Owning guns is saving your life and property

St. Adolphus said:
It was your assertion that you lived in a place where the government had no desire to kil people. I disagreed with that premise. Like I said it is a moot point. How dare those upstart farmers ask for more 'compensation'. That they were even allowed to live on the land in the first place is high testament to the great mercy of China. And that they would allow other 'protesters' to live at all is indeed more praise for China. Afterall, how can a all knowing, unquestionable government accomplish its tasks when political undesirables constantly try to thwart it, demanding 'rights'. Unless you are in the government, you have no rights (and RIGHTLY so).
Click to expand...

I dont THINK I said that, but nevertheless you have so allow me, if you will, to answer with a simple, very simple question.
Why should the American government (that is where you live right?) wish to kill its citizenry? And let me follow that by asking why the actions of a foreign government should have anything to do with you and another, if you will permit, what makes you think I support, agree or have anything to do with the actions of the Chinese government. I live in Hong Kong. Never heard of 'one country, two systems'?
My stance, as people who know me will testify, is to object to that with which I disagree but cannot change and fight against those injustices that might be changeable. I do not live in China. I do not believe what the western press print about China... because they mostly get their information from Chinese agencies ... who lie.
Macarthyism may be history but it still courses through the veins of the frightened right.
 
Lowaicue said:
I dont THINK I said that, but nevertheless you have so allow me, if you will, to answer with a simple, very simple question.
Why should the American government (that is where you live right?) wish to kill its citizenry? And let me follow that by asking why the actions of a foreign government should have anything to do with you and another, if you will permit, what makes you think I support, agree or have anything to do with the actions of the Chinese government. I live in Hong Kong. Never heard of 'one country, two systems'?
My stance, as people who know me will testify, is to object to that with which I disagree but cannot change and fight against those injustices that might be changeable. I do not live in China. I do not believe what the western press print about China... because they mostly get their information from Chinese agencies ... who lie.
Macarthyism may be history but it still courses through the veins of the frightened right.
Click to expand...
Why would any government want to kill anyone? There is no blanket answer to that question. They might want to kill me in particular because, ironically enough, I support the idea of being armed to resist them if need be. Just as likely they do not want to kill me in particular, but incarcerate me for the same thoughts and words. And equally likely still tht they don't give a shit. So I have a really low chance of them wanting to kill me in the first place. But that chance is not 0%. Add to it my principled nature and I must consider why my government would want to harm anyone at all. Because just as I fought to defend rights of people beside myself, the actions taken against others affect me as ell. Therefore, when I have seen a government that will rob Indians of their land, enslave those of a different c,olor, prosecute to no end those it does not declare 'moral' (drug users, gays, etc) I have no reason to believe that I am safe from a similar fate at some point.
Are guns THE answer? No, not to me. There is no one answer. I, and anyone else has been to war, would much prefer peace, the 'soft' war as it were. But peaceful options do not always work and while I personally dislike violence, I dislike the concept of government slavery more, so I must adhere to the Roman teacing "if you desire peace, you must prepare for war". It is my sincerest hope that the I never have to pick up my arms in anger or violent need.

In the more personal sense, I've lived through a home invasion where my father used a firearm to defend my family. No lives lost thankfully, but only because he was so armed. You might say that such is a incredibly low possability where you live, but that possibility is not 0, and likely never will be. Again, are guns the answer? They are a answer, and in certain situations they are the only answer at the time.

You touch on hunting, as though the tradition is now barbaric and abhorrent. And yet, you ask if we have no slaughter house facilities here. There is no difference Low, they both result in killing. Both are exceptionaly humane as well, and for the same reason. I've never met a hunter who took pride in inflicting extreme pain or sufferin in an animal. Pride in a shot to be sure, but a good shot results in a clean kill. Just as the proper application of technique is required in a slaughter house. All I've seen is a great respect for nature, even of creatures considered pests.
 
Winterborn and St Adolphus.
While I think I understand what you say I find myself unable to agree with your arguments.
Slaughter houses are not the same as hunting wild animals. I dont know about the US but in the UK one had to serve a four year apprentiship to become a qualified slaughterman and animals are not shot. You may well be a good shot and care for the environment and not wish to inflict suffering. However, your law allows everyone to own a gun. And 'everyone' is not like you. I, for instance, who have never held a gun save for at the fairground, could buy a gun and drive into the forest to see if I could kill something. I would probably kill myself before doing any damage even to the nearest tree let alone an animal. Indeed, I would honestly doubt that I could look through the sights of a rifle at a wild animal and pull the trigger without being violently ill.
I have, in my three score and some years, never had either need or desire to prove my manhood or my courage - I have had many non-violent opportunities to prove that.
I do know how to survive in the wild and would kill an animal to do so.
There is one situation where I would support the hunting and killing of animals for food and that would be under licence and as part of the fight against Monsanto and their genetically modified freak creatures. Why dont you kill those poor beasts, you know the ones, cows with double rumps, fish that grow to maturity in the blink of an eye, rabbits that glow in the dark.
You might have noticed that the word 'fun' has not been used.
BTW How would you support someone like Palin who kills for shear enjoyment?
Oh, and one little point before I settle for the evening. How do you justify the ownership of guns in city areas where there are (I hope) plenty of police and a noticable scarcity of wild animals?
 
Lowaicue said:
Winterborn and St Adolphus.
While I think I understand what you say I find myself unable to agree with your arguments.
Slaughter houses are not the same as hunting wild animals. I dont know about the US but in the UK one had to serve a four year apprentiship to become a qualified slaughterman and animals are not shot. You may well be a good shot and care for the environment and not wish to inflict suffering. However, your law allows everyone to own a gun. And 'everyone' is not like you. I, for instance, who have never held a gun save for at the fairground, could buy a gun and drive into the forest to see if I could kill something. I would probably kill myself before doing any damage even to the nearest tree let alone an animal. Indeed, I would honestly doubt that I could look through the sights of a rifle at a wild animal and pull the trigger without being violently ill.?
Click to expand...

You are correct that you could buy a gun. And you could rive to the forest. But seeing game is a different matter. It is much tougher than you think.

Lowaicue said:
I have, in my three score and some years, never had either need or desire to prove my manhood or my courage - I have had many non-violent opportunities to prove that.
I do know how to survive in the wild and would kill an animal to do so.
There is one situation where I would support the hunting and killing of animals for food and that would be under licence and as part of the fight against Monsanto and their genetically modified freak creatures. Why dont you kill those poor beasts, you know the ones, cows with double rumps, fish that grow to maturity in the blink of an eye, rabbits that glow in the dark.
You might have noticed that the word 'fun' has not been used.?
Click to expand...

You and I agree about fighting against Monsanto and others involved in genetically modified creatures.

Lowaicue said:
BTW How would you support someone like Palin who kills for shear enjoyment?
Oh, and one little point before I settle for the evening. How do you justify the ownership of guns in city areas where there are (I hope) plenty of police and a noticable scarcity of wild animals?
Click to expand...

Support Palin? lmao Now THAT is funny.

As for the justification of ownership of guns in the city, at what level of population density do we ban guns? And who is to say that they don't travel to hunt or target shoot?
 
WinterBorn said:
Did it?

Actually, since you refuse to state your stance, we are left to make assumptions about what you say based on what you post. Whether you say it in so many words or you say it by inference does not change that you say it. You dislike guns and/or gun owners. That is quite obvious.
Click to expand...

What is quite obvious is your misplaced faith in the efficiacy of fallacious arguments.

It's almost as touching and ineffective as your support for your lying cohort STF.
 
GUNS R SCHEERAY
watergun.jpg
 
Lowaicue said:
Winterborn and St Adolphus.
While I think I understand what you say I find myself unable to agree with your arguments.
Slaughter houses are not the same as hunting wild animals. I dont know about the US but in the UK one had to serve a four year apprentiship to become a qualified slaughterman and animals are not shot. You may well be a good shot and care for the environment and not wish to inflict suffering. However, your law allows everyone to own a gun. And 'everyone' is not like you. I, for instance, who have never held a gun save for at the fairground, could buy a gun and drive into the forest to see if I could kill something. I would probably kill myself before doing any damage even to the nearest tree let alone an animal. Indeed, I would honestly doubt that I could look through the sights of a rifle at a wild animal and pull the trigger without being violently ill.
I have, in my three score and some years, never had either need or desire to prove my manhood or my courage - I have had many non-violent opportunities to prove that.
I do know how to survive in the wild and would kill an animal to do so.
There is one situation where I would support the hunting and killing of animals for food and that would be under licence and as part of the fight against Monsanto and their genetically modified freak creatures. Why dont you kill those poor beasts, you know the ones, cows with double rumps, fish that grow to maturity in the blink of an eye, rabbits that glow in the dark.
You might have noticed that the word 'fun' has not been used.
BTW How would you support someone like Palin who kills for shear enjoyment?
Oh, and one little point before I settle for the evening. How do you justify the ownership of guns in city areas where there are (I hope) plenty of police and a noticable scarcity of wild animals?
Click to expand...
I live less than 3 minutes from a police station on a well patrolled road. The response time to a shooting in my house (many years ago) was 2 minutes. In that two minutes the only person capable of handling a situation is myself or the criminal. Were the story different, my dad not so armed, then I might not be posting here today. As for wild animals, because there are no predators in the area squirrel and rabbit populations have exploded. This has lead to a return in predators, namely coyotes (and bears on the west side), and as such they can prove to be dangerous. Had a encounter with a coyote myself about a year ago, though it backed down from any action.

As for buying a gun, you would certainly be able to buy one, but hunting with it is another matter. Most states (all that I know of) require hunters to pass a safety course before they are able to obtain hunting licenses. But I'm glad you can see and understand our point of view, even if you do not yourself share it.
 
St. Adolphus said:
I live less than 3 minutes from a police station on a well patrolled road. The response time to a shooting in my house (many years ago) was 2 minutes. In that two minutes the only person capable of handling a situation is myself or the criminal. Were the story different, my dad not so armed, then I might not be posting here today. . .
Click to expand...




jesus-gun.jpg
​
​
​
Cool story, Bro.​
 
Two teens playing with a gun led to the death of a 14-year-old boy. Now, friends, family and an entire community is in mourning, as they remember the life that was lost and the life that he lived.​
​


Police said the shooting was accidental.


They said 14-year-old Roman Lopez and a 16-year-old boy were playing with a gun at a home in Springfield, Ky., Wednesday night when it went off...




http://www.wlky.com/news/28042516/detail.html#ixzz1NrKti4Lt​
 
WinterBorn said:
You are correct that you could buy a gun. And you could rive to the forest. But seeing game is a different matter. It is much tougher than you think.



You and I agree about fighting against Monsanto and others involved in genetically modified creatures.



Support Palin? lmao Now THAT is funny.

As for the justification of ownership of guns in the city, at what level of population density do we ban guns? And who is to say that they don't travel to hunt or target shoot?
Click to expand...

Regarding your last reply to LowIQ's comment. You appear to have forgotten the fact that he comes from two cultures that once they become city bound, they never again venture beyond the street lights. It's their fear of nature.
 
Enough to make you cry. But this is not about guns, this is about the injustices in a system that cannot or will not care for those at the bottom of the pile. Very sad. Spoiled my breakfast.
 
Lowaicue said:
Enough to make you cry. But this is not about guns, this is about the injustices in a system that cannot or will not care for those at the bottom of the pile. Very sad. Spoiled my breakfast.
Click to expand...
you act as if the intent of the 'system' is to protect those at the bottom of the pile. This is not the case, or gun control laws wouldn't be aimed at denying the lower classes from acquiring the best means of self defense.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you act as if the intent of the 'system' is to protect those at the bottom of the pile. This is not the case, or gun control laws wouldn't be aimed at denying the lower classes from acquiring the best means of self defense.
Click to expand...

I do not ACT at all. I do not know what the INTENT of the system in the US is. I do know that despite everything there will always be people who need help and that family needed help. Clearly you are not a 'helping' sort of man. Your choice.

LOWER CLASSES!!??? Who the fuck do you think you are???
 
Lowaicue said:
Enough to make you cry. But this is not about guns, this is about the injustices in a system that cannot or will not care for those at the bottom of the pile. Very sad. Spoiled my breakfast.
Click to expand...
In a general sense I would agree, though I'm certain we would differ as to the remedy for said failure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top