"Attila.Iskander" wrote:

Try making that criminal vs citizen and you would be right.

All criminals are law abiding citizens - up until they commit a crime
that is.

There is very little LAW-ABIDING citizen on citizen crime...

Technically there is no such thing as law-abiding citizen-on-citizen
crime.

See battle of Athens, Tennessee for the counter

What's sad about that story is how the Cantrell clan ruled that county
for (it appears) the better part of a decade as their own little
kingdom, and all during that time the armed citizenry just stood by and
watched:

You will note that in this case, it was not the federal or even state
gov't that was imposing tyranny upon the citizens of McMinn County.

===================
The sheriff and his deputies operated a fee system under which they
received a cut of the money for every person they booked, incarcerated,
and released; the more arrests, the more money they made. Often, buses
passing through the county were pulled over and the passengers were
randomly ticketed for drunkenness, whether guilty or not.
===================

It was actually the LACK of action on the part of the state and federal
gov't to deal with the Cantrell clan and restore effective gov't and
libery to the citizens of McMinn County.

=============
The 79th Congress had adjourned on August 2, 1946, when the Battle of
Athens ended. However, Representative John Jennings Jr. from Tennessee
decried McMinn County's sorry situation under Cantrell and Mansfield and
the Justice Department's repeated failures to help the McMinn County
residents.
=============

The wiki article points out that even though the state guard was
mobilized, they did not even go to Athens - likely because the GI's in
the Guard did not want to confront the citizen-GI's leading the
rebellion against the Cantrells. It could be argued that had the
rebellion been led or composed of non-GI's, that the Guard would have
deployed to Athens and put an end to the citizen uprising.

Ultimately, it's not clear to me that the tyranny imposed by the
Cantrell clan couldn't or wouldn't have been exposed and put to an end
by sufficient application of the federal and state court system - no
guns needed.

If given the choice between absolutely no private firearm
ownership (and hence no possibility for a domestic fire-arm
trade, products, black-market, etc) and the situation we
have now, who could argue that society wouldn't be better
off if NOBODY had guns?

When the law-abiding are disarmed it does NOTHING to disarm
the criminals

What weapons would the criminals have that the law-abiding citizens
would *not* have?

I said that the genie can't be put back in the bottle. That means you
can't wave a magic wand and make all civillian guns (guns in the hands
of all types of citizens - criminals and otherwise) disappear.

But if you could - if no guns were ever available to anyone, that also
means criminals too.

who will then subjugate and terrorize the law-abiding.

With what?

Sticks and stones? Clubs and knives? Their fists?

The citizens can have those too.

And yet, the US, compared to just about any Western and
non-Western country, is one of the few countries that has
stayed the course more than 200 years in respecting
individual rights and freedoms..

This has got nothing to do with rights and freedoms.

How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but not a
machine gun?

Or a rocket launcher or bazooka or high explosives or all sorts of other
deadly / destructive products?

Why aren't you crying foul that you can't buy hand grenades or land
mines?

Or that you can't grow and smoke your own marijuana?

Sorry if I'm not using the correct protocol for posting .... don't do it all
that much.

"Home Guy" said:

How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but not a
machine gun?

Or a rocket launcher or bazooka or high explosives or all sorts of other
deadly / destructive products?

Why aren't you crying foul that you can't buy hand grenades or land
mines?

What you said is so absurd that it boggles the mind. So, I guess if a person
is allowed to have a knife and a baseball bat in their home for self
defense, then with your reasoning, it should somehow be escalated to
something like, "then why not allow a nuclear bomb as well"? What gives with
that? How does your mind come up with such a conclusion?
Do you apply this escalation to everything?
How you get from a reasonable point (A) a gun to defend yourself and family
to (B) then anything goes? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.

On Dec 1, 5:19*am, "Forrest" wrote:
Sorry if I'm not using the correct protocol for posting .... don't do it all
that much.

"Home Guy" said:

How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but not a
machine gun?

Or a rocket launcher or bazooka or high explosives or all sorts of other
deadly / destructive products?

Why aren't you crying foul that you can't buy hand grenades or land
mines?

What you said is so absurd that it boggles the mind. So, I guess if a person
is allowed to have a knife and a baseball bat in their home for self
defense, then with your reasoning, it should somehow be escalated to
something like, "then why not allow a nuclear bomb as well"? What gives with
that? * How does your mind come up with such a conclusion?
Do you apply this escalation to everything?
How you get from a reasonable point (A) a gun to defend yourself and family
to (B) then anything goes? * *I'm sorry, I just don't get it.

It is called irony.
Americans don't understand it and never will.

On Dec 1, 12:16*am, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Home Guy" wrote in ....
Tom Horne wrote:

Gun ownership and carrying a gun is a right intended to make it
more difficult for the government to subjugate the citizenry.
It was Thomas Jefferson who said ""When the people fear their
government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the
people, there is liberty."

I would argue that the vast majority of US gun owners do not know the
underlying reason why the "right to bear arms" is in the constitution.

But regardless, the US is way past the point that an armed citizenry
makes for an effective counter to gov't tyranny. *The original framers
could not contimplate that US citizens would one day have more to fear
from something called the "IRS" or a "personal credit score" - forms of
tyranny that can not be fought back with a gun (or musket).

Did the framers ever forsee or even imagine that civilian gun ownership
would take a bigger toll in citizen-vs-citizen conflict (injury, death
and misery) - and NOT citizen-vs-gov't conflict?

Try making that criminal vs citizen and you would be right.
* * There is very little LAW-ABIDING citizen on citizen crime...

Where has the right to bear arms ever served US citizens in countering
gov't tyranny during the entire existance of the country?

It was a stupid idea from the start - the gov't will always give itself
more and bigger guns if it thinks it needs it. *Just ask the people of
Waco Tx.

See battle of Athens, Tennessee for the counter

"when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

No.

When the gov't fears the people, it buys more and bigger guns. *And it
x-rays them at airports. *And it taps their phone lines. *And it passes
laws allowing the military to be the new police.

It also need to have those people see citizens as the enemy
Most police and military, being on the right, *have a far better grasp of
Constitutional issues than most.
* * They also have sworn an oath to protect the Constitution, NOT the
government.

but that does not make it a good idea to try to take away the
basic right that every American has to keep and bare arms.

And a lot of good the exercise of that right has given you over the
years.

But the genie can't be put back in the bottle.

All we can really do is argue the merits of what could have been.

If given the choice between absolutely no private firearm ownership (and
hence no possibility for a domestic fire-arm trade, products,
black-market, etc) and the situation we have now, who could argue that
society wouldn't be better off if NOBODY had guns?

Only idiots ignorant of history
* * When the law-abiding are disarmed it does NOTHING to disarm the
criminals who will then subjugate and terrorize the law-abiding.

After all, we know from several hundred years of past experience that an
armed US citizenry was and is totally ineffective against it's own
gov't.

And yet, the US, compared to just about any Western and non-Western country,
is one of the few countries that has stayed the course more than 200 years
in respecting individual rights and freedoms..

Your abyssal ignorance of history is sad to see.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The USA is a fascist state that has killed hundreds of thousands of
inoccent people.
It started with the indians and the latest were the Iraqis.

At no point has it respected individual rights and freedoms.
It was founded on slavery. The White house was built by slaves.
It was started for, and exists only for, the purpose of enriching it's
minority of wealthy citizens.

We have more guns than people. *It could be very, very ugly. *Look at how
long the Chechens have been at war with White Russia:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/olliver...chens-so-angry

(I must have gotten most of the other stuff right, since you only chose
that part to quote me on)

If you need to flatter yourself, go right ahead. *BTW, it's "its own
government" not "it's." *(Just by way of letting you know I don't feel the
need to correct *every* error made in every post. *Just the egregious ones.)

--
Bobby G.

Interesting link that. An exact parallel between the USA and the
native indians.
The apostraphy business arises out of different conventions.
In the UK it is used to indicate possession as well as missing
letters.
But not for plurals.
So he would be correct over here.

The dog's ********. = to "the dog (his) ********"
That dog's a fool.
But,
He has many dogs.

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:39:27 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

The pasture donkey brays again


The USA is a fascist state that has killed hundreds of thousands of
inoccent people.

How many has the British killed?

It started with the indians and the latest were the Iraqis.


How many "indians" have the British killed or the French, for that
matter?

At no point has it respected individual rights and freedoms.

Wrong again harry.

It was founded on slavery.

Wrong again harry.

The White house was built by slaves.

Are you certain?

It was started for, and exists only for, the purpose of enriching it's
minority of wealthy citizens.

Wrong again harry.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 1, 5:19 am, "Forrest" wrote:
Sorry if I'm not using the correct protocol for posting .... don't do it
all
that much.

"Home Guy" said:

How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but not a
machine gun?

Or a rocket launcher or bazooka or high explosives or all sorts of other
deadly / destructive products?

Why aren't you crying foul that you can't buy hand grenades or land
mines?

What you said is so absurd that it boggles the mind. So, I guess if a
person
is allowed to have a knife and a baseball bat in their home for self
defense, then with your reasoning, it should somehow be escalated to
something like, "then why not allow a nuclear bomb as well"? What gives
with
that? How does your mind come up with such a conclusion?
Do you apply this escalation to everything?
How you get from a reasonable point (A) a gun to defend yourself and
family
to (B) then anything goes? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.

It is called irony.
Americans don't understand it and never will.

Oh, I think we can understand "irony" when it's presented. We can also
recognize a "non sequitur".

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:19:50 -0800, "Forrest"
wrote:


Sorry if I'm not using the correct protocol for posting .... don't do it all
that much.

"Home Guy" said:

How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but not a
machine gun?

Or a rocket launcher or bazooka or high explosives or all sorts of other
deadly / destructive products?

Why aren't you crying foul that you can't buy hand grenades or land
mines?

What you said is so absurd that it boggles the mind. So, I guess if a person
is allowed to have a knife and a baseball bat in their home for self
defense, then with your reasoning, it should somehow be escalated to
something like, "then why not allow a nuclear bomb as well"? What gives with
that? How does your mind come up with such a conclusion?
Do you apply this escalation to everything?
How you get from a reasonable point (A) a gun to defend yourself and family
to (B) then anything goes? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.


Need an assault rifle to "defend your home?"
Big stink about allowing them to be owned by civilians.
Gun lobby won that one.
Seems a 12 gauge auto-loader should do for home defense, o
You can shorten it to 26" with 18" barrel..
If you take the tack that the 2nd Amendment is to protect you from the
government, you should be able to own mines and grenades, SAMS, tanks,
auto-cannons, etc.
Why not? Otherwise you're basically a sitting duck to gov firepower.
Nukes are another story. There you get into EPA regulations.

--Vic

On 12/1/2011 2:57 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:19:50 -0800, "Forrest"
wrote:


Sorry if I'm not using the correct protocol for posting .... don't do it all
that much.

"Home Guy" said:

How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but not a
machine gun?

Or a rocket launcher or bazooka or high explosives or all sorts of other
deadly / destructive products?

Why aren't you crying foul that you can't buy hand grenades or land
mines?

What you said is so absurd that it boggles the mind. So, I guess if a person
is allowed to have a knife and a baseball bat in their home for self
defense, then with your reasoning, it should somehow be escalated to
something like, "then why not allow a nuclear bomb as well"? What gives with
that? How does your mind come up with such a conclusion?
Do you apply this escalation to everything?
How you get from a reasonable point (A) a gun to defend yourself and family
to (B) then anything goes? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.


Need an assault rifle to "defend your home?"
Big stink about allowing them to be owned by civilians.
Gun lobby won that one.
Seems a 12 gauge auto-loader should do for home defense, o
You can shorten it to 26" with 18" barrel..
If you take the tack that the 2nd Amendment is to protect you from the
government, you should be able to own mines and grenades, SAMS, tanks,
auto-cannons, etc.
Why not? Otherwise you're basically a sitting duck to gov firepower.
Nukes are another story. There you get into EPA regulations.

--Vic

When the country was founded, the average citizen/hunter had a rifle
that was superior to the rifle carried by soldiers. Technology has
marched on. no pun ^_^

TDD

On 12/1/2011 12:40 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:39:27 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

The pasture donkey brays again


The USA is a fascist state that has killed hundreds of thousands of
inoccent people.

How many has the British killed?

It started with the indians and the latest were the Iraqis.


How many "indians" have the British killed or the French, for that
matter?

At no point has it respected individual rights and freedoms.

Wrong again harry.

It was founded on slavery.

Wrong again harry.

The White house was built by slaves.

Are you certain?

It was started for, and exists only for, the purpose of enriching it's
minority of wealthy citizens.

Wrong again harry.

Funny you should mention slaves Harry, many of my distant Irish and
Scottish ancestors were the first slaves here in what is now the U.S.,
they were captured in war with the British at the time and enslaved
to help build the colony here. Most people, especially of a Liberal
ilk refuse to admit that the first slaves here were White. I know it
can cause overheating and short circuits in P.L.L.C.F. brains but it's
for the best. ^_^

http://preview.tinyurl.com/4g9twwq

TDD

Home Guy wrote:

This has got nothing to do with rights and freedoms.

How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but not a
machine gun?

Huh? I own two: An Uzi and a fully automatic AK-47. Both are fully legal.


Or a rocket launcher or bazooka or high explosives or all sorts of
other deadly / destructive products?

Those, too, can be lawfully owned by American civilians.


Why aren't you crying foul that you can't buy hand grenades or land
mines?

Huh? Americans CAN buy hand grenades or land mines. Of course they, and the
items above, may be subject to local or state restrictions, but there is no
federal prohibition, per se, declaring them contraband.


Or that you can't grow and smoke your own marijuana?

Because marijuana IS contraband under federal law.

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 16:25:11 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Home Guy wrote:

This has got nothing to do with rights and freedoms.

How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but not a
machine gun?

Huh? I own two: An Uzi and a fully automatic AK-47. Both are fully legal.


Or a rocket launcher or bazooka or high explosives or all sorts of
other deadly / destructive products?

Those, too, can be lawfully owned by American civilians.


Why aren't you crying foul that you can't buy hand grenades or land
mines?

Huh? Americans CAN buy hand grenades or land mines. Of course they, and the
items above, may be subject to local or state restrictions, but there is no
federal prohibition, per se, declaring them contraband.


Or that you can't grow and smoke your own marijuana?

Because marijuana IS contraband under federal law.


I thought "contraband" was a group of Nicaraguan musicians.

Learn something every day....dang..

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:24:22 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

HeyBub wrote:

who could argue that society wouldn't be better off if NOBODY
had guns?

I can.

By quoting the pithy saying:
"God made man. Samuel Colt made men equal."

If everyone having guns makes them equal, then everyone not having guns
also makes them equal.

Wrong, dumbass, people come in all different sizes. Guns make physical
strength less important, equalizing granny and perp.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:57:30 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:19:50 -0800, "Forrest"
wrote:


Sorry if I'm not using the correct protocol for posting .... don't do it all
that much.

"Home Guy" said:

How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but not a
machine gun?

Or a rocket launcher or bazooka or high explosives or all sorts of other
deadly / destructive products?

Why aren't you crying foul that you can't buy hand grenades or land
mines?

What you said is so absurd that it boggles the mind. So, I guess if a person
is allowed to have a knife and a baseball bat in their home for self
defense, then with your reasoning, it should somehow be escalated to
something like, "then why not allow a nuclear bomb as well"? What gives with
that? How does your mind come up with such a conclusion?
Do you apply this escalation to everything?
How you get from a reasonable point (A) a gun to defend yourself and family
to (B) then anything goes? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.


Need an assault rifle to "defend your home?"

Define "assault rifle".

Big stink about allowing them to be owned by civilians.

So?

Gun lobby won that one.

Good thing.

Seems a 12 gauge auto-loader should do for home defense, o

OK, if that's your choice. However, home defense isn't the only reason to own
a gun.

You can shorten it to 26" with 18" barrel..
If you take the tack that the 2nd Amendment is to protect you from the
government, you should be able to own mines and grenades, SAMS, tanks,
auto-cannons, etc.

Do study civics, some time.

Why not? Otherwise you're basically a sitting duck to gov firepower.
Nukes are another story. There you get into EPA regulations.

You're loopy.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:36:24 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:08:09 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Forrest" wrote in message
...

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in message
...

"Home Guy" wrote in message
...


Guns are and will be used to kill innocent people, intentionally, by
accident, and under very depressing circumstances. Gun proponents can't
wish those events away no matter how hard they try.

Too bad that banning guns, does NOT in any stop the fact that innocent
people get killed.
On the other hand, banning guns, only makes innocent people less able to
defend themselves against the criminals..
But that's an issue that such as you conveniently ignore even though
far more people are victimized when they are made defenseless by such as
you.

Well said and very true. If gun ownership were banned and criminals knew
for sure
that every home was devoid of firearms .... every night would be time for
"Trick or Treat" !
They sure as hell wouldn't be afraid of your baseball bat because they
would have guns.
Criminals don't care how many laws you pass against gun ownership. By
definition, breaking laws is what they do.


One only has to look at home invasions in Canada and England compared to the
US, to see the truth of that

Yeah. They just hug their criminals to death.

Except that the "hugging" goes the other way.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:49:34 -0500, "
wrote:

Need an assault rifle to "defend your home?"

Define "assault rifle".

Usually black, but there are exceptions.

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID2206/images/journalistsguide.jpg

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:54:32 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:49:34 -0500, "
wrote:

Need an assault rifle to "defend your home?"

Define "assault rifle".

Usually black, but there are exceptions.

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID2206/images/journalistsguide.jpg

Ah, I see. A racist weapon. Yes, PC demands that they be banned.

On 12/1/2011 6:54 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:49:34 -0500, "
wrote:

Need an assault rifle to "defend your home?"

Define "assault rifle".

Usually black, but there are exceptions.

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID2206/images/journalistsguide.jpg

You forgot the chart that shows every pistol being a Glock. ^_^

TDD

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote:

Try making that criminal vs citizen and you would be right.

All criminals are law abiding citizens - up until they commit a crime
that is.


Tautology
Most crime is criminal on criminal


There is very little LAW-ABIDING citizen on citizen crime...

Technically there is no such thing as law-abiding citizen-on-citizen
crime.

See battle of Athens, Tennessee for the counter

What's sad about that story is how the Cantrell clan ruled that county
for (it appears) the better part of a decade as their own little
kingdom, and all during that time the armed citizenry just stood by and
watched:


That's usually the case.
Most people are sheeple


You will note that in this case, it was not the federal or even state
gov't that was imposing tyranny upon the citizens of McMinn County.


So ?
Does it matter who imposes the tyranny ?

Tyranny is tyranny, no matter who imposes it.


snip

If given the choice between absolutely no private firearm
ownership (and hence no possibility for a domestic fire-arm
trade, products, black-market, etc) and the situation we
have now, who could argue that society wouldn't be better
off if NOBODY had guns?

When the law-abiding are disarmed it does NOTHING to disarm
the criminals

What weapons would the criminals have that the law-abiding citizens
would *not* have?


Anything available on the black market
Look at how effective gun-control has been in the last century
History shows that ANY form of prohibition is due for failure


I said that the genie can't be put back in the bottle. That means you
can't wave a magic wand and make all civillian guns (guns in the hands
of all types of citizens - criminals and otherwise) disappear.



Finally you got something right
Too bad you don't comprehend what it means.


But if you could - if no guns were ever available to anyone, that also
means criminals too.

who will then subjugate and terrorize the law-abiding.

With what?
Sticks and stones? Clubs and knives? Their fists?
The citizens can have those too.


Not everyone is strong or quick enough to use those successfully.
At 60, I sure as hell, am not stupid enough to get into a fistfight with
some punk 40 years younger than me.
I'll just shoot the goblin





And yet, the US, compared to just about any Western and
non-Western country, is one of the few countries that has
stayed the course more than 200 years in respecting
individual rights and freedoms..

This has got nothing to do with rights and freedoms.


It has EVERYTHING to do with rights and freedoms
All those other failures were all about a LACK of INDIVIDUAL rights and
freedoms



How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but not a
machine gun?


There you go being ignorant again
I do have the right to own a machine gun


Or a rocket launcher or bazooka or high explosives or all sorts of other
deadly / destructive products?


More ignorance
They don't qualify as "personal arms" as understood by the 2nd Amendment


Why aren't you crying foul that you can't buy hand grenades or land
mines?


More ignorance
They don't qualify as "personal arms" as understood by the 2nd Amendment


Or that you can't grow and smoke your own marijuana?

Why would I want to be a (stupid and ignorant) pot-head like you ?

"Forrest" wrote in message
...

Sorry if I'm not using the correct protocol for posting .... don't do it
all that much.

"Home Guy" said:

How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but not a
machine gun?

Or a rocket launcher or bazooka or high explosives or all sorts of other
deadly / destructive products?

Why aren't you crying foul that you can't buy hand grenades or land
mines?

What you said is so absurd that it boggles the mind. So, I guess if a
person is allowed to have a knife and a baseball bat in their home for
self defense, then with your reasoning, it should somehow be escalated to
something like, "then why not allow a nuclear bomb as well"? What gives
with that? How does your mind come up with such a conclusion?
Do you apply this escalation to everything?
How you get from a reasonable point (A) a gun to defend yourself and
family to (B) then anything goes? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.


You're not supposed to
It's dishonest argument

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 1, 5:19 am, "Forrest" wrote:
Sorry if I'm not using the correct protocol for posting .... don't do it
all
that much.

"Home Guy" said:

How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but not a
machine gun?

Or a rocket launcher or bazooka or high explosives or all sorts of
other
deadly / destructive products?

Why aren't you crying foul that you can't buy hand grenades or land
mines?

What you said is so absurd that it boggles the mind. So, I guess if a
person
is allowed to have a knife and a baseball bat in their home for self
defense, then with your reasoning, it should somehow be escalated to
something like, "then why not allow a nuclear bomb as well"? What gives
with
that? How does your mind come up with such a conclusion?
Do you apply this escalation to everything?
How you get from a reasonable point (A) a gun to defend yourself and
family
to (B) then anything goes? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.

It is called irony.
Americans don't understand it and never will.

Oh look, the stupid bigot puked again.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:19:50 -0800, "Forrest"
wrote:


Sorry if I'm not using the correct protocol for posting .... don't do it
all
that much.

"Home Guy" said:

How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but not a
machine gun?

Or a rocket launcher or bazooka or high explosives or all sorts of other
deadly / destructive products?

Why aren't you crying foul that you can't buy hand grenades or land
mines?

What you said is so absurd that it boggles the mind. So, I guess if a
person
is allowed to have a knife and a baseball bat in their home for self
defense, then with your reasoning, it should somehow be escalated to
something like, "then why not allow a nuclear bomb as well"? What gives
with
that? How does your mind come up with such a conclusion?
Do you apply this escalation to everything?
How you get from a reasonable point (A) a gun to defend yourself and
family
to (B) then anything goes? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.


Need an assault rifle to "defend your home?"
Big stink about allowing them to be owned by civilians.
Gun lobby won that one.
Seems a 12 gauge auto-loader should do for home defense, o
You can shorten it to 26" with 18" barrel..
If you take the tack that the 2nd Amendment is to protect you from the
government, you should be able to own mines and grenades, SAMS, tanks,
auto-cannons, etc.

ONLY if you're stump stupid and can't read the 2nd Amendment for
comprehension


Why not? Otherwise you're basically a sitting duck to gov firepower.
Nukes are another story. There you get into EPA regulations.


there you go
You proved you ARE stupid

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 1, 12:16 am, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Home Guy" wrote in
...
Tom Horne wrote:

Gun ownership and carrying a gun is a right intended to make it
more difficult for the government to subjugate the citizenry.
It was Thomas Jefferson who said ""When the people fear their
government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the
people, there is liberty."

I would argue that the vast majority of US gun owners do not know the
underlying reason why the "right to bear arms" is in the constitution.

But regardless, the US is way past the point that an armed citizenry
makes for an effective counter to gov't tyranny. The original framers
could not contimplate that US citizens would one day have more to fear
from something called the "IRS" or a "personal credit score" - forms of
tyranny that can not be fought back with a gun (or musket).

Did the framers ever forsee or even imagine that civilian gun ownership
would take a bigger toll in citizen-vs-citizen conflict (injury, death
and misery) - and NOT citizen-vs-gov't conflict?

Try making that criminal vs citizen and you would be right.
There is very little LAW-ABIDING citizen on citizen crime...

Where has the right to bear arms ever served US citizens in countering
gov't tyranny during the entire existance of the country?

It was a stupid idea from the start - the gov't will always give itself
more and bigger guns if it thinks it needs it. Just ask the people of
Waco Tx.

See battle of Athens, Tennessee for the counter

"when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

No.

When the gov't fears the people, it buys more and bigger guns. And it
x-rays them at airports. And it taps their phone lines. And it passes
laws allowing the military to be the new police.

It also need to have those people see citizens as the enemy
Most police and military, being on the right, have a far better grasp of
Constitutional issues than most.
They also have sworn an oath to protect the Constitution, NOT the
government.

but that does not make it a good idea to try to take away the
basic right that every American has to keep and bare arms.

And a lot of good the exercise of that right has given you over the
years.

But the genie can't be put back in the bottle.

All we can really do is argue the merits of what could have been.

If given the choice between absolutely no private firearm ownership
(and
hence no possibility for a domestic fire-arm trade, products,
black-market, etc) and the situation we have now, who could argue that
society wouldn't be better off if NOBODY had guns?

Only idiots ignorant of history
When the law-abiding are disarmed it does NOTHING to disarm the
criminals who will then subjugate and terrorize the law-abiding.

After all, we know from several hundred years of past experience that
an
armed US citizenry was and is totally ineffective against it's own
gov't.

And yet, the US, compared to just about any Western and non-Western
country,
is one of the few countries that has stayed the course more than 200
years
in respecting individual rights and freedoms..

Your abyssal ignorance of history is sad to see.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The USA is a fascist state that has killed hundreds of thousands of
inoccent people.
It started with the indians and the latest were the Iraqis.

At no point has it respected individual rights and freedoms.
It was founded on slavery. The White house was built by slaves.
It was started for, and exists only for, the purpose of enriching it's
minority of wealthy citizens.

yawn
harry the dolt marxist from England spews again

"Oren" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:39:27 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

The pasture donkey brays again


The USA is a fascist state that has killed hundreds of thousands of
inoccent people.

How many has the British killed?

It started with the indians and the latest were the Iraqis.


How many "indians" have the British killed or the French, for that
matter?

At no point has it respected individual rights and freedoms.

Wrong again harry.

It was founded on slavery.

Wrong again harry.

The White house was built by slaves.

Are you certain?

It was started for, and exists only for, the purpose of enriching it's
minority of wealthy citizens.

Wrong again harry.

That's the ONLY thing harry has ever been successful at
Being wrong..
No wonder the Brits are second-class.

On Dec 1, 6:40*pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:39:27 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

The pasture donkey brays again



The USA is a fascist state that has killed hundreds of thousands of
inoccent people.

How many has the British killed?

It started with the indians and the latest were the Iraqis.

How many "indians" have the British killed or the French, for that
matter?

At no point has it respected individual rights and freedoms.

Wrong again harry.

It was founded on slavery.

Wrong again harry.

The White house was built by slaves.

Are you certain?

It was started for, and exists only for, the purpose of enriching it's
minority of wealthy citizens.

Wrong again harry.

You really have your head up your arseif you can't see that now.
Every bit of taxpayer's money has been handed overto the bankers/
financial industry.
All their illegal activities are coming to light now.
How many are going to jail?
None ofthem.

A crooked government where congressmen are allowed to do insider
trading.

Your grandchildren will be paying for this long after you are dead.

On Dec 1, 9:13*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/1/2011 12:40 PM, Oren wrote:





On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:39:27 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

The pasture donkey brays again

The USA is a fascist state that has killed hundreds of thousands of
inoccent people.

How many has the British killed?

It started with the indians and the latest were the Iraqis.

How many "indians" have the British killed or the French, for that
matter?

At no point has it respected individual rights and freedoms.

Wrong again harry.

It was founded on slavery.

Wrong again harry.

The White house was built by slaves.

Are you certain?

It was started for, and exists only for, the purpose of enriching it's
minority of wealthy citizens.

Wrong again harry.

Funny you should mention slaves Harry, many of my distant Irish and
Scottish ancestors were the first slaves here in what is now the U.S.,
they were captured in war with the British at the time and enslaved
to help build the colony here. Most people, especially of a Liberal
ilk refuse to admit that the first slaves here were White. I know it
can cause overheating and short circuits in P.L.L.C.F. brains but it's
for the best. ^_^

http://preview.tinyurl.com/4g9twwq

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah that would explain the criminality of your society ;-)
Re the black ones,Abraham Lincoln intended to ship them back to
Africa.
Liberia had been identified as the place they were going to be dropped
off.

There were white slaves long after there were black ones. Called
immigrants.
They were lured to America too with promises of milk and honey.
Routinely rounded up on arrival and made to work in sweat shops.
Now the only cheap source of labour is Mexicans which another reason
the US economy is faltering.

On Dec 1, 11:46*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:24:22 -0500, Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

who could argue that society wouldn't be better off if NOBODY
had guns?

I can.

By quoting the pithy saying:
"God made man. Samuel Colt made men equal."

If everyone having guns makes them equal, then everyone not having guns
also makes them equal.

Wrong, dumbass, people come in all different sizes. *Guns make physical
strength less important, equalizing granny and perp.

Nuclear weapons make countries equal.

On Dec 2, 4:51*am, "Attila.Iskander" wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

news




On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:39:27 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

The pasture donkey brays again

The USA is a fascist state that has killed hundreds of thousands of
inoccent people.

How many has the British killed?

It started with the indians and the latest were the Iraqis.

How many "indians" have the British killed or the French, for that
matter?

At no point has it respected individual rights and freedoms.

Wrong again harry.

It was founded on slavery.

Wrong again harry.

The White house was built by slaves.

Are you certain?

It was started for, and exists only for, the purpose of enriching it's
minority of wealthy citizens.

Wrong again harry.

That's the ONLY thing harry has ever been successful at
* * Being wrong..
No wonder the Brits are second-class.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you are headed for the third world.

On 12/2/2011 12:34 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 1, 9:13 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/1/2011 12:40 PM, Oren wrote:





On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:39:27 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

The pasture donkey brays again

The USA is a fascist state that has killed hundreds of thousands of
inoccent people.

How many has the British killed?

It started with the indians and the latest were the Iraqis.

How many "indians" have the British killed or the French, for that
matter?

At no point has it respected individual rights and freedoms.

Wrong again harry.

It was founded on slavery.

Wrong again harry.

The White house was built by slaves.

Are you certain?

It was started for, and exists only for, the purpose of enriching it's
minority of wealthy citizens.

Wrong again harry.

Funny you should mention slaves Harry, many of my distant Irish and
Scottish ancestors were the first slaves here in what is now the U.S.,
they were captured in war with the British at the time and enslaved
to help build the colony here. Most people, especially of a Liberal
ilk refuse to admit that the first slaves here were White. I know it
can cause overheating and short circuits in P.L.L.C.F. brains but it's
for the best. ^_^

http://preview.tinyurl.com/4g9twwq

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah that would explain the criminality of your society ;-)
Re the black ones,Abraham Lincoln intended to ship them back to
Africa.
Liberia had been identified as the place they were going to be dropped
off.

There were white slaves long after there were black ones. Called
immigrants.
They were lured to America too with promises of milk and honey.
Routinely rounded up on arrival and made to work in sweat shops.
Now the only cheap source of labour is Mexicans which another reason
the US economy is faltering.

Negro Americans are still enslaved, their massa is The Democrat Party. ^_^

TDD

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 2, 4:51 am, "Attila.Iskander" wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

news
Wrong again harry.

That's the ONLY thing harry has ever been successful at
Being wrong..
No wonder the Brits are second-class.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you are headed for the third world.

There you go being wrong again.
I'm going to Alberta to ski over the holidays.
Oh and if you're talking countries, the UK is on a far steeper slope and
quicker path for that end result.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 1, 11:46 pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:24:22 -0500, Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

who could argue that society wouldn't be better off if NOBODY
had guns?

I can.

By quoting the pithy saying:
"God made man. Samuel Colt made men equal."

If everyone having guns makes them equal, then everyone not having guns
also makes them equal.

Wrong, dumbass, people come in all different sizes. Guns make physical
strength less important, equalizing granny and perp.

Nuclear weapons make countries equal.

But only a socialist **** would want to make most of the ********s in the
world "equal"

"Attila.Iskander" wrote:

who will then subjugate and terrorize the law-abiding.

With what?
Sticks and stones? Clubs and knives? Their fists?
The citizens can have those too.

Not everyone is strong or quick enough to use those successfully.

Guns are not the "great equalizer".

Someone that's too weak (physically, emotionally, etc) to use physical
force to commit a crime can more easily commit that crime by using a
gun.

At 60, I sure as hell, am not stupid enough to get into a
fistfight with some punk 40 years younger than me.

That presupposes that you always have a gun within easy reach, at all
times, in your home or when out in public. That they're not taken from
you during a struggle, used against you, stolen from you during these
encounters.

Guns are not ergonomic replacements for physical ability when confronted
with an un-armed assailant. Your own strength (if you have it) is
something you always have with you, can be used instantly - reflexively,
can't be taken and used against you.

When confronted with an armed assailant, there's no garantee that you
won't be shot if you're unarmed. But if you are armed, the brandishing
of your own gun will almost garantee a shoot-out, the outcome of which
is far from certain.

I'll just shoot the goblin

You watch too much TV.

How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but
not a machine gun?

There you go being ignorant again
I do have the right to own a machine gun

While I was under the impression that silencers and machine guns were
generally prohibited across the board, it does seem that they are legal
(if not hard to obtain and expensive to own) in some states, and illegal
in others:

==================
http://www.shootersdepot.com/legalities.html

NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT (“Class 3” weapons ) LEGALITIES

To our knowledge, the following States BAN the following :

Machineguns are banned in : CA, DE, DC, HI, NY, WA.

Suppressors are banned in : CA, DE, DC, HI, IL, KS, MN, MO,
MS, NY, NJ, RI.

Some States would have additional requirements (like LA, MD)

One more “kink”:

Machineguns (not the other NFAs) can only be owned by Civilians if they
are registered as such by May 19, 1986. This is the reason that
transferrable machineguns are gaining over 25% of value annually !!!
===================

"Attila.Iskander" wrote:

The USA is a fascist state that has killed hundreds of thousands
of inoccent people.

How many has the British killed?

Harry wasn't making the case that Britain wasn't also a fascist state,
either now or in it's past.

But it is interesting to see how you combat his observations about the
US by pointing out similar flaws with his country.

" wrote:

Guns make physical strength less important, equalizing granny
and perp.

What if granny is the perp?

Home Guy wrote:

Guns are not the "great equalizer".

Someone that's too weak (physically, emotionally, etc) to use physical
force to commit a crime can more easily commit that crime by using a
gun.

You're right, and that tactic will generally succeed - until he runs up
against a putative victim who also has a gun. For that reason, "home
invasions" and "kick burglaries" have never been too popular in the south
and west. About the third time (on average) the stink-eyes try that tactic,
they are met with double-barreled Betsy.


At 60, I sure as hell, am not stupid enough to get into a
fistfight with some punk 40 years younger than me.

That presupposes that you always have a gun within easy reach, at all
times, in your home or when out in public. That they're not taken
from you during a struggle, used against you, stolen from you during
these encounters.

Hmm. I DO have a gun within easy reach at all times. I have several handguns
stashed in various parts of the house, I have a concealed handgun license
and always carry one with me.

Let's think about struggles. I do not let a potential assailant get close
enough TO have a struggle. If he refuses my command to "STOP. Come no
closer!" with the next step he sees my gun. Should, however, I am disarmed
by some fluke, I pull my BUG (back up gun).



Guns are not ergonomic replacements for physical ability when
confronted with an un-armed assailant. Your own strength (if you
have it) is something you always have with you, can be used instantly
- reflexively, can't be taken and used against you.

Guns ARE a replacement for physical ability when confronted by an un-armed
assailant.*


When confronted with an armed assailant, there's no garantee that you
won't be shot if you're unarmed. But if you are armed, the
brandishing of your own gun will almost garantee a shoot-out, the
outcome of which is far from certain.

Three times I've been accosted by an armed assailant (twice in the Home
Depot parking lot). Once the assailant had a tire iron, once the assailant
had a piece of a 2x2, and the third time the probable assailant refused to
remove his hands from his pockets. When they were somewhere in the
neighborhood of ten feet from me, I drew my weapon and commanded them to
back off.


I'll just shoot the goblin

You watch too much TV.

You can learn a lot from TV.

"[Shooting team sergeant] Okay, then this is your statement: 'I followed the
suspect to a rear bedroom where he opened the bottom drawer of a bureau. He
withdrew a large-caliber handgun and pointed it in my direction. I, then, in
fear of my life, discharged my service weapon.' "

"[Officer] Yeah, like I said, he went for his piece and I smoked him."


How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but
not a machine gun?

There you go being ignorant again
I do have the right to own a machine gun

While I was under the impression that silencers and machine guns were
generally prohibited across the board, it does seem that they are
legal (if not hard to obtain and expensive to own) in some states,
and illegal in others:

--------
* True story. Shortly after concealed handguns became legal in Texas, a
road-rage incident occurred in Dallas stop-and-go traffic. One van driver
rushed to the driver's-side window of the second van, grabbed the driver's
necktie and began pummeling the 2nd driver with his fists. The second driver
drew his (now legal) pistol and canceled the assailant's ticket. The second
driver wasn't even arrested.

There's a humorous coda to this story - at least for me. The first driver
was a TRAINEE, his first day on the job. His supervisor was riding with him
to show him the route. Now imagine the supervisor getting back to the office
and slumping into the break room.

"How's the new guy working out?" some employee might ask.

"KIA, I'm afraid. We need to put the ad back in the paper..."

On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 09:40:44 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

"Attila.Iskander" wrote:

The USA is a fascist state that has killed hundreds of thousands
of inoccent people.

How many has the British killed?

Harry wasn't making the case that Britain wasn't also a fascist state,
either now or in it's past.

But it is interesting to see how you combat his observations about the
US by pointing out similar flaws with his country.

Get the attribution correct. "Attila.Iskander" did not write the
above.

It is interesting how harry always blames the USA, but never looks at
his own country or its faults. The guy is full of hate.

On Dec 2, 6:53*pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 09:40:44 -0500, Home Guy wrote:
"Attila.Iskander" wrote:

The USA is a fascist state that has killed hundreds of thousands
of inoccent people.

How many has the British killed?

Harry wasn't making the case that Britain wasn't also a fascist state,
either now or in it's past.

But it is interesting to see how you combat his observations about the
US by pointing out similar flaws with his country.

Get the attribution correct. "Attila.Iskander" did not write the
above.

It is interesting how harry always blames the USA, but never looks at
his own country or its faults. The guy is full of hate.

Truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny

Oren wrote:

The USA is a fascist state that has killed hundreds of thousands
of inoccent people.

How many has the British killed?

Harry wasn't making the case that Britain wasn't also a fascist
state, either now or in it's past.

It is interesting how harry always blames the USA, but never looks
at his own country or its faults. The guy is full of hate.

Again you're missing the point.

I don't see where any "blame" is being handed out.

Someone makes some post about the USA being the home of the free, land
of the brave and all that apple-pie crap, and Harry points out how far
from the truth that really is.

Instead of countering his argument, the response instead is "well,
you're country is no better". When I point that out, the response is
"well, look at how much Harry blames the US and doesn't look at his own
country".

Why can't you get this through your thick skull - nobody's saying the
UK is/was a perfect country either. Now get over that and deal with
Henry's argument that the USA is a fascist state.

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 22:36:01 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Dec 1, 11:46*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:24:22 -0500, Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

who could argue that society wouldn't be better off if NOBODY
had guns?

I can.

By quoting the pithy saying:
"God made man. Samuel Colt made men equal."

If everyone having guns makes them equal, then everyone not having guns
also makes them equal.

Wrong, dumbass, people come in all different sizes. *Guns make physical
strength less important, equalizing granny and perp.

Nuclear weapons make countries equal.

Of course you would come up with such silliness.

On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 09:41:52 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

" wrote:

Guns make physical strength less important, equalizing granny
and perp.

What if granny is the perp?

Yours probably is. Good thing you live in that rat hole up North.