DNA testing and storage

So are you suggesting f33dback is going to eat his gun, buzz? I'd like to see some reasons why YOU think owning a gun makes you safer and, particularly, circumstances where you saved your family by being armed.

Weak reply, avoidance of the original question, answer my questions first arrgh.
Provide the opposite where my family has been in danger owning guns, my family has always owned guns.

This post has been edited by f33dback: Mar 5 2010, 06:11 AM

What question? I pointed out that self protection is usually the first thing mentioned by gun owners but the likelihood of actually being able to protect yourself is small(your own link). I don't have a problem with people owning guns, I own one myself. What I have a problem with is the Dirty Harry attitude that seems to come with it.

The likelihood of protecting yourself is even lower without one.

The issue isn't that people own guns for protection, or that they carry them, it's that they buy one and stick it in the nightstand without ever having shot one.
They don't train to use what they own.

The most expensive part of gun ownership isn't the gun or the ammo, it's the training, but most people don't get training or think that going to the range once is enough.

I actually own three guns, a handgun, shotgun, and a rifle. The reason I own these is for my own enjoyment. I do have a permit to carry, but I don't go all Dirty Harry and carry it everywhere. I just like shooting. If someone broke into my home until I got the gun out I'd be screwed. However, I don't look down on anyone who wishes to own one if it makes them feel safer. (Not saying you do either arrgh, just wanted to point that out.) I don't like the damn Tackleberry, Dirty Harry tip touching types who get excited when you mention guns and ammo either. Usually Darwin's natural selection kicks in and they end up being one of the statistics.

Maybe until you got the gun out you'd be screwed or maybe you'd be screwed the second you got the gun out. No way to know that until it happens. Unlike you two I have lived in a society where handguns are strictly controlled. Even in Canada, although I could lay my hands on a .45 automatic tomorrow if I were so inclined, we have nothing like the incidence of gun related death you guys do. Yet you still prefer it that way. I find myself asking why.

Yes, I will be late to my own funeral!

Been out a couple of days, but just caught up on the posts. I don't have the Dirty Harry attitude, arrgh. Others like to point out the "statistics" about gun owners who get their own devices used against them. This is usually caused by keeping the hand gun/rifle/shotgun in a loaded state, instead of keeping the ammo separate and alone, but close enough at hand so it can quickly be retrieved and utilized. Granted that Canada and the U.K. both have strict gun control legislation, but that still does not stop those with criminal intent from obtaining said items. You, yourself, admit that if need be, you could lay your hands on a .45 within 24 hours. So can the criminals, but they probably have access to much more sophisticated firearms with an enhanced rate of ammunition delivery.

I will also admit that my family have never been in danger to the point that use of my hand gun was necessary. If I were a resident of Canada or the U.K., I'm sure I'd be quite at home with the laws governing firearms in those countries. However, I am a resident of the United States, and the framers of our Constitution stated quite plainly that citizens shall not be denied the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, this was written in different times, when we recognized that our U.K. brethren had Imperial designs in mind for our future. We colonists obviously had a different opinion of their ideas, hence the codicil about our gun rights. Times may have changed, but the Constitution has not. In fact, it seems the U.S. Supreme Court finally realized that citizens do have that right (article here).

Regardless how people feel, gun ownership is as volatile an issue as is abortion and cruelty to animals. Find the right things to believe in, choose your battles and never back down from your beliefs. After all, you could make the analogy that if you don't like what's on this particular channel, then exercise your right to change the channel!

@f33dback: I'm in Washington state, just south of my northern friend, arrgh.

Heller was a good win for the gun crowd, here's hoping McDonald goes the same way.
Most gun deaths in the USA are suicide or gang related homicides, suiciders will find some other way to kill themselves and the gang related killings aren't going to stop if you make guns illegal, perhaps if you address the poverty and the illegal immigration issues it would decline.

People in the USA are starting to get it, the other shoe hasn't yet dropped in the "financial crisis" and IMHO we are going into a depression, slowly, but we are going down.
I intend to be armed and trained when the SHTF.

There will a running war on the streets, check out this article and imagine what would happen in LA was in a depression.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
If you got rid of the illegals there would be far far less gun crime.

My point with the abortion comment is that there are more than 10 times times the fatalities with abortions than there are with handguns, and the handgun statistics are suicides and gang violence, which interesting enough is on the rapid rise in the UK, where you can't get a weapon to defend yourself.




This post has been edited by f33dback: Mar 7 2010, 02:53 AM

Yes I quoted Hitler.

Was refraining from commenting

LOL, yeah I was waiting for your usual.

Unfortunately, YOUR subject races get to carry arms=FAIL

Not sure what you mean by that, but I read Hitlers quote as meaning "the leaders and their troops can have guns, but not the average person, and of course not the jews, gypsies, etc"

Which translates to "we can't allow the people we oppress and control any way to fight back"

That, in a nutshell, is why the USA constitution has the second amendment which applies to militias, and now individuals. (thank you Heller)

This post has been edited by f33dback: Mar 8 2010, 09:16 PM

What I mean by that is the people you are always complaining about(immigrants) also get to carry guns. Seems like a lose/lose situation.

I don't complain about immigrants, I complain about illegal immigrants, which in LA county are responsible for over 80% of violent crimes and arrest warrants.
If we had a tighter border and allowed only legal immigrants who went thru the appropriate process, we wouldn't have that crime, we wouldn't have wage drops, we wouldn't have hospitals and social services strained.

Since illegal immigrants are not citizens they should not be allowed gun ownership, special order 40 keeps the police at bay and immigrant lobbys get them ID's and driver license.

No one has the balls politically to address the issue, so the USA slides into a shit hole.

O rly?
I think you are either being naive or disingenuous. Actually I believe you are being both.

Migrant groups typically do the kinds of work that citizens will not do, either because it is poorly paid or it is illegal. The majority of them will find such legal work as they can. The minority will choose the latter path. Interestingly the only reason that illegal immigrants would choose the later path in greater proportion to the former is if they could find no other work because... oh I don't know... they haven't got a green card and couldn't work without it. I know you've been told all this already because we're regulars here and can remember what other people have written, which is why I say you're being disingenuous, you just ignore the arguments unless they are specifically stated to you in the previous five posts.

So that being the case an amnesty on illegal immigrants makes more sense.

Also the idea that there will never be other reasons barring illegal immigration for pushing earnings down ignores the whole financial apocalypse which has just occured for reasons entirely unrelated to immigration.

Crime will always exist, it will always involve roughly the same percentage of the population regardless of their citizenship status. This is because

1. there will always be an underclass as long as there is an overclass
2. it is necessary that the Black economy exist to feed the grey economy which in turn feeds the white economy measured in your GDP

Who is employing these illegal immigrants? Are they all on welfare/living a life of crime? I think not.

Well I have to point out "migrants" and "immigrants" are 2 different things, and amnesty does not make sense unless you lock the door afterwards.
A simple search on google of the LA "situation" will show how wrong the rest of your post is.


Yes they are all living a life of crime, they are here "illegally" which makes them criminals.
And what does it matter who employs them if we aren't going to enforce the immigration laws? Special order 40 is the perfect example of the "immigrant lobby" and their continued efforts to turn the southern and western portion of America back into Mexico/South America.

Well if I replaced "Google" with "Stormfront" then yeah...

Have we been off topic?