TennesseeGuy Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 JohnF, admitting to having a friends from Louisville & Sevierville might cause you to become an outcast on this site. gbfisher, I appreciate your thinking, but a dead head of a household can't protect his family. There are major obligations in life. Where I spend most of my time in Canada I sure as hell wouldn't attempt a breakin at anyone's home. Those people know how to defend themselves and how to protect their family members from intruders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedimaster Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 When breaking into someones house how do you know if they are a gun packing Dead Head or just a normal sane person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnF Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 JohnF, admitting to having a friends from Louisville & Sevierville might cause you to become an outcast on this site. Blame it on the internet. I've got friends in California, Washington (state), Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Alabama, Georgia, Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Texas, Connecticut, NYC, and so on. It all started years ago with a friendly group with a common interest in diving and ended up with us doing G2G's and visiting back and forth. A few are folks we holiday with in Mexico each year. I gotta 'fess up to friends in far worse places than Sevierville. JF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gbfisher Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 JohnF, admitting to having a friends from Louisville & Sevierville might cause you to become an outcast on this site. gbfisher, I appreciate your thinking, but a dead head of a household can't protect his family. There are major obligations in life. Where I spend most of my time in Canada I sure as hell wouldn't attempt a breakin at anyone's home. Those people know how to defend themselves and how to protect their family members from intruders. I was agreeing with being able to protect ones self and family. We are just not allowed to have "loaded" guns in our houses. We can have them stored separate and apart. That's where my humour is coming from I guess. Wake up....intruder alert....get my gun.....where are my bullets...excuse me while I get them .......load my gun....after all that, MAYBE just maybe I might be able to protect myself and my family if buck fever hasn't set it.... I say if you are allowed and able...More Power to you!! I'd have the semi scatter gun blazen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misfish Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 in canada it's the illegal guns that are a crime problem No it,s the people with them. GB YOU MADE ME SPIT MY BEER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motv8tr Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 I don't see what the big deal is, I bare my arms every night ;P Can't believe no one else has said that Maureen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zib Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 I believe that Canada's got one of the highest per capita gun ownerships going.... In the US there are far more guns than people. My buddy has owned up to 45 guns at one point. I have 2 in my house & would like to add a handgun for under the pillow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misfish Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 I don't see what the big deal is, I bare my arms every night ;P Can't believe no one else has said that Maureen Now thats funny.LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lew Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 & would like to add a handgun for under the pillow. I hope that's meant as a joke....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douG Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 No, Lew, it ain't. Not laughing, me. We Canadians just don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfish1965 Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 I wouldn't want a gun too close to where my wife is sleeping in case I blurt out something in my sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumma Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 I take comfort in the fact that if someone violates my rights by entering my house that I have the ability to protect myself and even better my wife can protect herself from up to 9 intruders before reloading. I hope that the day never comes but just as we wear seat belts in a car we hope we never find out if they work. To outlaw guns or restrict ownership or the 101 other things that both the U.S. and Canada has tried has only netted guns owned by people who legally owned the guns in the first place. If you are a bad guy and you want to do harm to someone and magically all of the guns have disappeared then you will get the next most convenient for of force. So then crossbows and then bows till we are all using plastic knives to eat our dinner. Thankfully the plastic knife scenario will never happen and hopefully I will never draw my gun because someone has chosen to violate my right. I think that it is far more than just owning a gun or having a gun in the house it is "The right to bear arms" that we all should be passionate about just as much as the "The right to vote and the right to fight injustice and to protect the people and property we hold dear to us". Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 well said Aplumma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnF Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 I take comfort in the fact that if someone violates my rights by entering my house that I have the ability to protect myself and even better my wife can protect herself from up to 9 intruders before reloading. I hope that the day never comes but just as we wear seat belts in a car we hope we never find out if they work. To outlaw guns or restrict ownership or the 101 other things that both the U.S. and Canada has tried has only netted guns owned by people who legally owned the guns in the first place. If you are a bad guy and you want to do harm to someone and magically all of the guns have disappeared then you will get the next most convenient for of force. So then crossbows and then bows till we are all using plastic knives to eat our dinner. Thankfully the plastic knife scenario will never happen and hopefully I will never draw my gun because someone has chosen to violate my right. I think that it is far more than just owning a gun or having a gun in the house it is "The right to bear arms" that we all should be passionate about just as much as the "The right to vote and the right to fight injustice and to protect the people and property we hold dear to us".Art As with all credible points, there are credible counterpoints. There's no question as to what the words of your Second Amendment say. Well, almost no question - pesky durned comma - and is today's militia what it was then? But is it possible the rationale behind your Founding Fathers' words has lost some relevance over the last 250 years? The problem with taking a hardline interpretation of what's implied by archaic laws is that it only leads to a formal erosion of the personal rights meant to be protected as lawmakers are pressured by special interest groups like the Brady Bunch to split hairs because a popular interpretation is splitting hairs already. Extremes beget extremes. I agree that there are some places in the States (and they're showing up in Canada as well unfortunately) that it may seem warranted to go about armed but is the only or best possible solution in most confrontational situations to bring more and more guns to the table, or should we look for ways (admittedy difficult) to have fewer folks willing or feeling the need to use guns to impose their will on others? Your argument about the plastic knife works the other way as well. Once every law abiding citizen carries a gun for self defence, what do the bad guys have to carry to maintain their advantage - bigger guns, higher cycle rate automatic weapons with bigger magazines, or stuff we don't even know about yet unless we're in special ops? I can see armed citizens lobbying for a right to carry those same automatic weapons on their commute to work each morning, just in case. Imagine hearing the talking heads referencing collateral damage and friendly fire casualties when describing a road rage incident on I-75. Too ridiculous??? "Gee officer. I only depressed the trigger for a second. I sure didn't mean to spray those other cars. But at least I acted within my rights." I understand the frustration of law abiding gun owners in the States and Canada who feel their entitlement to keep and bear arms is being infringed. I also sympathize with those who see the proliferation of guns in the streets to be a downward spiral. Is it an all or nothing situation? BTW. Your wife must be a heckuva shot. JF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gbfisher Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 John F. Do you own a gun? Do you hunt? Just curious...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyb Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) I think Chris Rock said it best we don't need Gun Control we need Bullet control. If a bullet cost $10,000 no one would get shot unless they REALLY deserved it (not to mention innocent by-standers getting shot). He must a done something bad they put $50,000 worth of bullets in his ass! Edited October 19, 2007 by tonyb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POLLIWOGG Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 The right to bear arms was brought about by the Brits collecting guns from civilians to prevent uprising and meant to give the people the ability to overthrow the government should it get out of control and assure that the government would be for and by the people. I don't think most US gun owners are prepared to do this with maybe the exception of the worlds largest terrorist organization the KKK, over 6 million well armed government haters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnF Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 John F. Do you own a gun? Do you hunt? Just curious...... As far as I know the answer is no. I used to do some varmint hunting when I was in high school but didn't continue when I moved away from home so the guns stayed there. I'm pretty sure they were disposed of when my folks moved years ago. At least I haven't come across any of them since I bought the house from Mom and I doubt she took 'em with her. They were nothing special anyway. Just cheap .22's and the bb and pellet guns I used to play with. When I shot competition in high school the rifles were supplied for us. Our school had Lee Enfields reworked for .22's. Heavy suckers. When I was in high school I worked two summers in a meat packing plant, often on the kill floor, and kinda lost my taste for killing critters. A few hundred pigs a day can do that. I gave up hunting and fishing then and only got back to fishing last year. Still not interested in killing warm blooded animals although I'm perfectly happy eating the meat so I have no objection to others hunting. I'm realist enough to accept that for me to eat properly something's gotta die cuz I'd never survive on seeds and veggies. Somehow the idea of personally field dressing a big animal just doesn't appeal to me. I did enough carcass handling when we killed cows and piggies way back when. Now I'm happy to have someone else do the wet work for me. I'm not uncomfortable around guns, just don't have any use for them right now. I've been kicking around the idea of joining a gun club lately. I wouldn't mind target shooting again - probably handguns, possibly shotguns. My cousin offered me a good .22 target pistol that my uncle used to use in Police competitions. I think I'd still get a kick out of that stuff. The problem is that I'd probably have to drive to Kitchener or London to find a club. As far as I know there's nothing close by. If the reason for your question is to point out that it's easy for me to be critical of gun practices I'd have to say you'd be correct. I am however not in favour of wholesale abolition of guns in the private sector. If there was only some way to assign them the same degree of importance and utility that we give our fishing rods. JF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gbfisher Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 Canada Packers had the opposite effect on me. I didn't want to hunt before that time. After working there it made it easier for me to handle and I started hunting. I don't hunt anymore but am starting to get back into it slowly. I would want my kids to have the same opportunity. That may not happen the way things are going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pameladallaire Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 I sleep with my arms....my hands too! LOL Now, don't go giving my husband any ideas about a rod and reel holder for the bedside. I don't relish the thought of a treble hook under the sheets. Pam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnF Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 Canada Packers had the opposite effect on me. I didn't want to hunt before that time. After working there it made it easier for me to handle and I started hunting. I don't hunt anymore but am starting to get back into it slowly. I would want my kids to have the same opportunity. That may not happen the way things are going. I honestly believe that the best way to keep guns available to law abiding owners is to cut back on the promotion of guns in our society as tools for self defence against guns. Pro-gun rhetoric pointing out the dangers from gun wielding criminals as justification for having more guns at hand is a double-edged sword that may well be lumping the law abiding gun owners in with the criminally minded in the eyes of the public as the heart of a problem. It promotes the idea that guns are in and of themselves that problem despite all the cutesy progun "Bullets don't kill people, people kill people". Kind of silly to spout that and then follow up with how they need guns for defence against armed villains. Easy to see why the solution that springs to some minds is to ban all guns. Many of us know that a wholesale gun ban is not just unreasonable but totally impractical, accomplishing nothing in terms of preventing the criminal use of guns. But then many of us don't care enough to stand up in defence of gun owners because we don't have guns. That leaves the two interest groups to duke it out. The uninformed who think wholesale banning is the solution and the avid progunners who use the fear rhetoric to prove the need for guns. It's all negative, pro and con, and not an easy sell either way. JF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnF Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 Now, don't go giving my husband any ideas about a rod and reel holder for the bedside. I don't relish the thought of a treble hook under the sheets. I was about to suggest getting him debarbed, but didn't wanna risk getting the thread pulled. JF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumma Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 A little back round of myself might help. I have owned guns for 33 of my 45 years of life. I have had guns that are designed to shoot with pin point accuracy and others that are designed to make a big hole quickly. Some of my guns include light caliber, heavy caliber, black powder,handguns, shotguns and rifles. I own them because to be safe and humane it takes different guns to hunt different animals and conditions. To shoot a squirrel with a .22 is normal to shoot a squirrel with a .270 is insane. I don't pursue muskie with the same rod that I fish for bluegills with because it would damage the muskie and would be very difficult to do. Some of my guns are admittedly toys a Browning .270 with a trigger job and a 50 MM sniper scope is more than what is needed to hunt deer but around here I have places to shoot the rifle for the joy of accuracy at places that are easy to get to because their are enough people who enjoy this sport. Their is only one gun that I bought for protection and that is a 9MM Taurus the rest have their first job of hunting and some can double as home protection. Their is not many reasons that I can see were you need to carry a gun in public when you are not hunting but as government makes rulings it also affects us in the hunting arena too. If they make it illegal to carry a gun and ammo in the same vehicle it would make hunting outside of your property almost impossible. It is not a gun ban per say but its effects would be the same end result. When I was in the special forces their was alot of training that dealt with how to use your rifle correctly and how to care for it because at some point you might be asked to stand up for the beliefs that your country has deemed worth fighting for. I am not a gun nut who will fight till blood is drawn if someone does not see the importance of having a gun or decides that guns are not the answer. I am glad that they have a choice but the reason they have that choice is because I fought for their right to make that choice. For all of the people that have served in the Armed Forces whether it was peace time or war you took an oath to defend your country and rights by picking up a weapon and killing someone else if it is needed or to be killed by someone else. While not a pleasant thought it is the price we pay to be free with our voting and guns and the right to protest without getting overwhelmed by the government. Lastly thanks for the insite John you have not attacked gun ownership you have expressed the same wish that all of the gun owners have and that is where guns are not used in a bad manner. I hope some day we all get our wish and in a world without humans it might be possible. Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnF Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 Lastly thanks for the insite John you have not attacked gun ownership you have expressed the same wish that all of the gun owners have and that is where guns are not used in a bad manner. I hope some day we all get our wish and in a world without humans it might be possible. Art, I've had this kind of discussion often with a number of my American friends. The sensible ones reply in much the same fashion as you and I respect that. There are, on the other hand, within my circle of gun totin' friends a number of radical defenders of the gun faith who are determined to make it a "If'n you ain't with us, yer agin us" thing. Unfortunately, when I encounter bullheaded I become bullheaded and we have some dandy arguments in our newsgroup. I have one word for you to add to your answer to make it perfect - "you have expressed the same wish that all of the gun owners have -" I'd like to put "responsible" just ahead of "gun owners". JF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumma Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 I think that Responsible is a good word to add. Thanks Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts