Gun "control" - to protect or disarm the citizens?

Post Reply New Topic

Absolutely. Laws are made to serve man, man wasn't made to serve laws. Oppressive, illogical, immoral, contraproductive laws ought to be broken by thinking, responsible citizens.



I don't think the Dutch like to be controlled much at all, the are a very freedom-loving people, but Dutch cattle raisers may very well be even more of their own than other Dutchmen.

I just want to post to do some bragging as a proud "father" - thought some here may understand.

My "baby" GSP took a line and completed blind retrieves yesterday. (no big deal for my lab, but a big step forward for my girl who previously would only point dead and not pick up).

GSP? Is that a dog breed? And can I assume that said retrieved items were ducks, and that said ducks made a nice meal?

GSP is German Shorthaired Pointer, and she retreived a plastic dummy at first. Pointers tend to get bored with plastic quickly (labs will retreive the same thing all day everyday).

I then used a duck stored in the frezer from last season, kept for this purpose, to the horror of all greenies sticky-beaking at this piece of secret men's business.

"taking a line" is deliberately going in the direction you want her to. A "blind retrieve" is one where she couldn't see where the dummy was hidden, so is "going blind" not knowing if there is anything to retrieve, other than trust in her "boss".

Ah. Did you have Peking Duck afterwards? Or was it covered in too much slobber?

OFF TOPIC!! !

Boo hoo.

What? Off topic? Me? I know nothing about that.

Verily, I sayeth unto thee most eloquently, bollocks!

Its been said here that States in the US with concealed carry laws (ie have a permit to carry a concealed weapon/pistol) have lower crime rates than States that do not.

Does anyone know if that's true? Is it due to good citizens being potentially armed, or is it just that those States have less crime to start with?

My uncle lived in Jo'burg in the 70's - 80's and he usually carried a pistol - not becuaes he felt threatened, but because he could. I think now in Jo'burg you would need it for protection.

Johannesburg, right? I never heard it called Jo'burg. You know which two countries Chopper Read (staunch gun advocate, BTW) think are the most right-wing? Israel and South Africa.

Oh yeah, and does anyone know that it is actually legal to use lethal anti-car theft devices (I kid you not) in one's car? I read about it in "The Darwin Awards" (although the guy involved only got an honourable mention, as he didn't kill himself, although he was trapped by a near-homicidal anti-theft airbag).

I'd actually be more scared of a concealed weapons permit law. Leave that up to the cops and the military.

It's obvious from responses that we do need some sort of gun control, but what that is left up to debate from the masses.

$5000 a bullet!

Or maybe we should bring back duelling?

I think that statistic was mainly pushed by Dr. John Lott. Some of his research has come into question, therefore I can't say it's confirmed.

The only statistic which is consistantly associated with a drop in crime is an increase in abortions.

You're really something. You trust the cops and military to take the side of the good, but, my friend, I'm sorry to inform you that most of the time the cops and the military take orders of the one who is in charge, especially in so called civilised countries like Australia and Sweden. So if the priar minister of your or my country would feel like he would become a dictator, the cops and military would gladly support him.

Free guns are the only possibility that the citizens would have the slightest chance to fight the oppressor, if that really happened.

Ooooooh. I love the emphasis on "so-called civilised countries". And I've just thought of a good retort to that.

Okay, you listening?

What if said government, in a country that has a second-amendment like law, orders the removal of guns, even legalising the removal of guns by force, eh? WILL the citizens resist it? Or will they be able to resist a government, even with their guns?

Do me a ****ing lemon.

And there are more things usable to destroy an oppressive government. They may be able to ban guns, but they cannot ban the only two things one needs to do so, because they are needed in areas outside the military.

Can you tell me what that is, children?

Boys and girls come out to play,
on the busy moterway!

Let me iiiinnnnnn,
Jersey wants to finger your entrails!

Its worth remembering that up to a few years ago, most gun deathe in Victoria were Police shooting civilians. It caused a fuss and all Vic Police had to be retrained to try to make them less lethal.

At the time I was an active member of SSAA(Vic) - but now FGA - and SSAA banned Police from practicing at their range in Springvale because they couldn't hit the targets and were damaging the target frames and backstops.

Quartermass, do you still trust the Police?

That's a tremendous problem. If G.W. Bush banned all guns in the US tomorrow, most Americans would probably either handle them over or bury them. That's totally wrong, of course.

For a Second Amendment or something very much like it to really function, 3 criterias must be fulfilled:

1. More than 50% of the population must possess guns able to use in a military or at least semimilitary fight.

2. These >50% of the population must be able to actually handle the guns like military men do.

3. These >50% must be absolutely determined to use them in such a situation without the slightest hesitation.

The problem is that most people today have a mentality that makes them hand the guns over without using them to what they were really made for to, namely to defend the guns themselves and their owners against oppressors.