May hope? Hell, they do. I've been up against that kind of situation once, and it feels awful. But it doesn't feel awfuller than being assaulted or murdered, now does it? But it's no wonder people throw up afterwards.

If owning indicates anything, it indicates preparation, and a will to prevail regardless of the level of violence an attacker may bring. This is simply the martial-arts self-defense viewpoint, and the resisting of evil so that evil simply can no longer act is a moral action.

I see the current way of running things as a trial that has proven some points and left us with more information on how to progress with an even better style of government and economics. I don't think there is a perfect system but the ones we have right now are flawed and need to be changed.

Also, how does age have anything to do with views? I know people that are much older than me that still shares some of the same views as me. Just because you changed from a more liberal phase that is probably much differently from mine doesn’t mean you are right with experience, social settings can change anyone’s views dramatically in any direction. Views are also very subjective.

P.S. – My views are usually much different than my peers so don’t bring it up. I actually never had a close friend that even closely resembled my modern views until a month ago.

I rest my case.

Eh? Your whole point is that Bruce would defend himself if attacked? :confused:

People own guns for alot of reasons. One reason is just because they can.



I don't own a gun because I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

But I would like a little pistol in my boot if it were all about asthetics and I may just do that one of these days. I doubt a pea shooter would do much damage so I don't think it would be about self defense so much.

If someone forced their way into my home and threatened any member of my family, I'd exercise my right to defend my life, property, and family and I'd shoot the motherfucker in DEFENSE. Depending on the situation, it may be a shot to kill or a shot to wound. I'd use whatever level of force I personally deemed appropriate up to and including deadly force.

That's the part morons like you don't get. You make no distinction between killing in defense, and killing to attack. Not one person in the entire recorded history of mankind has ever been killed by a gun. There have been plenty of people killed by other people who were using guns.

A gun is an inanimate object and we have a RIGHT to own any weapon we obtain honestly without any government oversight, permission, or limitations. No person or group of people regardless of their number has any authority or right to prevent another from owning any weapons they choose.

You are wasting your time on this one Radar. I don't think he will ever get it.:neutral: Criminals need victims, we will never be one.

If someone buys a gun to defend themselves, they hope to have the force needed to do it. This does NOT mean they are buying a gun to kill people. In nearly all cases, merely showing the attacker a weapon is enough of a deterrent to get them to leave. Owning a gun does not indicate an intent to kill and only an idiot would claim such.

I have a question, Radar...

With all your absolutist spiels about rights and how nobody can or cant tell you to do something...

Let's say I'm your next-door neighbor. We're on really good terms, as good neighbors should be, and everything's fine. Then one day you exercise your right as a human being to own arms and buy an RPG launcher (or something of the same level, you get what I'm saying) that you don't really need, but that you simply want to have. I dont like this much; the very idea of a weapon that could easily blow up a car or even house sitting in the garage next door is just downright unsettling. I talk to the rest of the neighbors on the street and they kinda agree with me. So I knock on your door and ask nicely if you could kinda, if its not too much trouble, get rid of the weapon. What do you do? Defy the neighborhood and sit on your porch with it loaded and ready for any opposition, in the face of everything just for the sake of it, or, to assuage the fears of your worried friends and neighbors, sell it?

That's what society is. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices, put limits on ourselves, about what we do. Thats why some limits on gun ownership are necessary, for the mentally ill or incompetent, criminals, etc, and reasonable limits imposed on what's simply too powerful or too dangerous for personal ownership.
The only question is where to draw the line.


(since I know all you people are downright CRAZY about gun threads (i swear these threads set you off worse than a matador to a bull) and all, keep in mind that I'm PRO-gun rights, dont flip out at ME for this - i'm just sayin', you know)

You have no case, fool.

If the neighbors asked me very nicely, I might consider it. But in the end, it is my choice alone, and my neighbors have no say in whether or not I keep the weapon. I don't believe any limitations on guns is reasonable. In fact when people get out of prison (even if they've used a gun in a crime), they should be able to own guns again. If they pose a danger, they should not be released.

You, and my neighbors, could choose to shun me, and never do business with me, and make my life inconvenient enough (without violating my rights) that I might want to move.

He's saying, "I've proven nothing, and I can live with that"

How could he prove anything, when he can't even come up with a credible theory.

Intelligent people understand, and know I'm right. You can keep going on and on and on, you won't make any more sense.

Intelligent people understand, and know you're and idiot that doesn't have a clue.