18TH CENTURY LIVING HISTORY, HISTORICAL TREKKING, AND LONG TERM SURVIVAL.
As a law enforcement officer I have to agree with you Le Loup. Criminals will commit crimes they don't care what the law states. It doesn't make sense to restrict the rights of those not breaking the laws. The problem we have in the states and one that I have personally seen is that the cops arrest felons with guns and the courts go soft on them. The Fast and Furious operation is a prime example.A few other observations from being in law enforcement. Everyone should have gun training. Too many idiots out there. When they do something stupid it comes back on every competent gun owner.One thing that upsets me is people who open carry hand guns. I'm not saying that open carry is bad I'm just saying that when I went through the police academy we spent almost as much time training on hand gun retention as we did shooting. Bad people will take your gun if they see it so train to prevent it from happening.I have seen more people stabbed and or beaten than I have seen shot. Most gun shot wounds I have seen in law enforcement have been self inflicted. My last words of rambling. Never carry a gun for protection unless you are prepared to kill. Guns are easy to take away from a person if they are not committed to using it. And as I learned in the military never bring a knife to a gun fight and never bring a pistol when you can have a rifle.
I've always wondered why we insist on separating "gun crime" from the rest. Is a man less dead from a blow to the head from an iron pipe than from a bullet?
Ex law enforcement myself Frontier, & I totally agree with what you say.Regards, Keith.
Excellent reply Keith, and every member of the anti-gun crowd over here should read it. Unfortunately they have been told the same thing many times, and it makes no impression.
I think Gorges that using a modern gun takes away that direct contact. Using a golf club or a piece of pipe to battersomeone to death is very hands on. However, to be realistic in regards to muzzle-loading guns, if what they are worried about is nutters killing ther own families, it is not going to happen with a muzzle-loading gun. There are plenty of other weapons out there more suitable.Keith.
Nicely put Keith and all other posters. A criminal will get a gun whenever they need it, that's a fact. Putting in place laws that are floored and unworkable (because criminals don't abide by the law) only effects the law abiding gun owner. All these emotions against guns are stirred up by the media, and politicians who want to gain election votes. They treat the public like sheep, which unfortunately many are, thus causing them not to use their own common sense and falling into line with whatever they are fed.
Thank you Shane. I hope Conrad can look at these replies objectively & see the light, or at least understand our point of view, but as Bob sais, they have been told many times already but still don't see it.Regards, Keith.
This makes the Firearms Advisory Committee look pretty stupid & inaffectual. They have to be all sheep or morons unless of course they are not being consulted at all or being totally ignored. In which case why arn't they speaking up & making it public?
"The second amendment recognizes a citizens right to be armed. What it really means is a citizens right to self defense. Anytime some schmuck tells you that you aren't allowed to be armed for any reason, you really need to ask yourself why does said schmuck want you unarmed and defenseless? What exactly is said schmuck planning to do to you that works better when you can't defend yourself?"Found here. (Gregarious Loner blog, sidebar)
Thanks for your input Bob. We are not legally allowed to own a gun for self-defence, & in fact the law states that we must be injured or shot first before we can defend ourselves. How is that for our government looking after its law abiding citizens?!Keith.
Post a Comment