Okay ladies/wives let's hear it!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Weapons' purpose is saving lives.
Target shooting, haunting are secondary uses, IMO. For the most relevant opinion of why a person would need a machine gun or a mortar or a nuke, ask the guy on www.ar15.com list who survived concentration camp, then the war of 1948 that resulted in independence for Israel.

He will likely tell you that Jewish civilians with revolvers did better in 1943 Warsaw than their relatives with bare hands. Those who picked up Sten submachine guns in '48 Palestine did better yet. Do you know that in 1973 Israel was just about overrun again, great military or not. People in the path of Egyptian and Syrian advance fought to buy time for the armor committed elsewhere....with personal weapons.

Now tell me, if enemy is advancing on you with all they have, would you rather have your .38 or an Uzi/Galil/M16? The enemy could be equally easily regular foreign infantry, rogue (are there any other?) government agency or half-dozen drunk locals with entertainment/rapine in mind...

I own an AR15 because I cannot get an MG3 or Mag58 medium machine gun...not do I have extra people for the fire team. Semi-automatic rifles and handguns are a good stop-gap on the way of acquiring rockets, grenades and other useful combat tools.

Will I ever need to use them? Not likely, but likely enough that I'd get VERY nervous if I had no decent weapons. My likelyhood of using them - or needing to use them but lacking the ability - would be greater if the likely opposition would try to disarm me first.

Ask Afghanis why they preferred "evil" AKMs to politically-correct blackpowder Henri-Martinis and "modern" bolt-action SMLEs. We, Americans, simply have the luxury of being able to own our own from the start and skipping that unpleasant step of ambushing on opponent and trying to learn captured tools in a hurry.

In other words, your personal revolver might protect you from a single untrained rapist...my semi-automatic rifle would help me protect myself from multiple trained threats (not perfectly, but appreciably better than other available methods).

Someday we would no longer need such weapons...but I don't think replacement rayguns will be available all that soon :)

Last question: if it is your family that you would like to protect from a physical threat, what would *you* prefer? I know that my choice would be the most effective, powerful and controllable tool possible. I suspect that you would agree. If someone does not agree, that's their choice...let them use harsh words and pepper spray. It isn't their right to put my life in even more danger my forbidding ownership of medications, fire extinguishers, weapons and all other tools that help trained users save their own lifes and lives of dependents.

------------------
Oleg

http://dd-b.net/RKBA

[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited December 12, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited December 12, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited December 12, 1999).]
 
If I may generalize and not offend DC and other real ladies here...

I hear women express this sentiment more often than men. I suspect this is a result of culture in which more boys than girls can admit the possibility that they would someday be defenders or self and others. It is likewise with immigrants...depending on the country of origin, some of my acquaintances realize arms as useful and others do not.

Lou,

If your family is under attack, who do you think will lead the defense effort: your, your kid or your husband? Would that explain to you the interest in having the best tools?

Also, fifteen guns means he is enjoying the hobby. Imagine, for a moment, that he would only have one rifle and one sidearm, some spares, lots of ammo and a firm resolve to get better arms in combat. Right now, he might be cognizant of guns as last-ditch livesavers but collect them for the craftsmanship, the pleasures of recreational use. The day he streamlines that to the Army-like training and really hunkers down, you may find out what "scary, if necessary" really means.

You and my girlfriend think that the men are paranoid. I just look back and ask myself "will I ever need to be armed in my lifetime of hopefully fifty or sixty more years?" Which country in the world can you think of that had neither a war, nor a revolution, nor riots, nor any other social or natural calamity over a single person's lifetime? I can't think of that many myself...and how many of those that did have the troubles looked stable, prosperous and safe a decade before?

------------------
Oleg

http://dd-b.net/RKBA
 
Lou, (deep breath), Yes, they should be legal and all should own one, IMHO.

Let's go back in history a bit. Why was the 2nd Amendment "noted" in the Constitution? (remember, the 2nd was not *granted* by the Constitution - merely mentioned) It, along with the entire Bill of Rights is an "inalienable" right. Meaning it cannot be granted by, nor removed by a government - it simple exists for us as living human beings.

The intent of the 2nd was of course for the citizenry to defend themselves from, and overthrow if necessary, the government should they become oppressive, tyranical - or mess with our Bill of Rights.

In short, so we can "defend" - ourselves and the Constitution.

Since the firearm is the tool of this defense, let me ask YOU a question (and please answer these). If you were ever in a position to defend yourself, your family or the Constitution, would you choose a tool that was MOST or LEAST effective for that specific task?

Would you personally choose a 6 shot revolver or a semi-auto rifle with a 30 round magazine if your very existence was threatened?

Every time any of our firearms rights or choices are taken away we are being told by "OUR" government that WE ARE NOT WORTH DEFENDING.

That strikes a deep cord in my very soul.

Lou, one more thing - I have 3 firearms that are improperly described as "assault weapons" (AR15's). My guns, "that shoot out an unbelievable amount of ammo at one time", have never harmed anyone.

And they won't, unless someone attempts to harm me, or "OUR" Constitution.

CMOS


------------------
GOA, TSRA, LEAA, NRA, SAF and I vote!
 
My,my, my... I didn't mean to get anyone's bloodpressure up! I'm just ignorant on the matter of guns, gun mechanics, and the rights to own firearms. But not to worry! After Karanas saw this post, he and I had a loooonnnnggg talk AND this time I LISTENED! You are all great to take the time to respond to such an uneducated soul like me, but there is hope and I look forward to growing into the group. My own daughter, glockgirl79, knows more than I do! But hey, that's okay.
I never could understand why my husband wanted an ar15 or any of the other rifles,shotguns and revolvers he owns... but now I am beginning to. Thanks everybody! I would put a smiley face here but I haven't figured that trick out yet!!
 
Lou, put a : with a ) to make smileys. :)
The rest are in the UBB code section.

And relax--we're not mad at YOU. Try to remember that if our blood boils and we get loud it's not because we think you personally are bad--it's just that we're repeating ourselves for literally the 1000th time. We get sick of it and it's frustrating that no one out there seems to know our side. You and others like you can quote emotional rhetoric all day long but Karanas may have been the first person you heard the logical side of the debate from. It's frustrating in the extreme but we certainly don't mean to take it out on you.
:)

------------------
Don

"Its not criminals that go into schools and shoot children"
--Ann Pearston, British Gun Control apologist and moron
 
Lou, we're definitely not angry with you - we're frustrated by this argument. It has been hammered over and over, especially in the media and by political hacks. For those unfamiliar with firearms it just seems so obvious that no one needs that many bullets. And, as I point out to such folks increasingly, the earth is obviously flat, but that doesn't make either assertion true!

Lou, I was beginning to wonder if you were pulling our collective legs, but I'm actually glad you weren't. Bring on every question you have, and let's discuss them. The only way we're going to bring this country back to its senses is to honestly debate these issues. All I ask is that you pass this information on to your friends when the opportunities arise - especially your lady friends. Women need to carefully consider these issues and think hard about the RKBA - they are disproportionately helping to destroy it, and personally, I think they will ultimately be shocked at the results if they succeed.

Regards from AZ
 
Lou, when you posted this I said to myself, "Uh, oh! I hope she has a firm grip on the ground 'cause a lot of folks are going to let 'er rip." I started to FedEx a Nomex suit to you. But, as you can see, you got a lot of rational answers with no flames at all. Good work everyone. And, Lou, keep asking the good questions. But more importantly, tell your friends.
 
Sorry folks but I see this different. Just because Lou is the wife of a respected member does not preclude the obvious.
Try this on for size.
Get a clue Lou. You are a hypocrite of the magnitude of Feinstien. You feel no shame at breaking the law by carrying sans permit, but would preach to others restrictions on what they may use. I have no use for that type. Wit and fact don't seem to work, so how about a large dose of truth.

------------------
CCW for Ohio action site.
Deliberatley Unarmed People (DUPs) are one thing, we demand the choice.
http://www.ofcc.net


[This message has been edited by Hal (edited December 12, 1999).]
 
Hal,

You are not helping. Consider that people (including you and me) can hold positions that look perfectly logical to us and ridiculous/evil/inconsistent to others. "Lou" wasn't advocating stripping her hubbie of his rights but trying to understand his view so she could live with it.

------------------
Oleg

http://dd-b.net/RKBA
 
You guys (Oleg and Mal) are correct,I'm not helping. I see this and the DUP topic as being very close together. http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=33372 It caught me off guard to see such an attitude from one so close to home, so to speak. One reason I avoid these types of discussions is my lack of diplomacy. I tend to call it like I see it. I really find it hard to believe that action type in a firearm has any bearing, aside from personal preferance, to defense of one's life and/or family. I really hate it when the media hype captures anyone, but it hurts doubly bad when that someone is one of our own.
------------------
CCW for Ohio action site.
Deliberatley Unarmed People (DUPs) are one thing, we demand the choice.
http://www.ofcc.net


[This message has been edited by Hal (edited December 13, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Hal (edited December 13, 1999).]
 
Hal, thank God my husband is more patient and loving towards me and my ignorance. Yes, he had TRIED to discuss guns with me before in the past, but I would either give him a glazed look and listen... not, and nod my head. It just didn't interest me. But in the recent month, some of what he has tried to tell me is beginning to sink in. My original post was not really an attitude, but a question. I was someone looking for the "reasoning" behind the whole issue of guns and such. Just because my husband is knowledgable and extremely intelligent (had to put that one in to make up for my stupidity! :) ), doesn't mean it rubs off on me! Between him calmly and lovingly explaining this issue with me and the other members of TFL, I now realize there is soooo much more to this than what the media and politician say. In fact, I can't believe a word they say! Once again Hal, I have recovered from your razor like words, but I hope you will keep in mind, explaining something goes a lot further than blasting anger. You say it isn't personal, but unfortunately when someone slams me like you did, I do take it personal. Let's show a little mercy here! Since Karanas explained to me about DC's post on the types of guns and their "action", I now realize that it really shouldn't be an issue. I had never had it explain to me in such detail before.

[This message has been edited by Lou (edited December 13, 1999).]
 
Lou,
I applaud you for wanting to inform yourself of all aspects of firearm ownership, and a desire to learn. I applaud you for your decision to not be a victim. These are traits that are in precious supply. I am concerned that you choose to bypass the legal means of carry in your State. If that decision is one you made, based on a belief that your right to defend your life supercedes the laws of man, then that is your decision, and I will be one of the first to support your right to that belief. If on the other hand, your decision is based on not wanting to bother, not really interested or not making the time to qualify, are you prepared for the results? Do you know the penalty for unlicensed carry? Are you assuming the risk of a felony by doing so? You have publicly admitted to breaking the law. My advice on that would be, if that is your choice, I would keep it to myself. My razor like words will be nothing in comparison to the words you may hear. Words such as defendant, accused, Parish of xxx Vs (yourself). Statistically speaking, you have a far greater risk of injury while rollerblading than you do of being a victim of violent life threatening crime. An injury that requires the attention of EMT services could also reveal that you are armed. A minor traffic offence could also do so. There will be no one to patiently explain to you what you want to know. What there will be is a lawyer, hand out, demanding you trade your daughter’s next year of tuition for his/her services. These are the things that brought about my retort. Ask your husband to explain who Mr. Murphy is. Ask your husband to help you get answers. Ask you husband to tell you difference between the real weapon you carry on your shoulders, and the one you conceal made of metal. As I related, he is good people, based on the posts I have read from him. He will give you good answers. Your part is to listen, something you have already proved to be very competent at. I am guessing that the subject has come up before, and is about to again. Once you cross that line, whatever your intention, you have to accept the responsibility. I just did.


------------------
CCW for Ohio action site.
Deliberatley Unarmed People (DUPs) are one thing, we demand the choice.
http://www.ofcc.net
 
I guess that I need to clarify a point that continues to come up in this thread and has initiated another.
That is "Lou's" carrying of a handgun without a permit while rollerblading.
This actually occurred several years ago, before Louisiana had CCW.
The trail where she went rollerblading was a new development and quite frankly, the only place around here where this activity could be enjoyed unless you chose to do so on the shoulder of one of the local highways.
Security was nonexistent and at least one woman had been raped there.
I initially counseled her to discontinue this activity until the security situation improved, but this trail is about 50 miles long and even with a dedicated police presence you would still be vulnerable to predators.
So, weighing all the options, or lack thereof, she carried illegally at my urging. The truth is, I believe she only did this once or twice and decided that it wasn't worth the trouble.
She and my daughter, GlockGirl79, are both going to get their CCW's shortly.
Before Louisiana adopted CCW and I obtained my permit, there were times when I stepped over the line myself and carried illegally when I felt circumstances warranted it.
I did so with great trepidation, and resentment that my community denied me this option to protect myself when it was clear that they couldn't guarantee my security.
 
Quite a bit has been said in this thread. Most of us here know about how all of our Constitutional Rights are being chipped away at. Not just guns but everything. Lou/Hal shake hands and come out again. The argument
that is being rehearsed here is the one that needs to be taken to the Non Choir Members!

Funny thing about CCW permits, here in Miss. before we had the dadgummed things you could pretty well carry and if you were "Made" by a LEO you could explain your legal defense to him. State statutes provided legal defenses for carrying. Now, you pay your money, submit your fingerprints etc.

Keep it up!
Regards to all,
Hank
 
I am a little late to the party, but I would like to give a slightly different point of view than the above.

Buford Furrow went into a Jewish day care center with a dreaded UZI "assault weapon" with a 32 round magazine and targeted a bunch of children with his gun. How many did he kill with his UZI? Exactly ZERO (0).

A man north of San Diego stated that he "just felt like killing children" and crashed his brown Cadillac into a preschool brick wall, driving over the wall and killing a number of children at the preschool playground.

A young man went into his school just last week with a hi-capacity semi-auto handgun holding 15 rounds, shot all 15 rounds and killed exactly ZERO (0) people.

An old woman in Southern California recently drove her car through a crowd of children crossing the street, hitting 10 of them and killing 7 !

My point? Well, I think you get the idea, but the point is, that Buford Forrow would have killed a heck of a lot more kids if he had just taken that VAN he was driving, waited until the kids got out of school and ran over them in the crosswalk.
Criminals take everyday good tools and turn them evil. Fortunately, there are very few criminals out there.
80% of knife homocides are with kitchen knives. Once again, everyday items are used for evil by bad people. How do you outlaw kitchen knives? Well, Diane Feinstein actually proposed a plan to register and track ALL knives, including kitchen knives after the OJ murder. These are the kind of people in our government who want to outlaw and track everything as their "solution" to violence.

Should we outlaw automatic transmissions and only allow the Police and Military to have them because they are too dangerous? Maybe we should only allow people to drive cars that weigh under 1000 pounds so that they do less damage when they hit crowds of people?


You have been programmed that "assualt rifles are evil" and "semi-auto guns are used to mow down lots of people and are no good for hunting".


The hi-cap magazine ban was supposed to stop people from getting hi-capacity guns and shooting places up.
A man in Fort Worth Texas went into a church several weeks ago and fired 70 rounds with his semi-auto handgun. How many magazines did he use? 7! What does that mean? That means that he followed the silly law and only bought 10-round magazines, but he just used 7 of them instead! Just as predicted, the law did nothing to stop the crime, the criminal found a way around it.
If semi-autos were banned, then these criminals would use your revolver. For the price of ONE magazine for a semi-auto, a person can buy at least FIVE speed-loaders for a revolver. A bad guy could then go into a church with a revolver or two and a bunch of speed laoders and shoot the place up.

Why would he go to a church or a school? Because guns are usually banned at churches and school. How many mass shootings were there in schools BEFORE 1994 when the schools were name "gun free zones". Criminals are drawn to disarmed places because they have power there. People are shooting up schools because they know they are "gun free zones" and no one will legally be able to stop them.

The people of the LA riots were very thankful wo have "assault rifles" to guard their homes and families when the Police pulled out and told them they were on their own against hoards of looters. Good people using a tool for it's intended purpose.

Finally, 99.8% of guns are NOT used in crimes. Why? Because most people are GOOD people. When you make a law to outlaw these weapons, you are making a law that affects all 99.8% of good people to try to get to the .2% of bad people. And the irony is, the bad people aren't affected by the law because the don't follow the law!

Name me any product that is only misused .2% of the time. Cars are misused every day, all the time by criminals and kill millions. Guns are misused too, but by a very very small amount of people, and this is far outweighed by the amount of good people that use them to stop crimes.

Don't listen to the media. Outlawing guns or certain types of guns will solve nothing but to disarm the good people. Criminals will always find a way to misuse a tool for their needs. On the other hand, look at all the GOOD that guns do. Look at all the crimes they stop.
The media would have you believe that "assault weapons" are evil and used in crime. There was recently a newspaper article with an interview of a Police Officer in charge of all assault wepons in one high crime district of Los Angeles. Guess how many "assault weapons" have been used in that high-crime district of L.A. to commit crimes? ONE. Yes, ONE crime in the last 8 years was commited with an assault rifle. The media is feeding you lies about this and making a boogeyman out of something that does not exist in order to disarm the people one little bit at a time.

Criminals will always misuse tools to commit crime, as that is their nature. Efficient tools that are good at saving life are also good at taking it and can be misused on rare occassion. The "assualt rifle" and anti-semi-auto movment is another smokescreen to errode our rights. As seen in the above examples, criminals will use cars, or LOW-capacity fireamrs, or bombs, or arson, or kitchecn knives, or sheer numbers (riots and gangs) or even revolvers to commit crimes. Outlawing and blaming tools is not the answer, because criminals will always find a way to commit meyheml; they will always find the tool they need.
The only way to effectively stop crime is to make it very disfavorable by either arming the citizens so that they are not such tasty prey, or to apply the laws we have and punish criminals, so that commiting crimes is not so attractive anymore.

Timothy McVeigh killed a whole heck of a lot of people with fertilizer and gasoline. How do we outlaw that?
 
According to the FBI, blunt object are used ti kill more people than rifles are. This would put "assault rifle" murders right up there with tommahawk murders. So exactly what is the REASONING for outlawing such guns? Because they look and function a little differently?
 
I just want all those who have been posting to know that since the original post was made, a few changes have been taking place in my life. No... I am STILL married to Karanas! He has been very helpful through my ignorance and apathy towards guns etc. I am truly blessed, even though I questioned his normalcy! Because of my concern for my husband and the original question about rapid fire guns (see I don't even know the proper lingo yet ;0) I have really gotten interested in TFL! I have been sucked in! I have started the proceedings to obtain a concealed weapons permit, so I will have lots of studying to do! So rest easy, this little lady will be no DUP!!! Glockgirl79 and her beau, Keeneye, will be joining me in class. I'll keep you posted on my progress.

[This message has been edited by Lou (edited December 16, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Lou (edited December 16, 1999).]
 
Outstanding, Lou! Just Outstanding!

Welcome to the newcomers and a slap on the back (and a Shiner Bock) to Karanas.

Patience and love - an unbeatable combination!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top