Why not get rid of the 'arms locker' ad?

[Rich Z]

Laws will vary from state to state within the USA.

In Florida we have the legal concept of a person's home is their castle. There is a presumption of harmful intent if someone enters your home uninvited. Virtually they can be shot instantly with no other consideration on your or their part. Outside the home, you HAVE to make at least an attempt at retreat. Inside the home, that is not the case at all.

Personally, I have no intention at all of getting within arms length of a bad guy who has apparent intentions of wrongdoing directed at my person, belongings or anyone within my care and responsibility. I took some martial arts training a long while back but I learned there is always someone bigger, stronger, and quicker than you are. And if there are two of them, all you will do is to delay a bit the inevitable defeat. Once anyone has the upper hand on you, you are at their complete mercy. I will not knowingly allow that to happen to me.

When I was taking martial arts, we used to spar with chalk on our hands to mark the strikes on each other. Even the best of them ALWAYS had at least one chalk mark on them. Now, suppose you were doing this with straight razors instead. Sure, any adult can probably beat up a 15 year old punk. But give that punk a knife or straight razor and the stakes go WAY up. In the movies, the good guy always wins. Ain't so in real life.

Martial arts is only good for close in fighting. I have absolutely NO desire or reason to do anything like that.

Am I going to tussle with someone who might just have a blade someone concealed? Not on your life. There is a VERY interesting video available called SURVIVING EDGED WEAPONS, that will really open up your eyes.

And yes, the bad guy might have a gun too. By I am MUCH more motivated than he will ever be. He will want to just steal something, or maybe hurt someone and get away with it unharmed. I will be defending my home and probably my life and I do not care about getting harmed as long as the bad guy is not successful. He can change his mind and retreat. I will not. Yes, maybe I will get killed defending myself and my home. But I will make every effort to insure that I do not die alone. If everyone had this sort of attitude about crime, criminals would soon be extinct.

 

[Marcel Poots]

Re: No, not al all.......

I guess the bad guys there in Holland don't have guns? But I guess a civilized criminal wouldn't do such a thing.

No, the bad guys overhere also have guns. That's why I don't like guns very much. There is not much you can do against a person who has a gun. But even if I had a gun I would not use it I think. I don't know why but I have been a pacifist all my life. Now if someone was to hurt my wife of son I have to think twice I guess. I have no problem fighting one or more persons without weapons.

 

[Clint Boyer]

Well let's just hope....

That anyone who threatens to harm your wife or son is unarmed!

The way I see it is that criminals will always have guns no matter what laws are in force.

Why restrict the good guys and give the bad guys the advantage.

When I lived in Montana, almost everyone wore a gun on a belt, old west style. They were the friendliest people I've ever met!

 

[Kat]

Colorado also has a law where if someone enters your house without permission (you can't invite them in, then shoot them), it's automatically assumed that they're intending to harm you, and you can shoot first (called the 'Make My Day' law).

A good many Coloradans, especially native Coloradans, own, keep, and know how to use their guns. While a gun won't help you in every situation, most people will back down if they think they might get shot.

My view is, I don't ever want to kill anyone, but if it comes down to me or them, well... I happen to like living, and will defend my right to do so by whatever means I can.

-Kat

 

[Darin Chappell]

I was hesitant to post this, because I thought it might look as though I was trying to attack Marcel, when that is completely beyond my intention. However, because of the most recent turn this thread has taken (ie: examination of SPECIFIC cultural distinctions between the Netherlands and the U.S.), I think the following is relevant to our understanding one another more fully.

In WWI and WWII, the Netherlands was a proclamed neutral country. In WWII, the Nazis invaded the Netherlands, and they were not liberated until, I believe, 1945. The nation has a long history of pacifists, but they are not at all cowardly (in fact, I believe there are about 1,100 troops from the Netherlands in Iraq right now as part of the Coalition of the Willing!). They simply are extremely hesitant to go to war.

However, the United States, also hesitant to go to war (Britain thought we would never join the fray in WWII!), was the very force that allowed the Netherlands to be freed from Nazi rule. They were pacifists and were overtaken. We were not and were liberators.

Which attitude is correct? Ah ... there's a morality issue that I have no interest to undertake. But these two differing views on the use of force on an international perspective may well explain our differences on a personal level as well.

:sidestep:

 

[Susan]

Very good thread, especially for a corn snake forum!

I've been raised with guns, own several myself, and my husband is already teaching our 6 year old daughter to handle a gun safely. And my little "Annie Oakley" is a pretty good shot with her pellet gun...put 6 out of 8 in a beer can, and had a nice grouping in the target.

I'm passing on any comments concerning cultural differences between the U.S. and Europe. However, I will say this...

God Bless America!

Oh dear! I've opened a different can of worms! I do hope I haven't offended any athiests, Buddhists, Hindu, Muslims, etc.

 

[tyretosmom]

Sorry I know this subject is kinda old, But I would just like to add that I have been on here every day since I registered and never even noticed the AD in question.... LOL


But having A husband that is a sniper in the marine corp, I would like to add that his weopons SAVED his and may others life more then once in Iraq! And YES GOD BLESS AMERICA.
:cheers:

 

[Gregg]

There is No connection between corn snakes and firearms...

Except for Rich Z, and he made his point very clear--It's his site and he can damn well do whatever he whats. Fine. I still don't like the ad and so, don't visit here very often anymore. If I were interested in firearms, I'd visit his firearms site. I have more of an interest in corn snakes. The ad is just distracting.

Firearms themselves do not offend me. Some are works of art. I am offended by the a$$holes who worship them.

I grew up in a very rural area of Tennessee. I grew up with firearms, getting my first when I was 9 yrs. old. We used rifles to obtain a lot of what we ate. Fortunately, for most of us, the State looked the other way when we took something out of season, because many of us were poor. We used to practice what was called, “Barkin’ a squirrel.” That’s where we would see who could shoot the branch, or trunk area, just under the squirrel and kill the squirrel without hitting it directly with the bullet. A lot of times, hitting the squirrel with the bullet directly destroyed some of the meat. I was on various rifle teams throughout Junior High and High School and was at the top of every team. Perhaps, as I grew older, I simply out grew the fascination for firearms. I gave all of mine to my brother, who is still an avid hunter of food.

Today, I see pot-bellied, out-of-shape, want-to-be heroes trying to defend their constitutional right to bear arms, as men simply trying to replace their manhood. It’s sad really. The gun they buy has to be bigger and give a bigger bang than the one with which they were born--a mechanical replacement for an ineffective body part.

Here’s a real Hillbilly thought for you: “Unfortunately, far too many people here in the US are against the idea of private ownership of firearms. That is another concept I find interesting: People against the very items that give them the freedom to be against anything at all.”—Darin Chapel

If you want to have a gun in your house, then that is your right. However, a gun does not “give (you) the freedom to be against anything at all.” Your statement implies that if we didn’t have guns, then we would have no recourse to saving our freedoms. Haven’t you forgotten about voting? Which was the real intention of our Founding Fathers? They realized that guns had been a necessary evil in obtaining the Country’s freedom from English rule, and that guns would probably have to be used again in maintaining that freedom, but freedom was to be more than just owning guns. What about the freedom of speech, which tends to get squelched, even on this forum, and the freedom for women, and men, to control their own lives?

Clint also echoes the same thought in this statement:

“No one should have to live under anyone elses (sic) oppressive (sic) rule. I guess that's an American thing. We fought and died for our rights to be free and live as we choose. We also fought and died for other countries rights as well. And yes, we used guns to do it. I guess if you take my guns I feel as if your are about to take whatever else you like also, and then I'd have no way to say NO.”—Clint Boyer

I’m sorry, did you just say, “If your guns were taken away, you would have no way of saying NO?” People in America have given up their voting rights and have narrow-mindedly focused on only one issue—Gun Ownership. Do you know how happy that makes those covert people of whom you fear?

Enough said. Only a fool argues with an idiot.

 

[Clint Boyer]

Enough said. Only a fool argues with an idiot.

No argument there!

 

[Rich Z]

Gee, I really missed Gregg's presence here.

But wasn't his last post an argument against someone(s) he implies is an idiot? And he even admits it?

Lucky for me I'm not inclined to argue with him either, Clint.

 

[Darin Chappell]

Gregg,

Are you seriously saying that the right to vote has been gauranteed you without the threat of force to back it up? If so, I have to question your comprehension of the issues at hand. Do you even understand what the concept of "rights" entails? Are you perhaps making the mistake of confusing rights with liberties? Even if you wanted to suggest that liberties are not granted by way of firepower, I would agree, then point out that without the firepower, the exercise of those liberties are often but a one-time option.

I find it hard to believe that someone as seemingly well-spoken as yourself could be so ignorant as to the role and purpose of firearms in this country (both historically and in present considerations), but you are convincing me of the possibilities. Maybe you could clarify your position on the issue by making certain that you are indeed attempting to address the "rights" we have as citizens of this country as opposed to the "liberties" we have retained for ourselves. I still think you are in error, but I do not wish to argue the wrong subject matter.

You say you are offended by the (fill in the blank for yourself; I don't use such language) who "worship" guns. You then quoted me (though misspelled my name) along with Clint Boyer. Though I am pleased to be mentioned with Clint in relation to this subject, because I share many of the same ideas he holds, I have to ask you if you intended to include us in that category of those who worship guns? I am most decidedly NOT a worshipper of guns. I worship my God, and Him alone. If it was your intent to include me in that group, please do not ascribe motivations or ideas to me, which I have not expressly avowed for myself. As for the name calling, well, if that is the best you can do against our reasoned argumentation, I suppose we'll have to suffer through it.

When you did quote me, you started off by saying, "Here’s a real Hillbilly thought for you." Now, Gregg, you may be ashamed of your heritage as a rural boy from TN, but why ridicule me by using my chosen title (which I use as a bit of homespun humor) in a manner of disrespect? Yes, I am a Hillbilly, because my family is several generations deep in this region of the country, but I am also working on my MS in Public Administration (a subset of Political Science studies), wherein my area of specialization is Federalism, specifically in the questions relating to actual sovereignty of governmental bodies within the United States. Please do us both a favor, and refrain from implying anything about my arguments from a position of attacking my heritage. I'll be willing to match wits with you on this, or any other subject you like, if you will only grant me the simple courtesy of simple courtesy.

"Enough said. Only a fool argues with an idiot." Again, this type of comment serves no purpose but to inflame the emotions and does nothing to support your assertions. Why use it, then? I also wonder why you have resurrected a thread that has been dormant for three months. Is this because you "don't visit here very often anymore"? Is it now "Enough said," because you were able to come back and get the final word on the matter? If so, I suppose I have ruined that for you, haven't I?

 

[Darin Chappell]

Sorry guys! Looks Like I'm the idiot this time around ... Who'd have thunk it???

 

[Rich Z]

Don't worry about it Darin. At worst you have enagaged an unarmed opponent in a battle of wits. Gregg has insisted on being one of the few burrs in the saddle on this site.

 

[Marcel Poots]

Well.. both posts of Gregg and Darin are very entertaining... I loved seeing both sides on this... I don't care for guns or God (or any other fairy tales or that matter) but both views are enlightening

 

[Darin Chappell]

Marcel,

I again suggest, respectfully, that the cultural differences that stand between us on these issues may make any reasonable discourse on the matter rather difficult, if not impossible.

Perhaps you and I should find another aspect of the bloodred over which to argue???

 

[Marcel Poots]

He he.. I think I agree with most things you have said about Bloodred. I really hope we will see some Motley Bloodred bellies soon to clear any differences of opinions we might have..

 

[Clint Boyer]

Isn't it funny, he can be rude, arrogant, defamatory, and judgmental but we're the bad guys?!?

The main difference between my views and his:

I don't like his ideas and don't like what he does so I say '"You go your way and I'll go mine".

He doesn't like my ideas or what I do so he says "Do what I say because I'm smarter then you and I know what's best".

 

[Shaky]

Did anyone see Bowling For Columbine, the Michael Moore flick?
While I'll have to say that his methods are extreme and his movies tend to stray from the meat of the issue, I do enjoy the thought-provoking questions that he brings up.
He suggested that although American households have no more guns than other countries, and watch no less violence on TV, that our crime(with guns) is far higher.
His correlation is to our American sensationalist media. Moore implies that other countries' news shows show far more positive events, while ours glorify and focus on, well, violent stuff, that makes us all prone to be a little nervous. We seem to think that we are in danger all of the time.
Now, all this is simply implied or suggested at in the film, but it is an interesting suggestion.
I, personally, have never been threatened with a gun, although I work with inner city youth. Nor have I been robbed, beaten, or my stuff vandalized. Maybe I'm next on that list(knock on wood).
Want my 2 cents? I think that some people should never be allowed guns, and that there should be a screening process, and that there is absolutely no harm in using trigger guards. However, simple ads for a gun-collectors website is unnoticeable, as far as offensiveness goes.

 

[Shaky]

Oh, one more thing-

Gregg has valid points. There are more than 2 sides to this argument.

This IS a real issue in America. Maybe its time to really look at who we are and forget egos for a change. Instead of knee-jerk self-defense, look at the other side of the coin, understand it first, and seriously weigh it for value.

:argue:

 

[Clint Boyer]

I think that some people should never be allowed guns, and that there should be a screening process,

I agree. But the REAL issue is that the people that shouldn't have guns are the one that don't follow the rules! Why make more rules for the law abiding when the criminals are breaking the existing laws and just getting their hands slapped? The court systems need to toughen up and keep those creeps locked up.

Drugs are illegal but look at the huge issue there. Would it do any good to crack down on pharmacies and make it tougher for those that legally need them?

This IS a real issue in America. Maybe its time to really look at who we are and forget egos for a change. Instead of knee-jerk self-defense, look at the other side of the coin, understand it first, and seriously weigh it for value

I know who I am and this is NOT about ego. It's about my freedom to persue happiness and my freedom to live without fear and my freedom..........so on and so on. MY FREEDOM being the key word. Just because people like Gregg can't understand the way I feel about guns being owned and used in my home does not invalidate it. I don't buy into the idea that it's better for the good of everyone for me not to have them. In fact, I believe just the opposite. If terrorism knocks on my cities door, I'll be there to defend. NO ONE can claim that there is no threat. Look at the ideals of the terrorists, kill all who are not like us. And what is Gregg going to do, chase them off with a stick? No he'll run and hide and expect people with guns to protect him. Hopfully people like him will not have removed them from the hands of the people who can use them to do so.

OOPS, I just get a little excited when my freedom is challenged, sorry.