ok let me ask you this then:

if guns were JUST invented.. and nobody else had them. ie: you wouldnt have to have one to defend yourself against someone else who had one.

Would agree with anti gun concepts then?

(hunting animals not included, i'm talking about protection)

No

Self-defense isn't about fairness or equality. As with most things it is about trumping the other guy.

If he has a stick and I have a gun, he may not have have to die if he's smart.

If he has a stick and I have a stick, we may fight or not depending on if he thinks it would be a fair fight or not.

If he has a stick and I don't, he gets my stuff.

So, no, it's not about morality, it's about survival.

Sam Colt's marketing slogan ("Equalizer") still holds. Pretty much any pre-firearm weapon, victory in a fight with equal weapons goes to the strong.

With guns, particularly handguns, the advantages -- to the strong, to the swift, and even to the well-trained -- are much reduced. Though all of those still help.

Equalizer, my ass. Equal is rock paper scissors. "Superior-izer" is what is intended to be conveyed. But the fig leaf of only striving to "equalize" the potential situation hides the fear of weakness.

It's just freakin stuff. You can get more stuff, but lose life, game over. I reckon that having surrendered faith and confidence to fear and doubt, that stuff is the next best thing to cling to.

At my, admittedly low, socioeconomic level, stuff is directly related to how much time I have to devote to reacquiring said stuff. Someone taking my stuff is stealing my time, and thus a portion of my life.

It is not weakness to want to maintain equitability of value of my stuff. I will not surrender the fruit of my time and efforts to some monkey who wants a shortcut through life.

If he wants stuff he can get a fucking job, get declared crazy or handicapped to draw a check or he can get ventilated.

Your making the mistake of taking the slogan out of it's original context. On the frontier, the nearest "law" might be 3 days ride and everyone was armed. If you have a muzzle loader and he has a carbine, you usually lose. The Colt revolver was the state of the art in speed and reliability, so you couldn't be trumped.

The marquis of Queensbury doesn't apply here...there's no shake hands and come out at the bell. There's no ring doctor to stop the contest. Your life is on the line from even a small wound. During the just pasted Civil War, thousands died from small wounds.

Fast forward to 2005....you have to assume that everyone has a gun. Not everyone does but you don't know which ones.
Altercation with anyone is dangerous business. No matter how big, bad or macho you are, I bet you still can't catch a bullet in your teeth. ;)
It may be a superior-izer... but you can't count on it being anything more than an equalizer.
Like Groucho said, "You Bet Your Life".

Surrendering faith and confidence to fear and doubt is exactly what happens if you let them take your stuff.
It's not losing the STUFF..... it's LOSING the stuff. :worried:

Just to jump back on the swastika horse for a second, purloining a symbol from one cultural group to be used in other, perhaps devious, ways by another, is not the sole domain of the Nazis. The Christians, when they came across the Pagans "stole" many Pagan rituals of the Yule and the festival of Eostar, to name but two, to, ostensibly, convince the non-Christians of the day that they (the Chistians) were an enlightened bunch, and "Gosh, we can have all sorts of happy days as well. Why don't you celebrate ours and leave your nonsense behind." So, if the first group then tries to use those "purloined" rituals, are the meanings diminished in the eyes of the user? No, I think not. In fact, I think that using a symbol in the way it was originally intended can eradicate the secondary meaning because the primary meaning often makes more sense. For instance, why does the Christian world use the symbol of the bunny at Easter? Simple, it was originally a pagan symbol of fertility (multiplying into life), as was the egg, at celebrations held at about the same time as Christ's crucifixion day. Perhaps the origins of the svastik should be explored so that those still convinced that the new meaning is the only meaning will understand why it was used in the first place (I don't like the notion of posting links, so I won't ... let's just say, I went to google and looked for <<"hindu swastika" origins>> ... the first link it came up with (hinducouncil) was the most interesting). So, what's the point of my posting? Simply, that anyone can use symbols whether originally their own or someone else's. If a symbol has had a negative connotation, research it's origins. If the original meaning was positive, use the symbol in that positive light and the meaning may change for you. If not, try to be sympathetic to those who *have* been using those symbols for many years.
Cheerio

thanks Ross. I'm sure many who use a pentagram/pentacle in their current rituals will agree. ;)

Welcome to the Cellar Ross. :)
You're spot on....it's not the symbol but the acts committed in it's name.