I think that says it all.:rotfl2:

I have a 40 cal pistol. I do keep that one locked up, as it is by far the most dangerous, being semi automatic and all. Plus it has a laser sight for accuracy.

As for my wife, I do allow her to keep the 20 gauge shotgun out. It is only a single shot, but a single 20 gauge shot is enough to put a hole in someone a close to medium range. Plus any would be crook does not know how many shots she has, and its pretty easy to reload.

So if there's more than one, I doubt the second one is sticking around for long once he sees his friend blown in two. Even if she misses, most people don't need much more than a gun shot to convince them to change there plans.:D

So you like guns then...

http://www.joshworth.com/content/wp-...whoopdedoo.gif

I feel they serve there purpose. I know that throughout History there have been times when the Government has taken guns away from it's citizens and then gone on a tirade completely stepping on human rights.

Nazi Germany is a prime example. The Soviet Union is another.

Britain has been mostly without guns for awhile, and while they have not gone nearly as bad as the first 2, I have heard of stories where people where treated vary poorly, and things do seem to be getting worse.

Australia has joined the list, but again they are not completely gun free from what I understand. Some people can still get them.

I just think that when Guns are only in the hands of the Government, the Government can generally do whatever they see fit. Wrong or right. And of course criminals will always have access to guns, as they do not obey laws anyway.

At the risk of taking this thread off the topic of comedy (Unless of course, your post was meant to be funny... :hmmm:), you should do little more research before posting rubbish like that. In terms of Nazi Germany, that old chestnut has been trotted out several times on these boards before and always refuted by references to reliable legal expert studies:

What poor treatment have people in Britain suffered? If you want to purchase a gun, there and you meet the requirements of their legislation, then you can get them.

Read up on the actual law and you may be able to hold a reasoned argument. I can tell you still like guns.

Actually that is not true the bit about the Nazis banning firearms http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...-gun-ownership

The whole problem I have with the argument that gun ownership somehow prevents tyranny is the many regions of the world in which there are no restrictions of firearms (Somalia and Afghanistan are two excellent examples) where warlords roam around at free will imposing their will on everyone else. It is a very weak argument I my opinion if you are pro-firearm.

In Iraq under Saddam there where few regulations on gun ownership yet he stayed in power and the majority of Iraqi citizens never openly resisted. The firearms restrictions ironically enough did not occur in Iraq until the US was present there.

Which bit, DJ Kelley's or mine? Note haven't read your link yet.

EDIT: Never mind I see which one you mean. :sunny:

DJ Kelly I should have quoted it. Actually you sort of pulled ninja on my other post bad connection here typed it all up before your #33 did not show up for me though.

A couple of facts:

Firstly, far from the Nazis 'taking guns away from its citizens', they actually relaxed the strict gun regulations imposed under the Weimar Republic. It was far easier for most Germans to gain legal access to firearms under the Nazis than the years before. True, they restricted the availability of firearms to Jews - but as part of a general process of harassment, and as a consequence of the withdrawal of German nationality from such individuals. No credible academic historian (as opposed to NRA activist) has ever suggested that the German Jewish minority were in any position to mount significant armed resistance - there were simply to few, and what few firearms they had were largely WWI souvenirs, of no practical use. It should also be remembered that the vast majority of the victims of the Holocaust had never been German citizens - they were nationals of the territories occupied by the German military, and disarmed (in as much as they ever had arms at all) in the same way that occupying armies everywhere have always done. Though some Jews managed to put up a fight - and should be praised as the heroes they were for doing so - it was essentially a token resistance, of only minimal consequence to the outcome of the war.

Secondly, I have no idea where you are getting your ideas regarding Britain from - but they are complete nonsense. The homicide rate is down, the general crime rate is down, and any suggestion that 'the government' is going to impose some sort of totalitarian state because the citizenry aren't armed would be laughed at. This sort of paranoia has no place in British political discourse. We may often consider our government crooks, but we also tend to consider them incompetent, and don't for one minute consider them capable of such things - or for that matter see any rational reason why they would want to. Totalitarianism is an utterly inefficient way to run a country, and the average politician is unlikely to want to risk upsetting the existing order that pays him well enough already.

So get your facts right - or stick to arguing about the US situation, rather than coming up with dubious assertions about places and times of which you clearly know little.

Can we add firearms legislation to the growing list of things which DJ appears to know nothing about?

I said I've heard stories. That does not necessarily make them true. I don't know, as I don't live there. And again Britain is not entirely Gun free. Some people can get guns.

Now in the U.S., the trend seems to be that when States allow people to carry guns, the crime rate in that State goes down drastically as criminals realize that they may be shot by anyone now.

And in areas where Guns are banned, such as Chicago, Washington D.C., and New York City crime rates are highest. One could argue that is based on those areas large populations, but that is a matter of opinion.

As for whether the Jews in Germany could have made a significant resistance or not is completely opinionated, as they did not even try. There is no way to know if it would have been successful or not.

In the World of Special Forces, the fewer the people the more capable they are. This is also true of militia's that have stood against huge armies. They tend to move quicker, strike without warning, and be vary effective at it, training or no training. Key example modern day terrorism.

http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/01/22/you_fail.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_...nder_Nazi_rule

Why is it that so many people on this site resort to bitter responses like this. If I say something that is wrong, then by all means just say "hey I believe your wrong", and then explain why.

I seem to be hitting people's nerves just by stating my opinion, yet I am constantly hit with little remarks like this. Is there some hidden rule on this forum, do not post any ideas that disagree with anyone else???? I mean really.

As far as facts are concerned, in today's internet society a fact is just a matter of opinion also. I can take any argument and provide a ton of so called facts to back it up. That does not necessarily mean the facts are actual facts.

That the Nazis relaxed the previous strict gun-control laws of the Weimar republic is not opinion, it is verifiable fact. And it will remain fact, regardless of how much postmodernist babble you put on it. And if you don't like having your opinions confronted with reality, I suggest you keep them to yourself.

A fact is a fact.



fact

noun \ˈfakt\ : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
: a true piece of information

What you have given is some links which are laughable and some claims which are obviously untrue, they are not facts ....and that is a fact.