A new ACW..

[Titanwarrior89]

Very few armed mobs win a battle but a armed well trained team will.

ORIGINAL: BASB

Why does the US government spend so much money on training their soldiers and police when it appears that every citizen is an expert in the use of firearms already???

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: BASB

Why does the US government spend so much money on training their soldiers and police when it appears that every citizen is an expert in the use of firearms already???

because the free world keeps calling for our night stick , just be thankful we’re willing and able to pony up and sacrifice for its defense..........your welcome

[wodin]

Don't feel sorry for him...he wasn't erm...a decent person...but my cousin is and I'm sure many gun owners where (he never used guns in a bad way, he was high up in the Merchant Navy and then worked for a firm, went around the world...loved going to Japan and Thailand...so work it out). Thankfully not blood related, though he committed his crimes against my sister...I found out years later and it destroyed alot of childhood memories as he took me to all the top films in the seventies and early eighties like Star Wars films and Superman etc etc.

[Qwixt]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

ORIGINAL: BASB

Why does the US government spend so much money on training their soldiers and police when it appears that every citizen is an expert in the use of firearms already???

because the free world keeps calling for our night stick , just be thankful we’re willing and able to pony up and sacrifice for its defense..........your welcome

I think we do it more to protect self-interests like protecting corporate and national concerns, and perceived threats to us. To say we do it just to be nice, or because the rest of the world demands it, is naive at best, but there are humanitarian causes we have entered just to be nice.

[Max 86]

Definitely a cultural difference to everyone's attitude. I find it interesting and somewhat puzzling that most Euro posters do not feel threatened by the potential danger of their own government and yet euro-asian history is rife with examples of governments, dictators, despots that regularly abused their civilian populace. Not too far distant, Bosnian-Serbian-Croatian conflict. You don't think the Bosnians wished they were armed better when their government decided that they were no longer fit to live, their lives, their children's lives held no value?

I honestly feel that the biggest threat to anyone's freedom, anywhere in the world, is their own government! Who else has the power to take away your rights? Why are revolutions fought? To get rid of abusive governments. From the American and French revolutions to the more current Libya and Syrian examples.

Who, besides the citizens of each country, can hold their governments accountable? Not the UN, sad joke that it is. Just ask the Rwandans and Bosnians.

It is up to "We the People"!!

If, for any reason, your government turns on you, and history shows it does happen fairly regular all over the world, who do you think it will fall on to set things right? This is why all of us, in any country, should have the basic HUMAN RIGHT to defend themselves and their family from tyranny.

Long live the Second Amendment to the US Constitution! Long Live the Republic!

[Titanwarrior89]

I hear what you saying....but just This Week....a mother/wife hid in a closet with her small children while a man broke in, opened the door of a closet they were hiding in and she shot him more than once. She was on the phone with her husband, and he was on the phone with the police. What would have happened if she did not have the gun.....rape, murder or maybe robbery only if she and kids were lucky. Guess who got to the closet first....not the police. That GUN saved her life and life of her children. Tell me, are you married with children?

ORIGINAL: BASB

Wow I can't help myself with this one, I'll get my 2 bobs worth in before the thread is locked. [:D]

First of all, Mr. Wolfe hit the nail on the head. About 2 hundreds years out of date.
And I can see how the 2nd amendment was important in 1780 or 90 a young nation with no standing army at risk at invasion from any would be attacker, but now the strongest and most powerful nation in the world militarily, no longer needs arm citizens to defend its shores. Suddenly if Canada or Cuba decides to invade, I don't believe the local minute man or militia will have much to do.
Secondly the 2nd amendment has done so well protecting young American kids in schools, the thousands black and ethnic Americans from being maimed and killed in the past 200 years hasn't it?
Thirdly 30 round magazines for assault rifles ain't design for hunting, not unless your hunting the unthinkable or thinkable for some.
Finally, a country with more guns than people, the only ones that will suffer because stricter gun control will be manufacturing and importers of guns and ammo. How much more money do these people want and how many people will die because their need or greed,at the expense of the youth in your schools, and the lobbyist how long are are going to hide behind archaic constitutional law that is no longer valid today for their own pleasure while others are being maimed on a daily basis.
OOps better go and hide before I get shot for my opinion.

[Qwixt]

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I hear what you saying....but just This Week....a mother/wife hid in a closet with her small children while a man broke in, opened the door of a closet they were hiding in and she shot him more than once. She was on the phone with her husband, and he was on the phone with the police. What would have happened if she did not have the gun.....rape, murder or maybe robbery only if she and kids were lucky. Guess who got to the closet first....not the police. That GUN saved her life and life of her children. Tell me, are you married with children?

If they had a German Shepard/guard dog, the guy would have never even tried to enter the house.

[Titanwarrior89]

Wow....really?

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I hear what you saying....but just This Week....a mother/wife hid in a closet with her small children while a man broke in, opened the door of a closet they were hiding in and she shot him more than once. She was on the phone with her husband, and he was on the phone with the police. What would have happened if she did not have the gun.....rape, murder or maybe robbery only if she and kids were lucky. Guess who got to the closet first....not the police. That GUN saved her life and life of her children. Tell me, are you married with children?

If they had a German Shepard/guard dog, the guy would have never even tried to enter the house.

[Qwixt]

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Wow....really?

Don't really get the reply here. Dog isn't a viable option or you don't think it would deter anyone, or...?

[Titanwarrior89]

ALot of cases I think a dog would not work. He rang and rang the doorbell and beat on the door. I am just amazed by your response how we are just bunting our heads together against each other-Gun people-nongun people. I understand your opinion. You get a dog, ill take a dog and a 45 auto. We will agree Not to agree.[;)]

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Wow....really?

Don't really get the reply here. Dog isn't a viable option or you don't think it would deter anyone, or...?

[danlongman]

He rang on the doorbell and banged on the door to see if anybody (including a dog) was home. There was no dog.
People don't mess with dogs. Your dog might eat your baby but that is something else entirely.
When I was six years old I used to strap on my Mattel six guns and chest puffed out and head held high I would
patrol the neighbourhood just looking for evil doers to stick their foreign-looking heads out so I could
blast the rascals back to whatever commie hellhole they came from. Probably Asia or Africa. I wish I could have kept doing that.
I would be a hero and get to sleep with all the hot chicks.

[Titanwarrior89]

I cannot come up with a better example that my previous response how a gun just may have saved alife not a week ago. The situation went from a man having control of the situation too a mother having control with him begging. Remember they were in their Home. He got what he deserved.

ORIGINAL: danlongman

He rang on the doorbell and banged on the door to see if anybody (including a dog) was home. There was no dog.
People don't mess with dogs. Your dog might eat your baby but that is something else entirely.
When I was six years old I used to strap on my Mattel six guns and chest puffed out and head held high I would
patrol the neighbourhood just looking for evil doers to stick their foreign-looking heads out so I could
blast the rascals back to whatever commie hellhole they came from. Probably Asia or Africa. I wish I could have kept doing that.
I would be a hero and get to sleep with all the hot chicks.

[mgarnett]

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I hear what you saying....but just This Week....a mother/wife hid in a closet with her small children while a man broke in, opened the door of a closet they were hiding in and she shot him more than once. She was on the phone with her husband, and he was on the phone with the police. What would have happened if she did not have the gun.....rape, murder or maybe robbery only if she and kids were lucky. Guess who got to the closet first....not the police. That GUN saved her life and life of her children. Tell me, are you married with children?

I think you're probably right, being armed appears to have saved her more grief, but remember, you need to consider both sides. It's correct, there could have been more robbery, murder etc., but there could also have been....nothing. He could have opened the door, saw them, and hot footed it out of there and nobody gets killed. Not everybody who breaks into a house is going to kill people they find inside.

I'm not saying this is what I think would have happened, I'm just playing devils advocate.

Also, I think this is a good example of consequence, I've read some of the statistics people have found during the course of this discussion showing the frequency of violent crime in the UK is greater than that in the US. There is a footnote to the stats that I have read though, the US figures do not include minor assaults (whereas the UK ones do) and whilst you might be more likely (I don't know if this is the case if you include minor assaults in the US figures) to be a victim of violence in the UK, you are much more likely to be killed in the US. The US has, by far higher, rates of intentional death (I can't recall what exact phrase the stats use).

Cheers

Mark

[2ndACR]

I would meet any sign of violence with deadly force. Only an idiot is going to swing on me when they know I am packing a gun. I refuse to see the difference between "minor" assault and "major" assault. Most intentional deaths in the US start out with "minor" which then raises to "major" as the victim fights back. Assault is assault and will be met with the utmost of violence I can produce, which is deadly force.

I am not a cop who has been trained to "ramp" the violence up as the bad guy ignores the obvious. I am a trained Infantryman who is trained to meet everything with maximum force level, I start at shoot to kill and it is up to the bad guy to rapidly ramp down his attitude before he dies. It worked quite well in Iraq, I watched air force cops try to use force escalation with the detainees or day workers that got tossed off the base, if we got called in, say at the front gate, we went in and stuck the barrel of a M4 in the guys face, he usually got real calm real fast, in the prison, when the riots got too bad and they decided that deadly force was needed, we came in and the 4-8 hour riot ended when the first 3-4 bad guys got shot with live ammo.

But like stated a few pages ago, in the US, you cannot tell the difference between innocent versus criminal from criminal versus criminal. Most of the gun shootings and deaths are criminal on criminal, gang banger versus gang banger, those cases I say, pass out the ammo and let them have at each other. Rent a football stadium, make it bullet proof, at the 50 yard line, pile a bunch of guns and ammo, take the cities gangs and place each side at the 20 yard line and let them have at each other. Then shoot the winners.

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: heyhellowhatsnew

At least they had the common sense to know that our constitution is something meant to be evolved, because they had to foresight to know that human thought evolved and things change.

Yeah, that's right. A document designed to enshrine the protection of people from tyranny was "meant to be evolved" [8|]

Perhaps' that is why they included a formal mechanism to change it? Have you ever noticed there is a high bar to achieve in order to ammend the Constitution? Do you think they put that in for ***** and giggles?

[Qwixt]

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

ALot of cases I think a dog would not work. He rang and rang the doorbell and beat on the door. I am just amazed by your response how we are just bunting our heads together against each other-Gun people-nongun people. I understand your opinion. You get a dog, ill take a dog and a 45 auto. We will agree Not to agree.[;)]

In her case, she has kids, so the gun should have had a trigger lock. So it's good that she had time to go get the gun, remove the trigger lock, get the bullets, load the gun, then hide in the closet. Maybe the gun was in the closet, so she saved a step or two.

You seem to think that I am saying get rid of your .45 or that she should not have had a gun. I am not saying that at all. I have no problem with "normal" guns. High capacity auto and semi-automatic weapons are another story however.

[Gilmer]

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

ALot of cases I think a dog would not work. He rang and rang the doorbell and beat on the door. I am just amazed by your response how we are just bunting our heads together against each other-Gun people-nongun people. I understand your opinion. You get a dog, ill take a dog and a 45 auto. We will agree Not to agree.[;)]

In her case, she has kids, so the gun should have had a trigger lock. So it's good that she had time to go get the gun, remove the trigger lock, get the bullets, load the gun, then hide in the closet. Maybe the gun was in the closet, so she saved a step or two.

You seem to think that I am saying get rid of your .45 or that she should not have had a gun. I am not saying that at all. I have no problem with "normal" guns. High capacity auto and semi-automatic weapons are another story however.

You guys think anything over 6 rounds is high capacity. Lol.

[Qwixt]

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

You guys think anything over 6 rounds is high capacity. Lol.

I was in the army and fired all sorts of weapons, so you can keep your condescending "lol". The number is arbitrary, 5,6, or 10. The point is to make noobs take more time to fire a lot of shots.

[Gilmer]

I'll say lol all I want. When anyone ever says they think anything over 6 shots is high capacity, I'm going to laugh.

[2ndACR]

If she taught he kids try gun safety, she has no need for trigger locks, I have never had them and my kids knew that anyone that touches or goes near daddies guns gets the hide ripped off their backside. All the little nieces and nephews knew guns are off limits. Any kid around me above the age of 8 learns gun safety. They know if they find one, say on the street, send someone after a known adult or call 911 and stay there and not let anyone touch it. By 16, I would trust my kids to make the weapon safe over just about anyone else.

But since most of the "civilized" world thinks guns are evil, kids seek them out to play with the denied things. I took my kids and their friends shooting all the time from about 8 and up.

And yes, most anti gunners want to limit to 10 and under, sorry, best defense against a loon with a gun is another gun in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. But they also always add the little cravat about semi auto, which covers a HUGE arrange of guns.