"I was the NRA"...an observation on guns and gun ownership.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

As we country bumpkin Canadians like to say:

You can't hunt moose with a handgun, and you can't hunt prairie chicken with an AK47... so why own either ?

a reply to: Sunwolf

AK-47 Inventor Mikhail Kalashnikov Tormented by Deaths Caused by His Weapon

Am I ‘Guilty’ in the Deaths of Millions?

“The pain in my soul is unbearable,” he wrote. “I keep asking myself the same unsolvable question: If my assault rifle took people’s lives that means that I, Mikhail Kalashnikov… am responsible for people’s deaths.”

Machine Guns

PBS commentator Mark Shields says more killed by guns since '68 than in all U.S. wars

Machine guns inflicted appalling casualties on both war fronts in World War One. Men who went over-the-top in trenches stood little chance when the enemy opened up with their machine guns. Machine guns were one of the main killers in the war and accounted for many thousands of deaths.

The above is taken from just those involved in the wars and in America..not world wide.

Gun violence

the 875 million guns, including the 25 percent that are government controlled, are used to kill as many as 1,000 people daily. Globally, millions are wounded or denied basic services and human rights through the use of guns.

Plenty of more links if needed.

The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control

#1. "Well, the Second Amendment Says ..."

The very nature of the Constitution is not permanent. We're talking about the Second Amendment, after all. The Constitution is supposed to be amended. Not only that, it's supposed to be completely rewritten.
Take it from Thomas Jefferson:
"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."
Our Constitution, of course, has not been rewritten in more than 200 years (read: ever). But people change, and nations change. Ideals and rights change. Life was, ya know, totally way different 230 years ago. It's quite possible that the people no longer require or even want every citizen to have the ability of point-and-shoot death.

#2. "Guns Save Lives."

the real problem with a "guns save lives" argument is the language used. People talk about "defensive gun uses" and their right to defend themselves and their property. But there's actually nothing defensive about a gun. They are all ATTACK. They are made and used for offense. "Defense," on the other hand, is resistance against an attack. Defense is protection, something that STOPS an attack. Wearing a condom is defense, whereas punching yourself in the balls is offense. Protection is a bullet-proof vest, or mace, or a security system. A gun is not defense. The widespread use of an actual defensive weapon would potentially save more lives than a gun because, again, guns are for killing, not protecting. The sooner we are all provided a weapon LIKE a gun that merely incapacitates a person, the sooner we can safely defend ourselves, instead of defending ourselves by killing each other.

#3. "Fire and Drugs Kill People, Too. You Wanna Outlaw Matches and Drugs?"

Tools are misused to kill people, it's true. But tools are meant for something else entirely. Tools build and fix and aid and improve. Firearms do not. If used correctly, a firearm is meant to, in an instant, kill or destroy something. If a gun is used incorrectly, it would actually mean that something doesn't get shot.

#4. "Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People"

guns were invented by the people, for the people, to kill the people. They puncture your flesh until you die. That's what they're for. Yes, guns can also be used for hunting, or maybe for just hunting. Killing people, and killing animals. Guns don't do anything other than kill. Guns kill. That's, like, the (censored) point.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

You sure can talk alot and say very little.Stop bad guys first from being bad guys and guns will go away,otherwise the majority HAVE spoken and your answer is NO. We will maintain the ability to repel ANY invader. Go devise a new science to FIX bad.
I'm walking wounded by having used guns professionally and would easily qualify as an enemy of Progs,and know FAR more about guns than YOU because that is how MY family has been. I was a soldier ,my brother is a cop my dad was a USAF Lt Col.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: Sunwolf

AK-47 Inventor Mikhail Kalashnikov Tormented by Deaths Caused by His Weapon

Am I ‘Guilty’ in the Deaths of Millions?

“The pain in my soul is unbearable,” he wrote. “I keep asking myself the same unsolvable question: If my assault rifle took people’s lives that means that I, Mikhail Kalashnikov… am responsible for people’s deaths.”

Machine Guns

PBS commentator Mark Shields says more killed by guns since '68 than in all U.S. wars

Machine guns inflicted appalling casualties on both war fronts in World War One. Men who went over-the-top in trenches stood little chance when the enemy opened up with their machine guns. Machine guns were one of the main killers in the war and accounted for many thousands of deaths.

The above is taken from just those involved in the wars and in America..not world wide.

Gun violence

the 875 million guns, including the 25 percent that are government controlled, are used to kill as many as 1,000 people daily. Globally, millions are wounded or denied basic services and human rights through the use of guns.

Plenty of more links if needed.

Please keep up,we were talking about the USA,No?You bring up Kalasnikov and world brushfire wars,why don`t you stick to the topic?Show me the U.S. stats.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: NavyDoc

I think you know the answer to that rhetorical question. Like yourself I wouldn't want to give up any rights which I considered important and others like yourself shouldn't either.

Well said.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

As we country bumpkin Canadians like to say:

You can't hunt moose with a handgun, and you can't hunt prairie chicken with an AK47... so why own either ?

Take a look around your home. How many things do you see that someone else might find impractical?

Never mind that the US right to keep and bear arms isn't rooted in hunting, but you actually can hunt with a handgun or AK-47 in many US jurisdictions. Just sayin'.

a reply to: vor78

AK-47 is a great tool to hunt feral hogs with. They tend to scatter on the first shot, but with an action that is auto/semiauto, you can likely get more than 1 hog.

when I hog hunt i carry a bolt action 30-30, typically. And my 40 S&W sidearm. I would hate to have the hogs run up on me at close range and have to use a 30-30. It would be dangerous. I NEVER hunt without a sidearm.

In the warm season i carry a "Judge" as a sidearm. The 410 shells are perfect for rattlesnakes.

On a side note: an AK is just a rifle. That is all it is. The auto/semi auto action is the real issue, but not many folks know to talk bout that. Instead they focus on "assault rifles", even though the difference between a regular rifle and an assault rifle is purely cosmetic and not functional.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

The very nature of the Constitution is not permanent. We're talking about the Second Amendment, after all. The Constitution is supposed to be amended. Not only that, it's supposed to be completely rewritten.
Take it from Thomas Jefferson:
"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."
Our Constitution, of course, has not been rewritten in more than 200 years (read: ever). But people change, and nations change. Ideals and rights change. Life was, ya know, totally way different 230 years ago. It's quite possible that the people no longer require or even want every citizen to have the ability of point-and-shoot death.

And there is a process to amend The Constitution. Until then--until it is properly Amended and the Second Amendment is either changed or removed, it still says what it says and the men who wrote it intended that all Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Sure the Constitution could be Amended and all civil liberties in the Bill of Rights could be removed, but I'd suggest that those civil liberties are what keeps us a free society and I'd not want to remove your right to free speech but you seem eager to remove another civil liberty from me.

the real problem with a "guns save lives" argument is the language used. People talk about "defensive gun uses" and their right to defend themselves and their property. But there's actually nothing defensive about a gun. They are all ATTACK. They are made and used for offense. "Defense," on the other hand, is resistance against an attack. Defense is protection, something that STOPS an attack. Wearing a condom is defense, whereas punching yourself in the balls is offense. Protection is a bullet-proof vest, or mace, or a security system. A gun is not defense. The widespread use of an actual defensive weapon would potentially save more lives than a gun because, again, guns are for killing, not protecting. The sooner we are all provided a weapon LIKE a gun that merely incapacitates a person, the sooner we can safely defend ourselves, instead of defending ourselves by killing each other.

The entire premise with this bit is wrong and the writer obviously never read history. "Defense" is avoiding or repelling an attack and offensive weapons are often used for defense. Guns have no defensive use and do not save lives? Then why in heck to the police have them then? Guns are used for protection BECAUSE they can kill. It is the threat of lethal force that frightens off criminals hundreds of thousands of times a year (up to millions depending on which study you read) the vast majority of times with a single shot not needing to be fired. "Killing each other?" He writes like the criminal is just as worthy and innocent as the victim--typical leftist mindset. Criminals can easily avoid being killed by citizens by not being criminals. The fact of the matter is that lives are saved when law abiding citizens can protect themselves with firearms and lost when they cannot.

Tools are misused to kill people, it's true. But tools are meant for something else entirely. Tools build and fix and aid and improve. Firearms do not. If used correctly, a firearm is meant to, in an instant, kill or destroy something. If a gun is used incorrectly, it would actually mean that something doesn't get shot

The author of the piece needs to look up definition of "tool." Firearms are tools and they can put food on your table, protect your property, and the life of yourself and others. Firearms are used by law enforcement to stop violent criminals and soldiers to defend their country. Firearms are indeed tools with a purpose and that purpose can be very noble and very positive in the right hands. And the author again demonstrates that he knows nothing of what he talks about. Proper use of firearms can include protecting innocent people without a single shot fired. If a firearm is used correctly, the goals can be achieved without shooting anything or anyone.

guns were invented by the people, for the people, to kill the people. They puncture your flesh until you die. That's what they're for. Yes, guns can also be used for hunting, or maybe for just hunting. Killing people, and killing animals. Guns don't do anything other than kill. Guns kill. That's, like, the (censored) point.

Again, the author shows his idiocy. Of course guns can kill and that's the point of them, but guess what, we do not live in a Walt Disney Bambi world and sometimes deadly force, or the threat of deadly force, is needed to stop bad people and to protect good people. "Mild men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." The naïve nature of this author's comments are amazing and demonstrates that he doesn't live in the real world. There are evil, bad people out there who will rape and kill without a single thought. A gun that can kill them will stop them and/or keep them at bay. Sure, they could get themselves killed but I have no sympathy if a rapist is killed by his intended victim. Maybe you do, and I think it sad that you do.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Wait, your using the magazine "Cracked" as your source here????

You really have nothing left do you.

Might as well us Michael Moore, at least Moore tries to push his crap as documentary based, and not teen based humor.

But, you keep pitching this crap. It sure is fun to read.

a reply to: macman

I used because it is true. Those are the most commonly used excuses by gun nuts.

But it is filled with common sense..so you wouldn't like it...

a reply to: macman

Your post is a conservatives way of saying.."I can't argue with common sense"..

a reply to: Onslaught2996

You keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

Funny, as the juvenile train of thought, pulls info from the juvenile source.

a reply to: Onslaught2996


There was zero common sense in that Cracked article.

I will answer this thread with a position that I suspect many of you are afraid to post.

I don’t care.
I don’t care how much you cant stand guns. I don’t care how much they scare you. I don’t care how much the thought of a crazy person shooting up the mall scares the crap out of you.
You are responsible for your own protection. You have been brainwashed into thinking that your life liberty and property are not yours. Because they are not yours you have abdicated the responsibility of protecting them into the hands of government and its agents. Shame on you.
I will never do that. I will never give up the responsibility to protect my life liberty and property. Nor will I give up my responsibility for the same in conjunction with my family.
I will never give them up and I am willing to kill and die to keep that responsibility.
I am not alone, in fact those of us who have this same view are willing to hit the big red reset button to make sure that our view survives.
Call it crazy, call it stupid or level any childish jokes and accusations about sexuality that you want it does not change the fact that we are willing to go to war over this.
In your desire to “save” everyone you are setting us on the road to an inevitable civil war. This country is divided like it has not been since 1860. If you want to see wholesale bloodshed like you have never seen, you will persist down this path.
I urge you to stop this nonsense.
This issue is at the heart of our core beliefs.
Are we not free men and women?
Who owns you?
Who is responsible for your life?
You are!
Are you not entitled to the best means of carrying out that responsibility?
It is what makes us, us.
If that does not sit well with you then maybe we need not live in the same country.
Maybe its time that we settle this by agreeing to disagree and going our separate ways.
That’s the only peaceful option because you cant leave us alone to exist in your idea of utopia.
In your world the government cant be challenged for its power and we cant be allowed to coexist.
So we will fight and there will be massive casualties.
Don’t say that you were not warned.

a reply to: Dragoon01

I agree with you completely.

Gun Control is CLASS WARFARE.

In the USA, the vast majority of guns are owned by lower middle class families. That is also who supports the NRA-the people who live in chitty zip codes. The people who are victims of the bulk of the violent crime in the USA.

Every plan for gun control leaves senators with their gun-club memberships intact. It takes pistols away from the truck drivers, the parts delivery men, and especially those who aspire to move up in the class system, the entrepreneurs: the shop-keepers and contractors.

Gun control, at least in the US, means taking guns from the working class, but the elites keep theirs
(and their armed security)

originally posted by: buni11687
From what I hear (i only have 1 friend in Canada that is very pro-gun, and am going off of what he told me), Canada has actually a pretty large gun culture.

The gun culture up here is pretty much associated with hunting/farming/sport applications. I'm not involved, so I'm no expert, but weapons are locked up when not being used and handguns severely restricted. You have one in your car and you're not on the way to a range, and it's not locked up in your trunk...you gotta 'splain to Lucy.
Concealed carry is rare for civilians. But again...I'm no pro.

a reply to: buster2010

There are many ways to defend yourself without the need of a gun.

Yes there are.

Only weaklings and people who know nothing about self defense think I have to have a gun to protect myself.

You say that as a negative. The gun is meant to be an equalizer. A 220 lbs man can easily overpower a 120 lbs woman. If that woman has a Ruger LCP concealed on her hip she can shoot that bastard dead and prevent her own rape and murder.

I've been a martial artist all my life. I am also a soldier, combat veteran, and certified weapons expert. I can tell you from personal experience that it is next to impossible to fight off a group of guys intent on hurting you without a weapon. I have had to use my hands, batons, knives, and guns in my defense. I can tell you that a 120 lbs woman who does know martial arts is going to have a very tough time with a determined rapist twice her size.

So you go ahead and look down your nose at the "weaklings" and those who "know nothing of self defense". Sit on your high horse and scorn the woman who doesn't want to be raped for not being a kung fu master. Stand on your faux moral high ground and scorn the elderly man for not being strong enough to over power a younger attacker.

Me? I carry a gun, knowing what I know, resting on my experience, because I know I'm not perfect, I know I can't take on the world, and every man can be killed. I'm coming home to my family.

I own those evil "assault" weapons because being in the army has taught me two things: 1. Even the best technology can be defeated by small arms and a determined mind. 2. My time in Afghanistan has taught me that you don't turn the other cheek from evil, you don't show restraint to those determined to commit violence, you don't give quarter on your rights to terrorists or corrupt governments. You effing kill them.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
but an awful lot of Canadians seem to care about me.

As a Canadian, I must admit that I care a lot about Americans. I care because I know that if you guys lose the fight against the gun grabbers, Canada won’t stand a chance. Please never give up the fight! I do not want to see armed goons at my door asking for my AR-15 that I enjoy shooting very much.

originally posted by: buni11687
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

We have them in Canada too...from what I read, we may have more per capita, but we treat them differently.

From what I hear (i only have 1 friend in Canada that is very pro-gun, and am going off of what he told me), Canada has actually a pretty large gun culture. It's a bit hard for me to find up to date stats on the number of guns up there, but are you guys not in the top 5 nations of most guns per capita? Obviously the US is #1, and then the Czech Republic and Serbia are 2 and 3 I believe, and then Canada is 4 or 5.

Also, I hear that gun restrictions up there are slowly being pulled back. Is there a big push of sorts to expand gun rights? Of course it's not going as less restrictive as the US, but aren't the magazine limits on the chopping block currently, along with rolling back on some of the prohibited/restricted rifles?

There is indeed a large gun culture in Canada, you just don’t hear about it. When I tell young Canadians that you can legally shoot a gun here they are shocked and usually ask how they too can own one.

www.canadiangunnutz.com... is where many Canadians go to discuss firearms and to get organised. The long gun registry was recently abolished thankfully.

At the moment we’re trying to stop the RCMP from taking the Swiss arms classic green rifle and certain CZ-858 rifles from people that legally purchased them. What criminal is going to use a $3000 rifle?