Thanks for the tip.

This is why I have a 50 bmg, fn-fal, HK91, etc. in my safe. Many of my friends legally own 20mm anti-tank guns (solothurns) and even howitzers.

I had the pleasure of experiencing some urban riots and find a Fn-Fal quite adequate for such problems.

The original game plan for America was a citizen militia with equal access to every horrible weapon of war possesed by the government. No standing army to go on foreign adventures or for domestic repression.

I still think this a good idea.

:nono: NO... :eek3:

You're absolutely right. Spur of the moment and all that. Apologies due - message deleted.

Hey Teflon
Why you apologize?, I mean I’m with you also reading here all this S…. without understand what a F…. some are talking…..
Saludos.

Thanks Javkap, though I was still going to delete it even before I read your post. Good thing I didn't have a gun, eh? Can't delete a bullet.:eek3:

I'm gonna move on from this thread. Bad karma.

Saludos.

3Wheelbonnie beat me to it, but I agree that personal gun ownership would have done little to avert those situations.

Firstly, I must say that is a slight Hollywoodism. I do not think it sound to suggest that the outcome of the World Wars (I assume you refer to these conflicts) were settled entirely due to the intervention of the States. The tide turned in Europe following Stalingrad and the advance of the Red Army from the East. On top of which, I think it fair to say that the US has also initiated a number of fairly catastrophic offensives since that period too (also nations pretty unable to preserve themselves, if I recall)....

All the same, history aside, I do not see, as Andy stated earlier, how personal gun ownership, which is what this discussion arose from has to do with the political history of the last 100 years in Europe. Indeed, even the right to defend oneself. I can defend myself, with reasonable force, if needed. I am however, not allowed to own a gun, nor do I feel I need one. That will not change the course of things to come in Europe or the world, but it does mean that the bloke I have a disagreement with about ritht of way in a car park is not likely to try and shoot me...

I disagree: I think, first and foremost the best way to ensure one's own personal freedoms is care as much about everyone elses, too: it comes from mutual respect, and giving a crap about those around you. That is what cements a society. Why is it small town life seems far more relaxed that the city swell...?

In any case, I never said that using force to protect ones life was not acceptable, I simply said that owning a gun is not the route to personal security one thinks it is. The appalling school shootings that we hear about once or twice a year (it seems) are just one very sad example of what widely accessible guns can lead to IMO...

I think "moral obligation" and "use of violence" together is as fine an oximoron as I ever read. Morality usually teaches us that violence should be avoided; that a peaceful solution is best sought. Violence is not often a solution, but usually begets more... Northern Ireland, Israel, Rwanda, etc.
Not that personal gun ownership would have changed these situations much either.

My view is that a gun in every home brings that possibility one step closer than is needed.

That made I laugh, that did!! :D

I do not see what WW 1 or 2 has to do with taking a hand gun to South America in 2008. I dont see where the poster asked what guns you have or if Europeans like guns. You want to post fealings about the USA guns or any thing else have the guts to open your own thread in the HUBB BAR. The Poster opend this thread posed only one time on the HUBB and has not posted any more. I think hate filled venom ran him off. He comes here hoping for a little help and gets almost 7 pages full of poop. I Hear as a person travils more they mellow and have respect for others point of view and ways of life. Odd Im see so little of it here.

MMn some very interesting viewpoints here in this thread .
It has wandered far away from the original post , of course .

However IMHO opinion ,a gun is just another means of defending one's self .
Anti gun protagonists on this thread have encouraged the use of , martial arts , knives , axes , shovels , pepper spray etc .
Which are all a means of tipping the balance in one's favour by the use of violence be it with a tool or a kind of knowledege that one assumes the opponent will not have .

Being able to produce a gun in the appropriate situation may actually defuse a tense situation , furthermore it could tip the balance in the favour of ,for example , a slightly built woman being attacked by a large male , who has more than robbery on his mind .

I think it is rather crass to be critical of a country and society that has evolved around widespread legal gun ownership from pioneer days [ such as the USA ] when there is ample history of extreme violence and genocide from within Europe ,in living memory ,stemming from illegal gun ownership .

Guns in themselves do not cause the problem , people are the problem .

There are three kinds of guns available to civilians , those that are kept for sporting purposes , those that are used in a personal defence role and those used for illegal purposes , maybe some of the anti gun folks should think about that for a while before lumping all gun owners together under one category as undesirables .

Or, perhaps DL, he was simply trolling, eh?

mission accomplished!

WW1 and WW2 and guns in SA? As I posted yesterday: No Id on't see the connection either, but the discussion wandered...so what.

There has been some vitriol here and there and, understandably, given the nonsense M Dongo was spouting..., but as far as L.J. and I are concerned we have been a discussion as I see it, and there has not been any unecessary venom as I can see. Ultimately, its probably a case of agree to disagree. In fact, I think the discussion since Dongo's disappearance has been fine....

As far as respecting other peoples way of life... I respect that this is one way the USA decides to govern itself. I'm not lobbying the US governement to get rid of guns, that is not my business, but I don't see me having an opinion, nor expressing it is such an issue. If the thread is boring to you, don't read it....

The big distinction many were making was that travelling with a gun will get you thrown in the clink...

What is crass about disagreeing with the way something is done else where?!? Secondly, unless you refer to the isolated shooting of Archduke Ferdinand, I don't see how illegal gun ownership has anything to do with those historical events!!

Totally agree


I don't get the impression that they were lumped together at all in fact sporting activities were not even being discussed, it was gun ownership for personal security that was being discussed. Illegal ownership? Speaks for itself...

However people without guns are generally less of a problem than those with guns.

Not my point. My point was that these conflicts including the recent brush fire in the Balkans (which Europe was incapable of handling) were no more our problems than the Napoleonic Wars.

Stalinist bootleather, Nazi bootleather whatever they want to lick its not our problem.

Indeed the transformation of the United States from a mostly noninterventionist power to a highly centralized Federal Authority domestically and Globo-Cop internationally is a directly result of us sticking our nose in other people's business.

With any luck our government will financially collapse and we might return to a more traditional domestic and foreign policy.

When food riots in the developing world triple Islamic immigration to Europe or Russia decides to annex Ukraine or China the Straits of Malacca perhaps we can manage to stay out of that for once as well.

Indeed.

A problem to whom?