Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Guns Will Never Be "Safe"

Posted on 12/31/2012 5:26:33 PM PST by sagar

Happy new year! And my rant follows:

Guns will never be "safe", neither are they designed to be. They are designed to kill, safety switch notwithstanding. My right to own gun is so that I can kill those who dare to take away my rights. That kind of power gives me, a mere individual, the power to defend myself and those dear to me. The "bigger" the gun, the bigger protection I have against those who wish ill on me.

This might be controversial, but...

A fully automatic weapon gives me a chance against a dozen of those who wish to take my rights away.

A handful of grenades give me a chance against multiple hordes of those who wish to take my rights away. A grenade launcher gives me a chance against multiple of those groups that are far away.

A turret will give me a fighting chance against a small army of ill doers.

I just cannot think of how guns or other infantry weapons are bad. Those misusing the guns are bad, so why not tackle the source?

1. Lock up the violently mentally ill. These people need to be quarantined from society. This include those who could "snap" at any moment. They usually have long history, so nobody is asking for a witch hunt.

2. Do not parole those who have already murdered. They have demonstrated what they are capable of. Let them rot.

3. Implement a very strong psychological evaluation of children who are transforming into future murderers. The little monsters grow up to be murderers. Stop the growth. May be even correct them, if possible. True "correctional institutes" are required here.

4. Get rid of current "correctional institutes" and introduce life-time hard labor for all violent criminals. Let companies use the labor, so no need to outsource low-skilled manufacturing to communist china.


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol; gunsrightssafety; secondamendment; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 12/31/2012 5:26:35 PM PST by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sagar

guns can never be safe. neither can automobiles, motorcycles, or crossing the street. the thing is that are they safer than NOT having guns?


2 posted on 12/31/2012 5:29:28 PM PST by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar

I can’t seem to find a flaw with your reasoning.


3 posted on 12/31/2012 5:36:19 PM PST by 41Thunder (The SUPPLY of Government is GREATER than the DEMAND of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar

I agree with most of your provisions. Number 4 has some problems. I don’t mind enforcing hard labor on inmates. The reality is that that forced labor sometimes takes work away from, undercuts, legitimate private contractors. I was involved in a State Capital renovation that required that a certain percentage of the work had to be completed by the wood shops in the prison. I had to do all the drawings, layout, engineering etc that was then shipped off to the prisons so that their taxpayer funded machines could do the (at that point) easy stuff. Just another tax that goes unrecognized.


4 posted on 12/31/2012 5:36:35 PM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle

“guns can never be safe. neither can automobiles, motorcycles, or crossing the street. the thing is that are they safer than NOT having guns?”

I think that is an invalid argument because automobiles et al are not designed to kill. Guns are designed to kill.


5 posted on 12/31/2012 5:36:43 PM PST by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sagar

I have a gun that is designed to shoot nails into walls. I have another gun that shoots staples too. I have yet another gun that shoots tape onto boxes. Can’t ever say that bows and arrows were ever designed to perform those tasks . . .

BTW, life isn’t safe and never will be either.


6 posted on 12/31/2012 5:42:01 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sagar

I believe that you do not understand the meaning of gun safety. Of course, guns are meant to kill their intended target, but they must be constructed and handled in a way that does not endanger the shooter or those not designated as targets. Gun safety operates on a premise that the operator is a rational human being and can distinguish between targets and innocent bystanders. Lunatics are not a part of the equation and are beyond the reach of good gun design or prudent operating procedures.

All guns should be handled and operated in a safe manner, and a gun owner who doesn’t embrace that notion is a moron.


7 posted on 12/31/2012 5:43:33 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar

While I agree the mentally ill NEED to be locked up safely...I am afraid of WHO will determine WHO is mental.

Cuz you all know we’d (FR) be labeled as such.

I’m afraid this is another slippery slope, a foot in the door...it could be the cynic in me, who knows.


8 posted on 12/31/2012 5:43:44 PM PST by Bradís Gramma (Psalm 83)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar
3. Implement a very strong psychological evaluation of children who are transforming into future murderers.

Disagree. We do not have a clue how to do this. Most of our psychology bears a closer resemblance to witchcraft than science.

9 posted on 12/31/2012 5:44:35 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gorush

Good point but ‘hard labor’ is even more effective when it does not involve anything productive. The French had a system where convicts rode something akin to an exercise bike. Had to ride so many miles per day to get fed. Produced nothing which denied the convicts the satisfaction of productive work.


10 posted on 12/31/2012 5:45:22 PM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sagar

Attributed to one Marco Kloos...not sure of the source but Highly appreciate the sentiment.

why the gun is civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as


11 posted on 12/31/2012 5:45:55 PM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sagar

Life isn’t safe, no one gets out alive. Excellent point though. Lots of things in life are not safe, cannot reasonably be made safe. Heck the appeal of some sports is precisely this risk - think rock combing, parachuting, mountain biking, skiing, boarding, etc. Or consider machine shops, various chemical or industrial facilities... They cannot be rendered safe. Risks can be reduced through safe procedures and guidelines, but ultimately if you screw up, mishandle things, people get hurt or die. Same thing with the shooting sports and home defense. When you follow good practices, everyone is safe, except those who need to be threatened...


12 posted on 12/31/2012 5:46:51 PM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obama now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar

****A fully automatic weapon gives me a chance against a dozen of those who wish to take my rights away. ****

When “they” come for mine, the homemade concertina wire comes out and I hit them with a homemade flamethrowers. The Krispie Kritters can’t blame that on gun violence! ;-D


13 posted on 12/31/2012 5:47:29 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (REOPEN THE CLOSED MENTAL INSTITUTIONS! Damn the ACLU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle

why the gun is civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.


14 posted on 12/31/2012 5:49:05 PM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: camle

why the gun is civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.


15 posted on 12/31/2012 5:49:42 PM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

I am at a loss to think of a way a firearm can be constructed to inherently not endanger a non-designated target.

The final (and only) safety involved with a firearm is a person responsible enough to not use the machine for an evil or unintended purpose.

I expect if you were to visit Front Sight or any of the other fine shooting schools your idea of who is responsible would take a remarkable turn.

Do yourself and those around you a favor and invest (and it is an investment in your future) in some quality training on the safety and usage of firearms.

When you do and come back to read the comment you left there will be a ‘face-palm’ moment for you. I hope you can take it in a spirit of fun.

Happy New Year .. whatever your proclivities.


16 posted on 12/31/2012 5:54:44 PM PST by GOPBiker (Thank a veteran, with a smile, every chance you get. You do more good than you can know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sagar

17 posted on 12/31/2012 6:02:10 PM PST by HangnJudge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gorush

i don’t ant inmates doing anything like this. working people need jobs, and the state is always making more and more laws to turn innocent people into criminals, so i can see how this could be abused by government and private prison companies.


18 posted on 12/31/2012 6:05:08 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Couldn’t agree more...but it’s been over 12 years since the story I related occured, so I fear the horse has long since left the barn.


19 posted on 12/31/2012 6:08:08 PM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: gorush

To paraphrase an 0bama cabal member: the power of persuasion or vice versa—choose, as we can do either.


20 posted on 12/31/2012 6:38:42 PM PST by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gorush

Perfect. Thank you.


21 posted on 12/31/2012 6:42:44 PM PST by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down! Burn, baby, burn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sagar

“Guns are designed to kill.”

NO. HELL NO.

Please stop and examine your statement, repeated conveniently because it sounded good when you heard it.

Some guns are designed to fire a small, slow bullet toward a target. The small bullets would be inefficient at killing. They are slow, small, and without an expanding hollow point. They are NOT designed to kill, but to deliver an accurate bullet to a target.

I have had it with this ignorant and emotional parroting of anti-gun speech by fearful ninnies who will not or cannot engage the logic portion of their brains.

Is that clear???

Happy New Year to All


22 posted on 12/31/2012 6:54:18 PM PST by Scrambler Bob (Honk Honk - I am the Goose that laid the Golden Eggs - and I have tightned the sphincter! ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GOPBiker

I have used firearms both recreationally and professionally most of my life. While I have never been to a Front Sight course, my son and daughter in law have and I recommend their programs highly. I believe in frequent and continuous training and practice.

Your problem may be a simple misunderstanding of my words. Of course, the operator is ultimately responsible, but a well designed firearm includes safety features to reduce the liklihood of accidental discharges when properly operated in a reasonable fashion. Design does count. I offer an example: the M-79. It was a fine weapon that made a big difference for American infantrymen, but it was an inherently unsafe design. The safety was inadequate and prone to being disengaged unintentionally. The field expedient solution of leaving the breech open was just as inadequate.

The author of the original rant is off on a wrong tack on safety IMO. Your advice is sound and I have been following it for years. Happy New Year to you as well.


23 posted on 12/31/2012 6:58:55 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sagar

***Guns are designed to kill.****

Sam Colt said in his patents that it was “A machine for throwing balls”.

I take two shoelaces and tie one end of each to a leather pouch. I now have a machine for throwing rocks, or a sling.

If some damn fool stands in front of where the rock lands I guess it could be said it is a weapon designed to kill.


24 posted on 12/31/2012 6:59:13 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (REOPEN THE CLOSED MENTAL INSTITUTIONS! Damn the ACLU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gorush

***why the gun is civilization.***

We have digressed a long way from 150 years ago when gun manufactures were featured and won awards at major industrial exhibitions across Europe and America.


25 posted on 12/31/2012 7:02:14 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (REOPEN THE CLOSED MENTAL INSTITUTIONS! Damn the ACLU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sagar

Automobile deaths are a direct result of automobile design. They are not “accidental” deaths, but the result of auto design features. An automobile that was designed not to kill would look and drive quite differently.


26 posted on 12/31/2012 7:55:18 PM PST by gotribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sagar

“They are designed to kill...”

Not necessarily. A skeet gun is not designed to kill, although it can. A target rifle or pistol is not designed to kill, although it can.

The philosophy behind the design of some military rifles and their cartridges was that they should wound rather than kill because killing an opponent took just one out of combat while wounding him took three or more out due to the number of people required to care for the wounded one.

My personal defense weapons are designed for defense. They can kill, but that is incidental to the defense effort. Here in Ohio (last I heard) we aren’t even allowed to shoot to kill. We’re only allowed to shoot to stop. Any “killing” is a side effect of the “stopping”.

That guns are only for killing is gun control propaganda that too many of us fall for.


27 posted on 12/31/2012 8:04:35 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar

Well said!

I sign on as a cosponsor to your remarks. Thanks.


28 posted on 12/31/2012 8:14:14 PM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gorush
Post of the Month....perhaps year!
29 posted on 12/31/2012 8:36:46 PM PST by Red in Blue PA (Read SCOTUS Castle Rock vs Gonzales before dialing 911!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Post 11 gives proper attribution...but my ISP failed.


30 posted on 12/31/2012 8:38:42 PM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma

I’m thinking if they kill their Grandmother with a hammer and they are not executed they need to be locked up until they die.


31 posted on 12/31/2012 8:45:01 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll eventually get what you deserve)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: philetus

Of course, you goof!

I’m imagining a new law. Someone from the gov, of course, will make us take some stupid test prior to being able to purchase a gun.

And, regarding the dead Grandmother...the kid should be put to death for murder! El Pronto.


32 posted on 12/31/2012 8:52:20 PM PST by Bradís Gramma (Psalm 83)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: gorush
I was involved in a State Capital renovation that required that a certain percentage of the work had to be completed by the wood shops in the prison. I had to do all the drawings, layout, engineering etc that was then shipped off to the prisons so that their taxpayer funded machines could do the (at that point) easy stuff. Just another tax that goes unrecognized.

Used to have a County 'Workhouse' where I live. It was for men sentenced for a year or less.

It both kept them out of the State Penitentiary (hard time) and gave them a chance to learn a trade (as well as sober up --- many were stone alcoholics) and turn their lives around.

They had an auto body shop there where they fixed county cars. They had a wood working shop where they built furniture for county offices. They had a shop where they made signs for the county parks etc. and even had a farm where they raised their own food and enough left over to feed the county hospitals.

Some stupid idiot could go into that place after getting caught steeling a car or whatever and could learn how to fix them instead and make a living by doing so. The idea was to give them an alternative to what they were doing. It didn't work all the time, but it worked a lot.

Nothing like that left now.

I read a report on it once and they had a document from the guy who was the head of it back 100 years ago when they had the inmates making brooms complaining that the politicians were all over him for 'competing' with private broom makers.

In today's world, that can't happen. Today, high paid unionized government employees fix the county cars and make the county signs. The food and furniture all go to 'the lowest bidder" -- who happens to be connected politically. Maybe next, we'll have $100k a year SEIU broom makers on the government payroll. ;~((

Go to jail now, and all you get is free HBO and lots of free lessons on how to be a better criminal.

33 posted on 12/31/2012 9:00:55 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I think our divergence is that I believe all modern firearms will not fire if there is no finger on the trigger.

This is where the responsibility lies with the operator as proper finger discipline (off the trigger until pointed in and the decision to shoot is made) makes the idea of an external or internal safety that can keep you safe is a concept that will lead to failure.

No mechanical safety can be designed to account for failure to properly exercise the safety rules using the grey matter between your ears and a straight finger.

I was not considering older weapons that had inherent design flaws but would not likely be encountered by the casual public. Another one would be the revolver with no front on the trigger guard.

I guess my impulse to further press this is not you, now that I know your training, but any others who are interested but are not yet trained that might read our comments.

For them to leave our discussion thinking a mechanical device will make them safe is to set them up for a bad situation.


34 posted on 12/31/2012 9:19:40 PM PST by GOPBiker (Thank a veteran, with a smile, every chance you get. You do more good than you can know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sagar

Hammers, Baseball Bats, Knives, Rocks.

TT


35 posted on 12/31/2012 9:28:54 PM PST by TexasTransplant (This needs to go viral http://vimeo.com/52009124 please watch it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar

Nope.

Guns are perfectly safe. I have a few and not one has ever gone off by itself. Even the ones I keep loaded.

PEOPLE are not safe. That, of course, is why we need guns.


36 posted on 12/31/2012 9:29:27 PM PST by Little Ray (Get back to work. Your urban masters need their EBTs refilled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar
Guns are designed to kill.

My guns are not designed to kill. They are designed to be used as a tool to keep others from killing me. They are designed to protect my family and my treasure.

They are designed to prevent others from taking my freedom. They are designed to help me stop my country from being turned into a third world dictatorship.

My guns have served most of these purposes and are ready to serve the rest and yet have killed no one.

It is a perspective thing. The difference between being a free man and a slave.

Slaves don't have guns.

37 posted on 12/31/2012 9:38:13 PM PST by Eaker (Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. ¬ó Robert A. Heinlein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sagar
This might be controversial, but...

Not to be controversial, but..... . that shouldn’t be. If you take my meaning correctly. In resistance to tyranny, there should no restrictions on what we can bear.

38 posted on 12/31/2012 11:04:49 PM PST by StaffiT (Obama is the name - Downgrading the country is his Game)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar

Spot on!


39 posted on 12/31/2012 11:49:50 PM PST by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar
The "bigger" the gun, the bigger protection I have against those who wish ill on me.

Well, not always, and not in every case. When it comes to handling multiple perpetrators, in the first case, you'd better be thinking "posse" than throwing artillery rounds and nuclear weapons around.

Let's stay within the toils of reality, shall we? For reference and some perspective on that point, metasearch up "Ferfal" and "Argentina", and read his blog articles about security and the experience of urban Argentines during the economic collapse of the country from about 2001 until "about" 2008, which is (I am guessing) about the time Ferfal left for the relative peace and safety of Belfast, Northern Ireland (no, really!). He had, after all, a family to protect, and Argentina was becoming a kind of New Wild West under the misrule of the left-wing Kirchner dictatorship, husband and wife. (Sound like anyone we know?)

40 posted on 01/01/2013 1:23:02 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gorush
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid.

The way I would put it is that it fairly and justly raises the potential cost in personal danger to anyone who wants to deal with you unfairly or by force. This is true for all comers, from card sharps to bullies like Curly Bill Brocius, one of the meaner and nastier customers in the Old West. (He eventually got his.)

41 posted on 01/01/2013 1:30:53 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gorush
The reality is that that forced labor sometimes takes work away from, undercuts, legitimate private contractors.

There was a recent book that argued that prison labor became a secondary workforce, and employers were always pestering prison officials for more workers, incentivizing sheriffs to put people in prison (mostly itinerant or poor blacks, in the South -- the author didn't expand his scope to include thrifty, moralizing New England or the industrial North) and keep them there for minor infractions --- very much as Chinese prison labor is kept busy today and used to benchmark all Chinese wages (by sapping and undermining them).

When the Supreme Court forbade employers to exploit prison labor in this way, a well-known Atlanta brickworks went broke in less than two years, although the proprietor's family, having made their pile, continued to be prominent in Atlanta society down to this day.

42 posted on 01/01/2013 1:44:04 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gorush

To FR “gorush”: Let’s give credit where credit is due. A quick Google word search on the internet before you posted that brilliant 2007 essay would have led you to the author - Marco Kloos:
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

I found it some time ago on the JPFO (Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership) website, properly credited to the author.


43 posted on 01/01/2013 4:07:18 AM PST by QBFimi (When gunpowder speaks, beasts listen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
All guns should be handled and operated in a safe manner, and a gun owner who doesn’t embrace that notion is a moron.

True. Saw a perp on a show accidently shoot himeself in the head by handling a weapon with no respect for what it could do - one for the good guys. My butt still hurts from a lesson my Dad gave me when I was 10 years old. He sqautted down and showed me how to field strip a 1911 Cold .45. He put it togehter and handed it to me so i could try. I squatted down, started pushing on the spring plug and my butt hurt, followed by my nose as it hit the carpet. I was smokin' miffed and he calmly told me he didn't care what I thought I saw, I hadn't checked the weapon to ensure it was empty and thereby endangered myself and others in the house. 50 years ago and I remember it and heed it as the cardinal rule: Every gun is loaded and ready to shoot, the safety is off, and it has a hair trigger.

44 posted on 01/01/2013 5:33:09 AM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: QBFimi

I invite you to see post #’s 11 and 30. My ISP failed in my first attempt to post it.


45 posted on 01/01/2013 7:56:38 AM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma

And, regarding the dead Grandmother...the kid should be put to death for murder! El Pronto.

Instead he was only convicted of manslaughter, released after 19 yrs., murdered his sister and 2 firefighters and left a note saying “do what I like doing best, killing people”.


46 posted on 01/01/2013 12:06:09 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll eventually get what you deserve)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: sagar

guns are designed to kill? they are designed to hurl a projectile. whether that deters, protects, recreates (ass in hitting a target) or kills depends upon the situation


47 posted on 01/01/2013 12:11:35 PM PST by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: camle

A swiss army knife has multi purpose. A gun’s purpose is to kill. Didn’t you know that you do not point your gun at somebody you do not intend to kill. You do not point your gun at somebody to “hurl a projectile”.


48 posted on 01/01/2013 1:03:37 PM PST by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: sagar

the purpose of my guns are traqining and target shooting, withpersonal defense inthere somewhere. killing is the absolute last resort. stating that the purpose of a gun is simplyto kill understantes and oversimplifies the issue. kinda like saying that the purpose of an automobile is to bure=n gasoline


49 posted on 01/01/2013 2:23:19 PM PST by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: camle

“stating that the purpose of a gun is simplyto kill understantes and oversimplifies the issue. kinda like saying that the purpose of an automobile is to bure=n gasoline”

I would have said that the purpose of an automobile is for “transportation”. I don’t think that is oversimplification. Similarly, gun’s purpose is to kill, rather than hurling projectiles and spending money on ammo.


50 posted on 01/04/2013 3:41:26 PM PST by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson