15 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

A candid young woman shares how her ambivalence and fear were cured by knowledge and exposure.

[ouija ouija]

This is over-simplistic in my view and I'm not sure how owning a gun would have helped her in the situation she mentions when she and her friends were chased in a car.
I'm itching to say more but, hey, I'm living in the UK and it seems in all the threads about guns, the US and the UK can't agree, so ..... *zips mouth shut*

[Yamato]

ouija ouija, on 07 February 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

This is over-simplistic in my view and I'm not sure how owning a gun would have helped her in the situation she mentions when she and her friends were chased in a car.
I'm itching to say more but, hey, I'm living in the UK and it seems in all the threads about guns, the US and the UK can't agree, so ..... *zips mouth shut*

Okay.  Can you see how police having guns could have helped her in the situation she mentioned?

The standard here is meeting criminal force with equal or greater force.  That's a concept every police department can understand regardless of what country it's in.  How is ignoring that standard (except when it comes to police) going to keep her safe?    In the situation she was in, if she had to stop her vehicle and exit it, forcing a confrontation with a drug-crazed lunatic, only with a firearm could she have done so on favorable or at least equal terms.

It's a most circular irony to get so much disagreement from across the pond and the UK in particular when it's English tyranny that wrote our highest laws in the first place.  I think the moral to the story is to stop telling other people across oceans what to do, or bad things are invariably going to happen.   The US is going bankrupt learning that lesson far too slowly to save its ignorant debtors from painful interest payments on the principal with no end in sight.

[Rafterman]

ouija ouija, on 07 February 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

This is over-simplistic in my view and I'm not sure how owning a gun would have helped her in the situation she mentions when she and her friends were chased in a car.
I'm itching to say more but, hey, I'm living in the UK and it seems in all the threads about guns, the US and the UK can't agree, so ..... *zips mouth shut*

Allow me to parrot the standard response in other discussions regarding women's issues - it's not for you to understand, just accept.

[Gummug]

Yamato, on 07 February 2013 - 11:16 PM, said:

A candid young woman shares how her ambivalence and fear were cured by knowledge and exposure.

For those who didn't watch the video, or who may have missed it, she called the police, was put on hold twice, and then told there was no officer available for 45 minutes or so, if I understood correctly. Sorry for stating the obvious but in 45 minutes a bad person can do a lot of damage.

[Yamato]

Rafterman, on 10 February 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

Allow me to parrot the standard response in other discussions regarding women's issues - it's not for you to understand, just accept.

Why would you parrot that?   Why drag that in this thread?   It's a negative thing to say.    I'm not sure who or what you're trying to stereotype in saying that, or what your intent was but hopefully it wasn't to stifle further discussion.  We are free to disagree about the issues here.  Nobody's political opinions are inherently right or wrong, and our gender need nothing to do with it.   Ouija is a woman and brings a perspective I cannot, that is all.   She's more than welcome to discuss this issue or any other issue.  I will always consider her opinions and I hope she understands, whether she accepts or not is her own rightful business.

[Rafterman]

Yamato, on 11 February 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

Why would you parrot that?   Why drag that in this thread?   It's a negative thing to say. I'm not sure who or what you're trying to stereotype in saying that, or what your intent was but hopefully it wasn't to stifle further discussion.  We are free to disagree about the issues here.  Nobody's political opinions are inherently right or wrong, and our gender need nothing to do with it.   Ouija is a woman and brings a perspective I cannot, that is all.   She's more than welcome to discuss this issue or any other issue.  I will always consider her opinions and I hope she understands, whether she accepts or not is her own rightful business.

Chillax brah.

I'm just stating the standard line from many on the left any time there is a discussion that impacts women's rights - birth control, abortion, rape, etc. etc.

Men aren't allowed to even have an opinion on the topic, much less make any laws or regulations on the matter.

Perhaps you missed the 2012 Presidential campaign?

[Yamato]

Rafterman, on 11 February 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

Chillax brah.

I'm just stating the standard line from many on the left any time there is a discussion that impacts women's rights - birth control, abortion, rape, etc. etc.

Men aren't allowed to even have an opinion on the topic, much less make any laws or regulations on the matter.

Perhaps you missed the 2012 Presidential campaign?

The forces that are disallowing that must be so weak I didn't even perceive them, sorry.

Let's make this a partisan-free zone.  False left-right paradigms hoodwink people into thinking their political party actually matters.   But whichever head of the hydra you feed, it all drops down into the same belly of the same beast.  Playing partisan politics between two parties serves one true purpose:  To rhetorically relieve one's side of blame and smear it on the other side, when both halves are equally responsible for every major problem we face as a nation.   Party politics moves a lot of money around and makes a great popularity contest, but it's ugly in its face, false throughout, and pointless in the end.

Get lost in partisan politics, and misunderstand the issues.  That's what you wind up accomplishing.  Thank you, no.

[Yamato]

The Republicans had the White House.  The Republicans had the Senate.  The Republicans had the House.  Simultaneously.   Did any reforms happen to abortion laws in this country?   Did any reforms happen to our fiscal practices and debt addiction?   Did any meaningful reforms happen with anything?   No, they just spit that wedgie gristle and gruel out come campaign season, false wedge issues like abortion which serve to divide people against one another, get peoples' dander up enough to motivate them into the voting booth to vote for their favorite well-funded clown who supposedly has similar views on constipated wedge issues that Washington DC shouldn't even be involved with in the first place.  Thank you, believers in our bipartisan democracy, for letting us take this dead end road for this bloody long.

[Babe Ruth]

Good video!

[ouija ouija]

Rafterman, on 10 February 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

Allow me to parrot the standard response in other discussions regarding women's issues - it's not for you to understand, just accept.

I don't really understand your comment. Are you saying guns are a 'man thing' and only men should concern themselves with them? Are you saying there are UM topics for men only?

Rafterman, on 11 February 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

Chillax brah.

I'm just stating the standard line from many on the left any time there is a discussion that impacts women's rights - birth control, abortion, rape, etc. etc.

Men aren't allowed to even have an opinion on the topic, much less make any laws or regulations on the matter.

Perhaps you missed the 2012 Presidential campaign?

Still confused . When you first quoted me, did you think I was male?

[ouija ouija]

Yamato, on 08 February 2013 - 12:16 AM, said:

Okay.  Can you see how police having guns could have helped her in the situation she mentioned?

The standard here is meeting criminal force with equal or greater force.  That's a concept every police department can understand regardless of what country it's in.  How is ignoring that standard (except when it comes to police) going to keep her safe? In the situation she was in, if she had to stop her vehicle and exit it, forcing a confrontation with a drug-crazed lunatic, only with a firearm could she have done so on favorable or at least equal terms.

It's a most circular irony to get so much disagreement from across the pond and the UK in particular when it's English tyranny that wrote our highest laws in the first place.  I think the moral to the story is to stop telling other people across oceans what to do, or bad things are invariably going to happen.   The US is going bankrupt learning that lesson far too slowly to save its ignorant debtors from painful interest payments on the principal with no end in sight.

'English tyranny' would probably involve just a handful of people ..... I don't think you can blame us all!

If I'm honest, I would have to say that the young woman in the video seems to mainly want to please her husband ..... that seems to be her main motivation.

Are criminals more likely to use their firearm if they know their prospective victim is armed? A lot of arguments/situations seem to be circular in nature ..... self-perpetuating.

I recently had several emails from FreedomNetwork@Global.net  (I have no idea how they got  my email address), and they've made me start to think that a fully armed population is the right thing for America at this moment in time.

I've also realised that I'm coming from an idealistic perspective regarding guns, and there is no point in this stance. We are where we are ....... which is very depressing as it means things will, at the very best, stay as bad as they are, and possibly get worse.

[Yamato]

ouija ouija, on 11 February 2013 - 11:55 PM, said:

'English tyranny' would probably involve just a handful of people ..... I don't think you can blame us all!

If I'm honest, I would have to say that the young woman in the video seems to mainly want to please her husband ..... that seems to be her main motivation.

Are criminals more likely to use their firearm if they know their prospective victim is armed? A lot of arguments/situations seem to be circular in nature ..... self-perpetuating.

I recently had several emails from FreedomNetwork@Global.net  (I have no idea how they got  my email address), and they've made me start to think that a fully armed population is the right thing for America at this moment in time.

I've also realised that I'm coming from an idealistic perspective regarding guns, and there is no point in this stance. We are where we are ....... which is very depressing as it means things will, at the very best, stay as bad as they are, and possibly get worse.

I'm not blaming anyone alive today.  That would be a bad display of nationalism on my part.  No English person alive today is responsible for the history of their ancestors, but it'd serve them well to understand that history so they don't repeat the same mistakes of it.  English tyranny manifested itself in the totality of the armed forces England sent over here to fight and die, failing to return America to the Crown  Tyranny exhibits itself through policy not the monarchical decree.  If the King only talked to the stones in the wall, there'd be no tyranny.   But regarding how many English people we could blame back in the 1770s, I'd be curious to see English newspaper articles during King George III's reign that were critical of the war, or hear about public figures in England that opposed the King's war waging.

I suspect a criminal would be more likely to use a firearm if his victim was a black belt Judo expert too.   Is that to say, don't be a black belt or learn how to defend yourselves folks, cower before your assailant and hope for his mercy instead?  Why is this kind of reasoning only valid for private citizens?   If victims having firearms make criminals use firearms, what about cops using firearms?   What about military using firearms?

Violent crime is at a 20-year low in the US, and by some counts it's at a 40-year low.  Using a few sensationalized mass shootings as the justification for even more rounds of "gun control" are missing the big picture and focusing on a mere smudge to impose unconstitutional constraints without a Constitutional Amendment.   Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify firearms that can be infringed upon, it'll take a Constitutional amendment to do that, if we care about plain readings of our law.

[Rafterman]

ouija ouija, on 11 February 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

I don't really understand your comment. Are you saying guns are a 'man thing' and only men should concern themselves with them? Are you saying there are UM topics for men only?

Still confused . When you first quoted me, did you think I was male?

Yes, I did think you were male.

Perhaps you haven't experienced this being from the UK, but I have been shot down on more occasions than I can even count trying to voice an opinion on women's issues simply because I have a penis.  Many on the left seem to think that women's issues should be the purview of women only.

And yes, I view women and firearms ownership as a women's rights issue.

That was my point.

[Yamato]

Rafterman, on 12 February 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

Perhaps you haven't experienced this being from the UK, but I have been shot down on more occasions than I can even count trying to voice an opinion on women's issues simply because I have a penis.  Many on the left seem to think that women's issues should be the purview of women only.

And yes, I view women and firearms ownership as a women's rights issue.

So you just add a woman and it's a women's right issue?   Why?   It's an individual rights issue.  I think that looking at it in that way would cure your contempt.   Firearms ownership and self defense aren't reserved for one gender, they're universal for all.   Viewing rights as women's rights in the first place is what leads to your getting shot down and turning jaded.    Don't accept the premise, and then there's nothing to rant about.