How many guns do you own? POLL

[MAXIMAN]

Well this has certianly been a spirited debate. I find it refreshing but not surprising that 91% of the respondents appear to be pro freedom and pro fire arms ownership. I think this is generally the rule fo thumb for bikers because bikers...in general...(but not all) are freedom lovers. Bikers are independent and don't want XSive government intervention.

Bikers are aware the government can NOT protect us from every possible scenario of anything that could ever go wrong in our lives.

More people need to ride. I think this would enlighten them to the realities, risks, and subsequent rewards/benefits of being truly free.

SO many goons in our culture think that the "Government" is what America is all about. That is like saying the referees ARE what football is all about...without refs the game would cease to exist. How utterly asinine.

Thanks to all that took the poll. I truly did not expect this debate to ensue. I figured most would execute the poll and make no statements about the topic.

Now lets ride. ...eh um...and don't forget your peacemaker!

And in the words of the Main Framer "Goverment is a necessary evil" But an evil nonetheless.

[Crazcnuk]

Heh, just love stirring the wasp's nest.

It is interesting to see how people pick out thier own little tidbits from each reply and respond as though that were the only thing said.

Then there is the human response that is 'all or nothing' meaing if you don't like EVERYTHING I say, then EVERYTHING you say is suspect.

Then comes the since you don't like this, then you must be for that... syndrome.

I answered the poll with the first answer, not because I am against guns at all, it was just the only one that had 0 guns owned in it.

I have fired all kinds of handguns and rifles and assault weapons, and shotguns. SInce the age of 12 or so we (kids) would wander around with a double barrel shotgun looking for things to shoot at.

I am not against gun registration, in fact if done right I think it' a great thing. However, do not use Canada's system as a yardstick, It's terrible. It's set up wrong and for the wrong reasons, and on top of that it doesn't work. This is why I refused to register my firearm, and instead got rid of it, even though it belonged to my grandfather.

However, the NRA arguement that bad guys have guns therefore everyone should is bunk. It's the arms race, and as such the American mentaility, to a tee. If you have, I have to have more syndrome. This NEVER solves anything.

If the US pattern is the best then why do most civilized countries not follow thier lead? Again, don't use Canada as a comparison, because, we too have a lot more guns than we need, and we only have marginally more rules about them.

By saying that you need to have an aresenal in your basement you are admitting that your society has failed in it's protection of it's citizens.

Keep in mind that most of this has nothing to do with responsible gun owners who keep their weapons properly stored (locked up). This is aimed mainly at those that keep them loaded at all times in handy spots, as it's the paranoid that keep the world armed to the teeth.

[olebiker]

Originally posted by MAXIMAN




It appears to me our neighbors to the north are now the "b!tches" of their gutless socialist government. And Apparently our siblings down under have suffered the same fate. Too bad.

Don't believe everything you read. Not all Canadians feel the same way, in the same manner not all Americans would agree with you. I have 300 years worth of dead relatives buried in the good ole US of A. We have only been in Canada for the last hundred. Many relatives on both sides of the border including my children. I don't care for your attitude about me as a Canadian or my country, but I believe that you are just angry at what was said. I understand that, I wouldn't care to be told I was full of **** either. But maybe we ought to tone down the name calling stuff.

IMO

[trbig]

It's the arms race, and as such the American mentaility, to a tee. If you have, I have to have more syndrome.

I do disagree with this statement. I don't have the need or want for "More". There is no arms race. I just need one.... against their one. I just like to have the CHOICE to choose my one. As stated, I have several, but they all serve a different purpose. Using a 30.06 for quail and squirrel isn't very practical. Neither is home defense with a 50cal rifle. Most people can only shoot one gun at a time anyway. Blazing out like Billy the Kid with two Colt 45's is only the movies. 100 guns isn't going to help me there.

Like Israel or equivilent.. They'll never be in an arms race with the US or their neighbors... because just having ONE is the deterent they need.

I don't understand what the "Bunk" is about that one part of the NRA you stated. If the crooks have guns and nobody else does.... what's the deterent? There are countries that require every citizen to own a weapon. They have almost no violent crimes or break-ins. Why do you think that is? Do you think they are just nicer people? lol. It's because every would-be robber KNOWS there's a gun inside waiting on them.

We could go on and on.. and I'm sure we will.. lol But just tell me this. Name one instance where guns were taken away from the people and crime got BETTER.

Tod

[MAXIMAN]

Originally posted by Crazcnuk
I answered the poll with the first answer, not because I am against guns at all, it was just the only one that had 0 guns owned in it.

...................................


However, the NRA arguement that bad guys have guns therefore everyone should is bunk.

Such a dichotomy of verbal garbage. Quit kicking your own azz in this debate. It gives me nothing to do!

[MAXIMAN]

Originally posted by olebiker


Don't believe everything you read. Not all Canadians feel the same way, in the same manner not all Americans would agree with you. I have 300 years worth of dead relatives buried in the good ole US of A. We have only been in Canada for the last hundred. Many relatives on both sides of the border including my children. I don't care for your attitude about me as a Canadian or my country, but I believe that you are just angry at what was said. I understand that, I wouldn't care to be told I was full of **** either. But maybe we ought to tone down the name calling stuff.

IMO

Oh I understand that. Just got back from a moose hunt in Manitoba and the guys there are not ANTI GUN at all. But those poor fellas are in the minority and they know it. As a matter of fact your government is soooo screwed up we couldn't even take a leak in the forest...IT'S AGAINST THE LAW! What a joke! How will they ever enforce that one?

However you are correct. If some one says I'm full of crap...then I suppose I can say same about them.

Regarding the socialist PUKES of Canada...maybe you are not one of them my friend. But you do not represent the majority in Canada obviously because somehow your government has essentially stripped you of your rights in many regards...not just guns.

They are trying to do it here and making strides. But I am doing everything reasonable to stop it.

I have a several (read more than than a few) friends from Canada that have told me the much the same. 5 of them have moved to the US and are now applying for naturalization. It's sad because Canada is a wonderful country indeed. And that's just from the few I know. They are NOT pleased with the course their homeland has taken.

If you are not your government's "b!tch" then power to you. Sadly most of your countrymen appear ...to me at least...to be willing accomplices to the idiotic ideology of making government their "daddy" to provide them with cradle to grave entitlements.

And the goons here are pointing at Canda as being a stellar example of socialism. So you tell me? Are your "government programs" all that and a bag of chips?

PS: I don't recall calling in anyone in particular a "name". I did refer to most Canadian's (not all) as socialist pukes dependent on the government and growing so every day. I will not retract that because it is the truth...no matter how politically incorrect it is to say it.

[mro]

News you can use

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_re_as/myanmar
Would be a totally diferent story if the government did this here or in Canada.

-----
Should guns be baned I would acquire at least one if not more. And the simple reason would be that government is foreseeing a future where they are so bad that they believe they would be used against them. Take a look at what Congress has done and been doing. Legalized bribery? Have made our election system into a scheme that the two major parties determine who we get to vote for all the way down to the school district level. Even tho the elected have such low approval, most all get re-elected. Most recently look at so called immigration reform, would have passed if not the vast majority rallied against it. But even now when the politico's know that the people want... the borders protected and illegals out there doing nothing and getting away with it.
-----
Law enforcement agencies ARE NOT legally bound to protect there citizens. If they were they would be sued out of existence in a day. (Someone actually tried that too)
-----
I am against gun registration, but I am not against back ground checks for someone who wants to buy a gun.
-----
In the US there are over 20,000 laws pertaining to guns
-----
Statistics are not kept on how many crimes are prevented by gun owners, but has been guessed at 100,000 + per year.
-----
New York and a few other states have a problem with criminals who get a "clean citizen" to buy guns for them and have tried in the courts to sue and close down a few gun shops not in there state where guns used in crimes had been sold legally but then given to criminals. (did not work but did cause a major legal financial cost to shops)
----
While in countries where citizens are not legally allowed gun ownership (like Australia, UK) gun deaths have been steadily rising. They have not reached the levels yet prior to baning guns. This may change should there economies deteriorate as crime spirals up and down with the economy.
-----
As far as the US suppling guns to Canada, were there none legal here they would still be supplied from some where else. Guns will be had by criminals, thru theft, devious procurement, and/or if baned thru something just like the drug trade. Anyone with basic chemistry can make a bomb or gun powder. I see no difficulty in being able to make my own gun if it came to it and know many that can too. (not a glock but dead is dead)
While I do not have a gun, I am not defenseless and am content with the millions of law abiding Americans that do and will support any law that could positively guaranty... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness . Until then I will put my trust in my fellow Americans.


mro

[Pat Kelly]

Speaking of gun control:
How many people in Rwanda were massacared? A million or so? Of those there were very few shot. Most were clubbed or hacked-up with machetes.
People will kill other people by any means possible if they really want to.
I posted earlier that I have several firearms. I love (target) shooting. No, not the store, the bullseyes .
<Government officials don't read the following>:
None of my guns are "registered". They were all purchased legitimately long ago. I'm not a member of the NRA. I also exercise my right to defend myself if I feel a threat. This includes carrying concealed. No, I don't have a permit to do that either.
I will not get a permit (permitted to exercise a right?) or join any orginization. I don't want my name on any lists. If the anti-gun people get their way you bet they will look-up official records of ownership and permits and visit them for confiscation (has this ever happened before? Cuba?).
I guess this makes me a criminal. Even though I don't rob, threaten, intimidate, coerce, or anything else like that.

"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

[mro]

If the anti-gun people get their way you bet they will look-up official records of ownership and permits and visit them for confiscation (has this ever happened before? Cuba?).

Yes,
Russia and Germany both.
But they were not anti-gun people.
They just didn't want anyone able to oppose them effectively.


mro

[olebiker]

"b!tches"

That would be the name I am referring to. I guess you get your news from FOX huh? If by socialist you mean that all our citizens have health care and that our seniors don't have to eat dog food or can't afford their heart medication then ok I guess I must be a socialist. I see a wave of fear based policies that has risen to new highs to our south. Makes me glad that I live where I do.

[Crazcnuk]

"Such a dichotomy of verbal garbage. Quit kicking your own azz in this debate. It gives me nothing to do! "

If your going to use new words, learn what they mean first!

We weren't given a choice os "I own 0 guns, but I am not against them." What part do you not understand.

The ONLY reason that criminals have so many guns is because they steal them from the law abiding citizens. So yes, for a time, they would have more guns, but they too would be rounded up, turned in and disposed of. Had you not started the arms race, in the first place, there would be far less guns in circulation.

TRbig no one is arguing that people shouldn't be able to own them, for specific purposes. The argument is against those that have them for other purposes. Hunting, target shooting are fine. Keeping them, loaded , under your pillow is retarded. I personally don't have to have a bunch of guns around to feel safe.

The biggest thing is that on one hand people argue that thier country is the best in the world, and on the other hand they feel they have to have an arsenal to feel safe, from thier neighbors and/or thier own gov't. This just makes no sense at all.

The argeument that is bunk is the one that says "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". This is tantamount to which came first, the chicken or the egg. If citizens don't have guns, where are the criminals going to get them from?

If criminals have tactical nukes, you'll want one too.

Universal Healthcare cost Socialist gov't

Not having to mortgage the house because you got sidewsiped by a hit and run motorist, or not having to watch a child die because you can't afford health insurance - Priceless

BTW the U.S. is a socialist gov't too. It's just a little further over on the scale.

[MAXIMAN]

Originally posted by Crazcnuk
"Such a dichotomy of verbal garbage. Quit kicking your own azz in this debate. It gives me nothing to do! "

If your going to use new words, learn what they mean first!

I knew you were thick between the horns. But I had no idea you would not grasp the concept of bifurcation or even "contradiction". Sorry. Next time I'll try to keep it on your level and not to XSeed your limited vocabulary.

Universal Healthcare cost Socialist gov't

Not having to mortgage the house because you got sidewsiped by a hit and run motorist, or not having to watch a child die because you can't afford health insurance - Priceless

No what's priceless is your logic!

If you are trying to tell me children don't die in Canada then you really are "challenged" in the field of debate. No one on earth (other than your socialist goons) will buy that crap either.

The reason you have to "mortgage" your house because of an accident is because you've lived beyond your means. I'm guessing you have ample funds for your cell phones, motorcycles, and other toys....you know those absolute necessities of life. Yet you can't afford health insurance. Typical blame everyone except himself government dependent socialist.

BTW the U.S. is a socialist gov't too. It's just a little further over on the scale.

Well...ya got me there. Your are exactly right. The USA has pretty much gone down the path of gutless socialism. I'm guessing Canada is about 60% socialist excrement. And the US is closer to 40% socialist crap... but we're gaining fast...watch out!

We are not quite as far along as YOU GUYS...but we are heading there rapidly...and it makes me want to vomit.

I am utterly disgusted with many of my countrymen. I am convinced ...for instance...the healthcare dilemma is simply poor planning and selfishness by most folks.

I have a friend that has a business in Tulsa. He got sick a few years ago and racked up a $50,000 bill he couldn't pay for. I asked "Jack...what happened! Why can't you pay your bills."

He responded in his typical government dependent whining tone "I can't afford health insurance. It's outrageous!"

That's when Maximan lost his cool...imagine that. I snapped "Oh really. That's funny JACK! You can afford that new Dodge Ram Quad Cab in your drive way...and that new Pontiac Trans AM in your drive way and that NEW TAHOE IN YOUR GARAGE...and let's see what else..." I started rattling off all his toys and extras. His face flushed red.

He should have flushed red!!!

Because of his irresponsible management of funds ...I was having to tote his bill.

See Maximan owns his own business too. But Maximan doesn't have $2000 per month of car payments in his driveway. No Maximan chooses to provide himself and his family with health insurance and drive used cars. Cars that are seven, years old and have 100,000 miles on them. Hey ...they get the job done.

This is just one small example. But I am convinced it is one of the main reasons people say "I can't afford health insurance." It's not that they can't....it's that they WON'T. Their priorities are all screwed up. Their health takes a back seat to their _______ (fill in the blank...cell phones...SUV...motorcycles...weekends at Bernie's!!!! etc.)

Certainly there are some cases where indigent people need help. BUT AN ENTIRE NATION? Poppycock!

I don't want the Government's help regarding ANYTHING. I wish they'd just butt out. I certainly don't want them managing my healthcare. Hell they have a hard enough time just delivering the damned mail. Can you imagine the mess we'd have if they controlled MY DOCTOR?!?!?

No doubt it would look much like the mess they have in Canada with thousands of their citizens flooding into the states just to get simple medical procedures done.

Socialized Medicine? NO THANKS.

[Pat Kelly]

Is there anyway to stop the "us and them"?
Discussion is great and varying viewpoints make for good discussion.
Please, don't take anything personal and say nothing personal....
brother (and sister) XSives.

[Crazcnuk]

"I knew you were thick between the horns. But I had no idea you would not grasp the concept of bifurcation or even "contradiction". "

I understand it perfectly. And there was none if it in my statement, hence you not understanding what they mean.

I don't have to afford health insurance, you dolt. That's the whole point. It's YOUR system where hospitals will throw you out on the street if you don't have insurance.,

"I don't want the Government's help regarding ANYTHING. "

I have to call bull on this one. You depend on your gov't for pretty much everything. Your Job, your standard of living, the mere fact that you're still alive, considering your attitudes is all attributable, in large part to your gov't.

I find it amusing that people, living in any country feel that they are doing so completely outside the system they grew up in! It's ludicrous.

As for Socialism being the bane of all that is good and wholesome, it's funny how the entire world disagrees with you, except for the odd dictatorship, which strangely enough the U.S. likes to stamp out.

Before you can make statements like you are doing I want proof that you live on a desert isle somewhere outside the domain of your gov't.

[Crazcnuk]

"Discussion is great and varying viewpoints make for good discussion.
Please, don't take anything personal and say nothing personal...."

Discussion is great, but very few people can actually do it without getting personal.

Don't take anything I say too seriously, it's all in good fun. But some people get worked up over the simplest of discussions.

The 'dry' sense of humor doesn't lend itself very well to internet chat!