[nintenda]

Either a supressed .22 lr or a .500 S&W Magnum.

Depends on my mood.

...and what level of hearing damage you desire

[nintenda]

You mean that's how yourself and other US citizens have been educated and conditioned to think.

Have you ever considered that Brits have been conditioned to think that guns should be feared, are good for nothing but crime and are owned solely by nutters?

[searkibia]

To be fair it was Gnius who started going on about gun control laws, just like he always does, trying to wangle the subject into everything.

It's not your job to dispense "justice" and nor should it be, that's what we have the police and the courts for, and it should be dealt with by them.

Of course people should have the right to defend themselves, loved ones and their property but they certainly should be allowed to cross the line into vigilantism.

Are you deliberately mis-interpreting me?
If they're taking action that may result in serious injury or death to me, or my family, you can be assured they would either have done so before and/or do so again - they initiated it, I would be perfectly happy to finish it.
Perhaps you would prefer to have them serve a short term, assuming they even get caught, and continue to offend - I certainly do not want to see another innocent person suffer if I could have stopped it.
This is quite different from vigilantism, as I would not be hunting them down, merely reacting to THEIR actions.
In reality, the whole thing is largely moot, the chance this would happen is negligible.
However, I have allowed, in a few instances, people that had been trying to force me off the road or intimidate me by tailgating a foot or two off my bumper, to crash or come close enough to it to back off.

[Logaleta]

A yale lock.

[Narkeere]

Way to come off a stupid, reactionary idiot!
This is NOT a gun control/constitutional debate, but a debate on protecting one's home and property!

Way to come off as illiterate!

It was obvious that his point was that the USA have massively different attitudes to guns than other countries, not their citizens shouldn't be allowed guns for whatever reason.

[searkibia]

Way to come off as illiterate!

It was obvious that his point was that the USA have massively different attitudes to guns than other countries, not their citizens shouldn't be allowed guns for whatever reason.

You are sure he wasn't just making a reactionary attack on the American way of life?
It came over as a deliberate move to cause trouble - so I was obliged to respond in kind!

Anyway, 4:30 am here and bed awaits! [yawn]

[zlopikanikanza]

This thread needs pics...of guns.

[phsyalcvqh]

This thread needs pics...of guns.

Sig = Sex

[Unhappu]

Where did I do that? Show me. Quote me please.

Here:

Are you deliberately mis-interpreting me?
If they're taking action that may result in serious injury or death to me, or my family, you can be assured they would either have done so before and/or do so again - they initiated it, I would be perfectly happy to finish it.
Perhaps you would prefer to have them serve a short term, assuming they even get caught, and continue to offend - I certainly do not want to see another innocent person suffer if I could have stopped it.
This is quite different from vigilantism, as I would not be hunting them down, merely reacting to THEIR actions.
In reality, the whole thing is largely moot, the chance this would happen is negligible.
However, I have allowed, in a few instances, people that had been trying to force me off the road or intimidate me by tailgating a foot or two off my bumper, to crash or come close enough to it to back off.

How did I misinterpret anything? You quite clearly stated that you were prepared to kill someone, not because it was the only way to defend yourself, but to stop them from repeating the crime in the future. That is vigilantism.

[asypecresty]

Here:
Originally Posted by Gnius That's great. That's how freedom is supposed to work.

You used icemanchiled's post to criticise UK guns laws just like you always do at every opportunity. That's a real stretch. Actually, let me rephrase it. It's almost the opposite of what I actually said.

I commended him for making a choice based on his personal beliefs, even though that choice was the opposite of what I would have done.

Show me where "UK" or "gun laws" were in my post.

If you can't, then do me a favor and keep your red herrings to yourself.

[zlopikanikanza]

Sig = Sex

love sigs, my best friend has a P220 45.

[phsyalcvqh]

love sigs, my best friend has a P220 45.

I want one but the ones I want are around $1k new!

[yK2VgoEI]

Glock .45, and an enormous penis that when light hits it, makes a shadow of a Yetti.

[zlopikanikanza]

I want one but the ones I want are around $1k new!

Really not bad price for a handgun though. He paid $1350 for his 220 45 tactical. Could always get a used one from a pawn shop.

[dalnecymync]

Way to come off a stupid, reactionary idiot!

Reactionary? What i said has nothing to do with being reactionary.

It's also not nice to call someone names, simply because you don't agree with what was said, your post may have been worth replying in more detail if it wasn't started in such a manner. [thumbdown]

But you have used guns to defend yourself.

Case in point. "World War II"

And Britain has used guns against other countries. "American Revolution".

In both instances, it was the country that has the "love for Guns" that came out on top.

Correction, our armed forces are the ones that were using the guns during a time of war, that's slightly different to citizens walking the streets armed in a time of peace.

I always get a chuckle when someone from the UK puts down our 2nd Amendment, considering their country embodied every reason, fuel and catalyst for having it included in our Bill of Rights! [thumbup]

It's rather hypocritical, to be honest... Complain about something you willfully caused. [rolleyes]

You should perhaps read my post again LM, in no way have i put down anything to do with your constitution, i've said this before, i don't think the US guns laws are wrong, i think you have every right to own a firearm if you wish and it's an integral part of the USA. I can respect what it means to you and your people. All i've done is point out that what's right for your country is not right for all countries.

Have you ever considered that Brits have been conditioned to think that guns should be feared, are good for nothing but crime and are owned solely by nutters?

Of course i have, we are all conditioned by the environment we live in, i can accept that. It just seems that others can't.

[phsyalcvqh]

Really not bad price for a handgun though. He paid $1350 for his 220 45 tactical. Could always get a used one from a pawn shop.

True that. The warranty is really good too! (well last i checked it was)

[dalnecymync]

Firstly, let's get something straight. You're bringing up both Britain and gun control here... not me.

I did no such thing, i was replying to a post which questioned my reasons for not feeling the need to protect my home with deadly force. If you read it in context to the posts that came before it, that much is obvious, i never made it the main topic of discussion.

Secondly, I disagree with you. The most basic tenet of human existence is the ability to defend oneself. It is the most basic right a living organism has, because without it, no other rights exist.

I don't dispute this fact, so i find it strange you bring this up, i never implied that anyone should have to give up such rights either, so that whole paragraph is somewhat overly dramatic and actually has nothing to do with what i said.

Restrictions on ownership and use of firearms are not the disease, they are merely a symptom of a wider problem - the relinquishment (willful or forced) of this most fundamental right to an outside authority. That is why within 50 years rules can progress from limiting access to some firearms for some people, to prohibition of all firearms, to prohibition of pocketknives, to [what now essentially amounts to] a prohibition of the use of force. But even that is not the core concept, since an even more general problem exists: the abdication of one's responsibility for personal well-being.

It's kind of you to share your opinion with me, but that's all it is Gnius, your opinion, and it's one that's coloured by the country you were raised in. My countries history tells me a different story, and i'm sure many other countries stories would differ from my own, but all of them colour our perception of society and what is best for society as a whole.

When threatened by an animal or a stranger, a child will grab a stick or a rock to defend him/herself instinctively. That is the reaction that many places in the world are actively attempting to breed out of the population, without realizing the magnitude of the effect.

Actually not, it can be Fight or Flight, those are natural reactions to being threatened, the initial overpowering feeling is to run (especially true to children), fighting becomes our choice when flight is impossible.

It staggers me that you seem to think teaching future generations that violence is not the answer to violence is wrong, you keep talking about the base instincts of animals, but i'd like to think that we've come further than merely reacting to our base instincts, like an animal.

When you strip a person of the responsibility to take care of themselves, you actively encourage them to surrender, and even assertively relinquish their willingness to do so. Ultimately, such an action deprives them of the ability to protect their interests.

Hardly, you think because i can't legally own a handgun, i have relinquished my willingness to protect my self or my family? Utterly preposterous notion.

You only seem to able to see things from your own point of view, so let's clarify something, the reason you feel more of a need to protect yourselves with guns is because you are more likely to be attacked by someone with a gun. In the UK that is not such a big issue or worry to most, so we don't see owning a firearm as an essential part of being able to defend ourselves, since the chances of being attacked by a criminal with a gun is very low.

On a global scale, that explains why an extremist Muslim minority (which is a minority of a minority) commands such power in much of modern Europe. They are willing to use force and threat of force to attain their goals, while their opponents (political, religious, or physical) are unwilling, and close to incapable of doing so, even in self-defense.

What on earth does this actually have to do with anything i've said? You appear to be going off on a tangent, anyone would think we have terrorists running amok in the streets.

Everything you've just said in the above paragraph just comes across to me as paranoid and overly dramatic, like you are trying to incite a sense of fear, rather than stating any valid reasoning behind what your saying, you didn't work for the Bush JR administration did you?

A broader societal impact of aggressively pursuing a psychology of dependence and prohibition of self-reliance, is a gradual but inevitable alteration in the societal ratio between the producers and the consumers, a change that will likely be as poisonous to the Western economic system, as the class struggle... and is even more likely than class struggle to lead to the societal downfall, as an increasing proportion of the population accepts sufficient entitlements to be assured of their well-being, and grows to resent applying any effort to maintaining their lifestyle.

It seems your lack of actually being able to see or understand that we don't share the same history as you, means we don't hold the same values, how you interpret what important in a society is defined by (amongst other things) how your ancestors won your freedom in the past, but it's not relevant to our society, you are taking your understanding of what freedom is and means and blanketing the whole of the world in it. For example, i could say that an important part of my freedom is my right to able to walk down the streets or sleep in my bed at night without the fear of being shot by an armed assailant.

You actually sound like a communist, presenting your way as the only right way of doing things and simply dismissing all others as wrong out of hand. You need to broaden your horizons somewhat and perhaps gather more knowledge of the multitude of different societies thriving in the world around you. A sabbatical with the intention of traveling might help you to see that there is more than one way to live your life in happiness and safety, could you actually state in no uncertain terms in what way, other owning a handgun, you have more freedom than a UK citizen? Because i can't think of any.

[Leaters]

i recomned everyone who owns a gun take a gun safety class. i practice as much as i can

[zlopikanikanza]

i recomned everyone who owns a gun take a gun safety class. i practice as much as i can

Agreed, I have my first safety/ettiquette class and combat training class in a few weeks.

[Jackson]

This thread needs pics...of guns.

Coming up.



Service XD-9 w/ modified trigger (lower weight and travel)

i recomned everyone who owns a gun take a gun safety class. i practice as much as i can

Or if you are like me, have military training in the use of firearms.

I've trained on and fired weapons most of you all could only dream about firing. Like a MK19.