM

To be fair, I only apologized to dutchie... I think where I stand on the gun issue is pretty clear and I think niteflyer stands with me....

niteflyer

Oct 29th, 2004, 10:25 AM

That is exactly why I keep my weapons, and I might point out that this country was formed thru weapons. They are my birthright, and I own several generations of them, including the old smoothbore musket used by Capt. William Thompson in the revolutionary war, and the carbine used by sgt. George Thompson in the civil war, both ancestors of mine. My weapons are well secured, and the ONLY times they have been out this decade is to teach my boys and other children the proper use and handling of them at the request and sepervision of their parents. Note that they are all registered, and I had to obtain a Federal Firearm License to even legally inherit many of them.
Note also that the "ban" is a joke, it never even addressed weapons such as a BMG .50, a weapon with an effective range of over 7500 meters and capable of taking out a helicopter or armored personel carrier. At shorter range or with military ammo (regulated) a single person equipted with one could disable a M1 tank....and anyone thats not a felon can have one...and should in my opinion...
It is my contention that the government will never get too outrageous as long as the citizenry is well armed, its part of the "checks and balances" envisioned by the framers of our constitution.