Are you willing?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I think everyone here knows what my answer would be.

In a word. Never.

But I will elaborate in my own words, and not just toss out quotes from my nations founding fathers.

I have seen and experienced enough of this world to know that not everything is worth fighting for, and lofty words like "freedom" and "liberty" can seem like hallow, empty words. But there is a single word, that I would fight and die for with all my heart and soul.

Home.


The word home is many things. It's your house, your car, all your stuff. It's where you lay you head down at night, its your sanctuary, it's where your kids are, where your wife is, it is your friends, it your family, it's your neighbors. It is every thing you know and love. But it's that and more. It's about having choices, it's about being able to come and go as you please, it's about being the decider of your own actions, it's about making your own choices, its being able to plot the course of your own future, it's about the pursuit of happiness.

Now, everyone in the world comes from somewhere, everyone has their roots. One cannot take flight forever, you eventually have to land somewhere. Somewhere, you'll eventually have to make a stand. Home isn't always perfect, but it's still home, and home is worth fighting for more then anything else in the world.

So no, i would never surrender my constitutional rights in order to feel safer. The safety of myself, my loved ones, my home, is my responsibility. I love it too much to entrust that to someone else.

Not an American but this sounds/looks about right for me.

[swamprat69er]

You all know that I am just a big dumb Canuck, but I have to agree with Ducimus.
I voted no before I read the first post.

[Bilge_Rat]

"Better Dead then Red", Darn, right.

Much better to live in bastions of freedom like Yemen, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Pakistan, Venezuela...

Think about the poor repressed masses in Japan, UK, Poland...

btw, what part of the constitution garantees the right to 30 round mags? Up here in the frozen north, we manage to hunt just fine with 5 round mags, its called "reloading"...

[Wolferz]

V for vendetta

[raymond6751]

You want the right to have your kids take classes in free-fire zones.
You want the right to bury your children.
You want the right to stay indoors at night because the streets are kill zones.
You want the right to fire at a bad guy (presumed), to miss, and to kill some innocent person.
You want the right to have your wife, kids, girlfriends, and mommy caught in a crossfire between folks who disagree.
You want a right to keep loaded guns and kids in the same house.
You want to watch your neighbors who are also armed.
You want big guns, hollow point ammo, big mags, and hospitals so full they can't take in your son or daughter when they need help.
You want criminals let loose early because the jails are overflowing.
You want the right to shoot first at anyone who looks or acts in any way that makes you feel unsafe.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

btw, what part of the constitution garantees the right to 30 round mags?

I don't know. What part mentions any part of any weapon?

So, what part of "infringe" don't you understand? It means to violate or encroach upon. Any limitation violates the meaning of "infringe".

Up here in the frozen north, we manage to hunt just fine with 5 round mags, its called "reloading"...

Good for you. I do all my shooting with a bolt-action rifle or a single-action revolver. Do you really need an M-1 Garand, even if it's a classic? Do you really need a dual-action revolver, or a semi-automatic pistol? Do you really need anything more than a single-shot muzzle-loader? Do you really need a gun at all?

You try to make a case for needing one gun or another, but you put yourself right into the trap of trying to limit what the word "infringe" means. You want to have it both ways. A basic natural right has nothing to do with what you, I, or Diane Feinstein think we need.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by raymond6751

You want the right to stay indoors at night because the streets are kill zones.

I already stay indoors at night because the neighborhood is infested with thugs and gangsters. They don't need a gun to beat me to death. I certainly need one if they decide to do so.

You want the right to fire at a bad guy (presumed), to miss, and to kill some innocent person.

Yet you support the right of a cop to do the same thing.

You want the right to have your wife, kids, girlfriends, and mommy caught in a crossfire between folks who disagree.

Hasn't happened to any of my kids, or my friends' kids.

You want a right to keep loaded guns and kids in the same house.

And yet I know several people who keep the guns out of reach of the little ones and teach the older ones what they are and why they're there.

You want to watch your neighbors who are also armed.

I respect my neighbors and know who they are. If they're armed it doesn't bother me at all.

You want big guns, hollow point ammo, big mags, and hospitals so full they can't take in your son or daughter when they need help.

None of those make things any better or any worse than having guns at all. Why don't you admit your real agenda. Also, the hospitals are full to overflowing with auto accident victims, but I don't hear you saying a word. Emotionalism at its finest.

You want criminals let loose early because the jails are overflowing.

No, I don't want that. On the other hand, legalize most drugs and that problem disappears overnight.

You want the right to shoot first at anyone who looks or acts in any way that makes you feel unsafe.

Not even close. You really are making this up as you go along.

I never thought I'd say this, but that little rant makes Yubba look like a scholar.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

V for vendetta

RAISing Arizona

[JU_88]

Not American, but if I was I'd go with 'no', Imo trading liberty for security is morally wrong, you dont punish the vast majority for the crimes of a small minority And I am not aware of any examples that provides evidence of it ever actually being successful.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And he wasn't standing on a gallows at the time, but in a church at a meeting of the Virginia House of Burgesses. In fact his only involvement in the Revolution was to make speeches; he never served in a military role.

To make matters worse, it's questionable whether he ever said it at all. The only record comes from a biography written forty-two years after the fact, with no intervening documentation.

And by-the-by...

It's "due" respect, meaning something that is owed. "Do" means to perform an act.

Good point. From all research done on the issue, seems he never said it.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by raymond6751

You want the right to have your kids take classes in free-fire zones.
You want the right to bury your children.
You want the right to stay indoors at night because the streets are kill zones.
You want the right to fire at a bad guy (presumed), to miss, and to kill some innocent person.
You want the right to have your wife, kids, girlfriends, and mommy caught in a crossfire between folks who disagree.
You want a right to keep loaded guns and kids in the same house.
You want to watch your neighbors who are also armed.
You want big guns, hollow point ammo, big mags, and hospitals so full they can't take in your son or daughter when they need help.
You want criminals let loose early because the jails are overflowing.
You want the right to shoot first at anyone who looks or acts in any way that makes you feel unsafe.

Regarding all that, yes we want those rights, because we've learned in America criminals don't abide by any law.

I have several guns in my house with kids, not loaded, cept one. My son is 15, very good with guns, he's allowed to take his and go hunting/target shooting when he pleases. My wife is a great marksman, woman...lol. We're not worried about shooting each other in a criminal comes in, we'll have him in triangulated fire. However, I'd rather be shot by a family member trying to stop a criminal, than to stand there with my hands in my pockets why they rape or kill my family.

Speaking of prisons, I saw a GOP congressman that made me sick. With budget cuts he was talking about what we needed to do to cut cost in the prison system because too many offenders were being released. He wanted to get rid of soft drinks, any junk food, cable, books, etc. Like Steve said, legalize pot and you'll have plenty room for the real crooks.
Course, he was against doing that.

[MH]

Is about trading freedom to "feel" safer or actually be safer.
Those are two very different things practised in reality.

You can carry gun to actually feel safer but not really be or police may patrolling
your neigberhood just for the same reason.

[Sailor Steve]

And the opposite is true. You can "feel" safer by banning all guns, until some big young punk decides he wants your money, or your body. Then how safe are you?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Armistead

However, I'd rather be shot by a family member trying to stop a criminal, than to stand there with my hands in my pockets why they rape or kill my family.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I vote Rotweiller.

In a related note, my last boss/engineer's wife is a concealed carry holder. She always had a pistol on her.