This is a placeholder text
Group text
by MarineMom on 08 March 2011 - 23:03
PDB Crew,
This is another one of these controversial subjects.
Are you a gun owner?
Are you against owning a weapon?
Why would you want to own a weapon, ie., sport, self protection, hunting, etc., ?
By the way thank you to those for some the feed back on my last thread.
As most of you are aware, for sure the ones that know me, I appreciate a good collective debate and the thoughtful insight of others on some subjects that we normally find uncomfortable to discuss. I find it interesting to share open conversations with folks coupled with the dog ownership, in common.
Now, it would be interesting to get the feed back on those that live in other countries that can not or no longer own or poses a firearm. Also what you may think about Americans owning weapons.
Respectfully,
MarineMom
foot note: Please respect the opinions of others.
This is another one of these controversial subjects.
Are you a gun owner?
Are you against owning a weapon?
Why would you want to own a weapon, ie., sport, self protection, hunting, etc., ?
By the way thank you to those for some the feed back on my last thread.
As most of you are aware, for sure the ones that know me, I appreciate a good collective debate and the thoughtful insight of others on some subjects that we normally find uncomfortable to discuss. I find it interesting to share open conversations with folks coupled with the dog ownership, in common.
Now, it would be interesting to get the feed back on those that live in other countries that can not or no longer own or poses a firearm. Also what you may think about Americans owning weapons.
Respectfully,
MarineMom
foot note: Please respect the opinions of others.
by MarineMom on 09 March 2011 - 01:03
Is this another one of my bad ideas for a thread? 
by yellowrose of Texas on 09 March 2011 - 01:03
YES, i OWN FOUR GUNS
YES I BELIEVE I WILL NEED A GUN TO PROTECT MY PROPERY and keep thieves out of my food supply , my home and my family.
my gsd will help but when the world becomes more than we expected I will not let my survival contents be stolen if I can help it.. mY AREA is already having more break ins and last week some man broke into the apartment in TYler of a Sheriff Deputy and of course, he is laying near death , in the hospital..shot in the chest in the middle of the night...HE broke into the WRONG apartment to loot .
I believe every american is entitiled to own weapons of choice for their own protection on their own property. I do not have a permit . I do not carry unless I am traveling from county to county alone or from State to State.
Hunting requires a different weapon and I have one for that also.
No MM I did not get a new gun with multiple clips..I did get to fire one last month but the gentleman wuld not sell it to me..It jammed anyway so I sent him on his way.. 78 yr old who could not unjam his " 9."!
AND NOT A" K" IN FRONT OF THAT ....LOL
yr
YES I BELIEVE I WILL NEED A GUN TO PROTECT MY PROPERY and keep thieves out of my food supply , my home and my family.
my gsd will help but when the world becomes more than we expected I will not let my survival contents be stolen if I can help it.. mY AREA is already having more break ins and last week some man broke into the apartment in TYler of a Sheriff Deputy and of course, he is laying near death , in the hospital..shot in the chest in the middle of the night...HE broke into the WRONG apartment to loot .
I believe every american is entitiled to own weapons of choice for their own protection on their own property. I do not have a permit . I do not carry unless I am traveling from county to county alone or from State to State.
Hunting requires a different weapon and I have one for that also.
No MM I did not get a new gun with multiple clips..I did get to fire one last month but the gentleman wuld not sell it to me..It jammed anyway so I sent him on his way.. 78 yr old who could not unjam his " 9."!
AND NOT A" K" IN FRONT OF THAT ....LOL
yr
by desert dog on 09 March 2011 - 03:03
Yes I have several guns . Bad guys have them, Good guys should have them.
Hank
Hank
by Mindhunt on 09 March 2011 - 03:03
We have guns as well and believe everyone should be able to choose whether to own them or not. Besides, my dogs protect us and we protect them any way we have to...
by CrysBuck25 on 09 March 2011 - 04:03
Just clicked on this new forum and was surprised. Interesting array of subjects here. This one caught my eye.
I would never post online whether or not I owned guns, nor would I post how many, and what they were. That said, I believe that being well-armed and well trained is the mark of a civilized and strong society. It's not about having the power to kill others, as is sometimes suggested, but instead, having the ability to defend yourself should the need arise. With crime at all time highs right now, due to the economy and other factors, there has never been a greater need to be prepared for defense, both of one's country, and one's person.
The reason that our right to bear arms was secured by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution was that our founding fathers recognized that the right to defend oneself was fundamental. It is both a great right and a great responsibility.
There are many who abhor the concept of arming oneself to prevent violence, saying that there is no way that this concept makes sense. But think about it in terms of force vs. persuasion.
There is an email that I received that I will not post here, due to TOS, but it is said to have been written by a United States Marine. In this letter, he basically states that humans interact in two ways, force and persuasion. If you are able to defend yourself against force, then you can only be persuaded.
Violent crime is the use of force to compel someone to give something up, even their life, sometimes. If you are able to defend yourself against that force...Well, I've already said it. Force vs. persuasion.
This is not a complicated subject. In fact, it is very simple.
Crys
I would never post online whether or not I owned guns, nor would I post how many, and what they were. That said, I believe that being well-armed and well trained is the mark of a civilized and strong society. It's not about having the power to kill others, as is sometimes suggested, but instead, having the ability to defend yourself should the need arise. With crime at all time highs right now, due to the economy and other factors, there has never been a greater need to be prepared for defense, both of one's country, and one's person.
The reason that our right to bear arms was secured by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution was that our founding fathers recognized that the right to defend oneself was fundamental. It is both a great right and a great responsibility.
There are many who abhor the concept of arming oneself to prevent violence, saying that there is no way that this concept makes sense. But think about it in terms of force vs. persuasion.
There is an email that I received that I will not post here, due to TOS, but it is said to have been written by a United States Marine. In this letter, he basically states that humans interact in two ways, force and persuasion. If you are able to defend yourself against force, then you can only be persuaded.
Violent crime is the use of force to compel someone to give something up, even their life, sometimes. If you are able to defend yourself against that force...Well, I've already said it. Force vs. persuasion.
This is not a complicated subject. In fact, it is very simple.
Crys
by UglyK9 on 09 March 2011 - 13:03
CrysBuck, Sounds like you may have been referencing the below letter by Retired Marine Corps Major L. Caudill. This letter is amazing and almost perfectly outlines what gun ownership means and why it should be a no-brained decision.
Marine Mom....you might appreciate this letter:)
Semper Fidelis
"The Gun Is Civilization"
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
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 gang banger, and a single 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 [armed]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 weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn'tboth 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.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
Marine Mom....you might appreciate this letter:)
Semper Fidelis
"The Gun Is Civilization"
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
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 gang banger, and a single 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 [armed]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 weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn'tboth 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.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
by faq2 on 09 March 2011 - 14:03
Yes, we the people should and need to own guns. People who do not own a firearm should pay a tax because they will have to rely on those of us that do. In the U.S.A. the number of deer hunting tags issued every year is more than the amount of any military personal in any country in the world.
by Bob McKown on 09 March 2011 - 14:03
I own military weapons, and bulk ammunition.
by beetree on 09 March 2011 - 15:03
I don't own a gun and unless the Apocalypse happens I don't intend to.
facq, if you start taxing people for what they don't do, I wonder what you would pay.
facq, if you start taxing people for what they don't do, I wonder what you would pay.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
