Jump to content

For those of you who carry sidearms while in the backwoods


Bilder

Recommended Posts

IrvingDog.... welcome back man. I have missed you. Hope all is well.

 

Mike. Desert_Warrior (aka KD9KC).

El Paso, Texas.

 

Citizens of this land may own guns. Not to threaten their neighbors, but to ensure themselves of liberty and freedom.

 

They are not assault weapons anymore... they are HOMELAND DEFENSE WEAPONS!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bluespreacher:

Think about it, when was the last time some creep got a mile from his pick-up?


 

I drive a pickup. What are you saying?

 

Timothy McVeigh drove a Mercury Marquis. David Berkowitz drove a Ford Galaxie. Maybe you should've said "Ford Sedan" instead of "pick-up".

 

I don't fear other humans when I'm out hunting tupperware in city parks. I do have a lot of respect for non-human animals. So when I'm far from my "pick-up", I carry a reasonable sized firearm.

 

--

N35°32.981 W98°34.631

Link to comment

quote:

Why is it that the cities with the strictest gun control also has the higest crime rates?


This is so true. I live in the land of firearms regulation... If you are not active or retired law enforcement, armed security, or show proof of making large cash depostits regularly from a buisness you dont carry (open or concealed). Yet I work in a Baltimore trauma center. I watch the gunshot wounds roll in one after the other. We have a murder rate that tops the charts. Tell me what's wrong here. Perhaps we need to pass a law requiring that anytime a criminal buys a gun on a street corner he must sign a pledge that he will not harm anyone...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by SearchRescueDog:

quote:

Why is it that the cities with the strictest gun control also has the higest crime rates?


This is so true. I live in the land of firearms regulation... ..


 

SNIP.

 

Thanks for the back-up. Have you considered moving to or maybe retiring in Texas? icon_biggrin.gif

 

Mike. Desert_Warrior (aka KD9KC).

El Paso, Texas.

 

Citizens of this land may own guns. Not to threaten their neighbors, but to ensure themselves of liberty and freedom.

 

They are not assault weapons anymore... they are HOMELAND DEFENSE WEAPONS!

Link to comment

quote:
SNIP.

 

Thanks for the back-up. Have you considered moving to or maybe retiring in Texas?

 

Mike. Desert_Warrior (aka KD9KC).

El Paso, Texas.


 

Yes, Texas definitely has the best gun laws, (or lack of laws,) in the nation, and the Whitetail hunting is really great, but the heat is murderous. I still love Northern California. I guess noplace is absolutely perfect until we get to heaven.

 

Deer laugh when they hear my name!

http://www.geocities.com/cacheinon

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Huntnlady:

Yes, Texas definitely has the best gun laws, (or lack of laws,) in the nation


Nope, Vermont holds that title. Texas is pretty good, though. They even issue to residents of states which don't issue concealed carry licenses.

 

--

Random fortune:

sigimage.php

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Theole34:

 

to coin or not to coin

a term

 

"geoPacking"

 


 

How about 'gun tote-ing Geonut'. Or the 'fastest gun in the Geowest'. Or 'shoot first, ask Geoquestions later.

 

It's been said before, but why let paranoia be the basis for carrying a deadly weapon? If, on the other hand you are out hunting up some food, that's different. But packing a gun because you are afraid of your own shadow is weak.

 

"heck, that scares me and I'm fearless"

Link to comment

I do not have a problem with guns. My problem is with people who have an irrational need to arm themselves with deadly force on a daily basis. I will not restate what I think of such people for three reasons: FIRSTLY, that type of commentary is disapproved of on this site; SECONDLY: I have already stated my views on this on a long ago thread (before the posting rules got tightened up) and THIRDLY because in my opinion we are dealing with irrationality, and I will never ever be able to change the minds of (or even have an influence on) those who “Carry”. I know many, many people who share my views, including people who post to this site. When the gun discussions start, those people realize that it is senseless to proffer an opposing opinion. You get the odd naive person like Bluespreacher and Clearpath (like I was) who actually think they can have some influence in one of these discussions. What bugs me though, is that the result is a thread that gives the impression that everybody finds nothing wrong with “carrying”. I am just glad that I live in a community where very few “carry” as a way of life, and I pray that it remains that way.

 

Now go ahead, prove my point.

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

geol4.JPG

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by clearpath:

It's been said before, but why let paranoia be the basis for carrying a deadly weapon?


There's a difference between paranoia and preparedness.

 

90% of police officers say that throughout their 20 year career, they've never had to draw their gun. So should cops not be carrying? Are they just being paranoid?

 

--

Random fortune:

sigimage.php

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

I do not have a problem with guns. My problem is with people who have an irrational need to arm themselves with deadly force on a daily basis.


Like cops? (see my previous post)

quote:
in my opinion we are dealing with irrationality, and I will never ever be able to change the minds of (or even have an influence on) those who “Carry”.

So every law abiding citizen who chooses to arm themselves is irrational? That's a riot. You're right about not being to change their minds, though, because you're not willing to accept the facts and deal with your irrationalities.

quote:
I know many, many people who share my views, including people who post to this site.

I'm sure you do - birds of a feather and all that. You'll notice, though, that there seems to be a preponderance of people that geopack. I've noticed that they're pretty much all very rational and level headed. I don't see where your statement about 'dealing with irrationality' has any basis whatsoever.

quote:
You get the odd naive person like Bluespreacher and Clearpath (like I was) who actually think they can have some influence in one of these discussions.

Interesting - I'd consider your position to be naive.. You've formed an opinion and don't seem to be willing to change it under any circumstances, even if new information comes to light. Kinda reminds me of a politician.

quote:
What bugs me though, is that the result is a thread that gives the impression that everybody finds nothing wrong with “carrying”.

I think you'll find that that's not entirely untrue. Just like the side of opposition, there are many supporters of people's right to bear arms who choose to remain silent the majority of the time. I'm not one of them. icon_wink.gif

quote:
Now go ahead, prove my point.

How was that? icon_biggrin.gif

 

--

Random fortune:

sigimage.php

Link to comment

I'm curious. If science invented the perfect stun gun -- i.e., a weapon that disables the target but without permanently harming or killing him -- would those that currently carry regular guns be willing to switch?

 

In my case, I would carry such a stun weapon, whereas I'm not willing to carry a regular gun because its lethality is too poignant for me.

 

What do other people think?

 

--Keith

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by NewportKeith:

I'm curious. If science invented the perfect stun gun -- i.e., a weapon that disables the target but without permanently harming or killing him -- would those that currently carry regular guns be willing to switch?


 

I would.

It's not the lethality I am seeking. I want the BEST, and most effective means for stopping the lethal threat confronting me.

I should be able to use the most effective means to defend myself and anyone around me. If that means using a guaranteed effective stun-gun or a bazooka.

By any and all means!

 

I have a friend that can buy me an air-tazer. I'm saving for it.

 

39197_3100.jpg

Pepper playing nice!

Mokita!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by NewportKeith:

What do other people think?

--Keith


Excellent question Keith. If this device were small, inexpensive, and not at all inconvenient, I might possibly carry one (particularly when travelling to the U.S.). In any event I would certainly not show any disdain for those who decided to carry one.

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

geol4.JPG

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by NewportKeith:

If science invented the perfect stun gun -- i.e., a weapon that disables the target but without permanently harming or killing him -- would those that currently carry regular guns be willing to switch?


I don't carry (it's a Kalifornia thing), but I'd consider it a great option. As leatherman said, it's about neutralizing the threat, not taking a life. I wouldn't be willing to give up my 2nd amendment rights because of it, however. The 2nd amendment exists for reasons which are entirely separate from personal protection while walking down the street (or tromping through the woods).

 

--

Random fortune:

sigimage.php

Link to comment

A couple very well writen replys. I carry some times in some places. A friend of mine who is a state law officer asked one day how my caching was going. I said I had been caching in a forrest west of town. He wanted to know you do carry when there don't you. The forrest is a very nice place lots of bikers and hiker very good trails. His concern was the prisons down river he knows more about the escapes than most of us. When you have seen one of your childern murdered (21 yr old daughter) by and up right member of the town it makes a change in you.

 

This was in reply to two other post on the last page.

 

Mejas

 

Love caching

Link to comment

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Theole34:

 

to coin or not to coin

a term

 

"geoPacking"

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

quote:
How about 'gun tote-ing Geonut'. Or the 'fastest gun in the Geowest'. Or 'shoot first, ask Geoquestions later.

 

"It's been said before, but why let paranoia be the basis for carrying a deadly weapon? If, on the other hand you are out hunting up some food, that's different. But packing a gun because you are afraid of your own shadow is weak."

 

"heck, that scares me and I'm fearless"


 

ok, if you quote what i put up there out of context. don't return with an off the wall moronic response.

 

read my posts as to why i carry a sidearm. i am required by LAW to be armed at all times. i don't have the leisure of saying no. it is a requirement of my job while in my geographic area of employment. use someone else as your launch board my friend.

 

robbie

 

wings_flag.gif

A family that Geocaches together... eventually gets wet.

 

required reading

My first bible

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by clearpath:

It's been said before, but why let paranoia be the basis for carrying a deadly weapon? If, on the other hand you are out hunting up some food, that's different. But packing a gun because you are afraid of your own shadow is weak.


 

Hmmmm... I have given this some thought in the last few days. Unlike some, I do try to see the other side's view. I think I can answer your question.

 

One thing I fear a lot is the phobic fools who are willing to give up their right to defend themselves with the most efficient tool available. If they want to depend on a disinterested third-party for their security, that is their problem. But even scarier are the ones who would try to disarm those who do believe that we have the right and the responsibility.

 

Defending yourself with less than a pistol is like racing someone to a geocache, and you don't have a GPSr. It can be done, it has been done. But the GPSr is so much more efficient.

 

Put your beliefs where your mouth is. Post a sign in your front yard, and put up a photo of it here. The sign should read "This house is unarmed and defenseless. Please don't hurt us". Do that, and I will believe you are truly sincere!

 

As I have said countless times. It is legal. I am licensed. Get over it or get lost.

 

Or you could try to disarm every gun owner. icon_biggrin.gif

 

Mike. Desert_Warrior (aka KD9KC).

El Paso, Texas.

 

Citizens of this land may own guns. Not to threaten their neighbors, but to ensure themselves of liberty and freedom.

 

They are not assault weapons anymore... they are HOMELAND DEFENSE WEAPONS!

Link to comment

What I was trying to get at, delicately of course, is the question of whether the right to bear arms also *necessarily* implies the right to kill.

 

I know my proposed "stun gun" is entirely hypothetical, and that TODAY there is nothing as reliable as a pistol. But what if that alternative did exist? Would it still be vital constitutionally that we have the right to kill?

 

Keith

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Cruzin!:

Texas is pretty good, though. They even issue to residents of states which don't issue concealed carry licenses.


I'm a Texas CHL Instructor.......among other things.....

 

Yes this is true, BUT ONLY if you prove intent to move to Texas and only if your state has no concealed carry program. That's it....Just in case anyone was planning on trying to get one from out of state.

 

Snicon_razz.gificon_razz.gifgans

texasgeocaching_sm.gifThe greatest labor saving invention of today is tomorrow....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by NewportKeith:

What I was trying to get at, delicately of course, is the question of whether the right to bear arms also *necessarily* implies the right to kill.

 

I know my proposed "stun gun" is entirely hypothetical, and that TODAY there is nothing as reliable as a pistol. But what if that alternative did exist? Would it still be vital constitutionally that we have the right to kill?

 

Keith


 

Dude or Girl Dude, that's a poser for a different forum or at least a different thread.

 

A partial answer is that quite a lot of money is being pumped into less than lethal options. The U.S. Marines and a company called Jaycor among others, are on the cutting edge.

 

Don't expect the trusty six-shooter to disappear in your lifetime, or ever for that matter. When it comes to matters between human beings; there is always somebody or somethin that needs killin. icon_wink.gif

 

Snicon_razz.gificon_razz.gifgans

texasgeocaching_sm.gifThe greatest labor saving invention of today is tomorrow....

 

[This message was edited by Snoogans on June 20, 2003 at 03:01 PM.]

Link to comment

NewportKeith: The Right to Keep and Bear arms does NOT give anyone the right to kill.

 

The only way you are justified in using deadly force (varies by state) is if the bad guy demonstrates three things.

MEANS (He has a way to hurt you)

MOTIVE (He has made it clear to you that he is going to hurt/kill you)

and

OPPORTUNITY (He is within range of using whatever weapon he has against you.)

 

If there was a 100% effective stun gun, I would use it. As a trainer I have been hit with the best stun gun out there, the Airtaser M-26. (LE version) it hurt. a lot. it stoped me completely. I'm not allowed to own one because it is restricted to law enforcement use only.

 

I've also been sprayed with the hottest, most efective, safest Pepper Spray (OC spray) on the market. it is less effective than the Taser, but it's legal for me to carry. (I carry a can with me everywhere I go.)

 

To become an instructor for OC sprays, I had to get a full exposure to spray, then control a suspect, handcuff him, and double-lock the cuffs. I completed that exercise correctly the first time. it hurt, but I was motivated.

 

Similarly, if the bad guy (Yes, there ARE bad guys out there) is motivated OC will not stop him. what else can I use?

 

I don't WANT to shoot anyone, any more than I WANT to get into a car accident. But I'm not going to stop wearing my seatbelt because someone else thinks it's wrong.

 

If I quit carrying a pistol in favor of carrying a less-lethal device, I would still own guns, I find it enjoyable to shoot them and improve my skills with them even if I don't carry them.

Link to comment

OC - Oleoresin Capsicum - pepper spray.

replaced mace products for most law enforcement.

 

depending on the concentration of OC it may be illegal to possess certain products if not a law enforcement officer. some lower concentrations are allowable, but beware...

 

OC is not 100% effective, and is not always an instant disorienting device. i have been involved in numerous incidents with OC spray, and do not feel it is a solid tool. training, wind, different levels of product resistance, etc affect it too much. i have been sprayed by other officers by accident in a large crowd, and i have been able to continue to perform at about 80% capacity after being sprayed. do some research before relying on OC. it is merely an additional tool to me.

 

let's not take to much away from this discussion at hand.

 

robbie

 

robbie

 

wings_flag.gif

A family that Geocaches together... eventually gets wet.

 

required reading

My first bible

Link to comment

Okay, my apologies to Thoele34. I did not intend to use your post as a ‘spring board’. However, I do find the term ‘geoPacking’ to be offensive and sad. That’s all. The rest of this post is not directed at you.

 

Seneca is correct, in that, attempting to inject opposing views in this thread is odd and naive (believe me I’ve been called worse).

 

I own many firearms and enjoy hunting, shooting and teaching others about the safe use of firearms. When the need arises (and it VERY seldom arises), I will carry a firearm to protect my family. However, people (not including law enforcement) that a), find the need to ‘always’ carry a firearm (paranoids) and :D, people that need to glorify the deadly use of a firearm and c), gun owners that ridicule non-gun owners, i.e. “It is legal, I am licensed, Get over it or get lost” make me sick. These ‘bad apples’ will eventually turn public opinion against the firearm freedoms that many of us have worked so hard to grow and maintain.

 

"heck, that scares me and I'm fearless"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by clearpath:

c), gun owners that ridicule non-gun owners, i.e. “It is legal, I am licensed, Get over it or get lost” make me sick. These ‘bad apples’


 

As you will see, we agree on one point. Is this the common ground negotiators seek? Dunno.

 

My list is simple.

 

A. People who try to enforce their non-gun belief on legal gun owners. You don't like it, thats fine. You do not have to, and we won't try to force you to.

 

But in pushing your anti-gun agenda, you are NO DIFFERENT! Just on the other side. The WRONG side both legally and morally. Every living creature, even a skunk, has the NATURAL right of self-defense. And every creature uses the most efficient weapon they have, claws or teeth or scent. Why should we be any different? Throughout history, the tools defined the losers. Pitchforks against rifles? Shovels against swords.

 

It just so happens that the most efficient tool today is LEGAL in this country. Only man is cunning enough to use tools and deception. And the deception protects many more people than actually carry the tool. PROVEN FACT!

 

How-what-when-where-why I pack is none of your business. You don't know if I only carry when headed to a pistol match, or if I sleep with it. That is what makes concealed carry work. Is that person carrying or not? Take the chance? Or go to a gun control state where everyone is a victim?

 

And you know what ASSUME means. You sure are assuming a lot of things here, things you have no proof of. Would you believe it if I told you I only own one pistol, and it is my competition pistol? Probably not, and it doesn't matter anyway. Legally, I can own as many as I want, even if you don't like it.

 

I am not ridiculing you, if you have a reason to think LEGAL carrying is bad, get your congresscritter to write a bill and get the law changed. But don't push your personal morals on legal folks. Push them on the bad guys first. See where you get with them.

 

BTW, who is the "BAD APPLE" who would want us to give up out legal right just to conform to their misguided idea? What else should we give up to make you feel better? Maybe the 4th amendment, so we can catch more terrorists? In gun rights, give an inch, lose a mile. But you do have one thing right. Sick and tired of the other side! So you leave our legal right alone, and you won't feel picked on. Easy solution....

 

Put up the sign, I will take you more seriously.

 

Mike. Desert_Warrior (aka KD9KC).

El Paso, Texas.

 

Citizens of this land may own guns. Not to threaten their neighbors, but to ensure themselves of liberty and freedom.

 

They are not assault weapons anymore... they are HOMELAND DEFENSE WEAPONS!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by clearpath:

These ‘bad apples’ will eventually turn public opinion against the firearm freedoms that many of us have worked so hard to grow and maintain.


I think you are right Clearpath. The "bad apple" posts that show up on these forums have definitely made me think of gun owners in general in a more negative way. I never really had too much of an opinion on this subject until I read the words on these forums of a number of persons who openly admitted that they perceived a need to take a concealed handgun with them when they went Geocaching. To me that is compelling evidence that there is a very serious problem with gun ownership in the U.S.

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

geol4.JPG

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

quote:
Originally posted by clearpath:

These ‘bad apples’ will eventually turn public opinion against the firearm freedoms that many of us have worked so hard to grow and maintain.


I think you are right Clearpath. The "bad apple" posts that show up on these forums have definitely made me think of gun owners in general in a more negative way. I never really had too much of an opinion on this subject until I read the words on these forums of a number of persons who openly admitted that they perceived a need to take a concealed handgun with them when they went Geocaching. To me that is compelling evidence that there is a very serious problem with gun ownership in the U.S.

 

_I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me._

http://www.cslaw.ca/geol4.JPG

 


 

Yes many people have a problem with others doing perfectly legal things, that have absolutely no effect on them.

 

_________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures and Here (newest)

Link to comment

I used to carry a pistol. After awhile though I began to wonder why. It was one more dadgum thing to keep track of along with the other junk I have around me at any given time. Sooo... I put it in the nightstand and there it stays. In the years since I stopped carrying I haven't once been in a position where I needed it. Of course it can certainly be argued that it'll only take once, and I can agree with that. But I still see carrying as a pain in the a$$ that brings unwanted attention.

 

Not to say that I'm for stricter gun laws. The fewer the better (gun laws and laws in general). I live in the wild west (aka Arizona) and love the thin gun laws. Even though I don't carry I like to know that I can if I want to without having to answer to anyone.

 

IMO, anyone lobbying for stricter laws of ANY sort, gun or otherwise, ought to have their head examined.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

quote:
Originally posted by NewportKeith:

What do other people think?

--Keith


Excellent question Keith. If this device were small, inexpensive, and not at all inconvenient, I might possibly carry one (particularly when travelling to the U.S.). In any event I would certainly not show any disdain for those who decided to carry one.

 

_I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me._

http://www.cslaw.ca/geol4.JPG

 


 

Why would you carry a stun gun?

I thought arming yourself was "irrational" and "paranoid" according to your post.

 

Now you indicate you would carry a weapon if it were "convenient". Why? You obviously don't "need" it.

 

Are you paranoid or just irrational?

 

Caint never did nothing.

GDAE, Dave

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by NewportKeith:

What I was trying to get at, delicately of course, is the question of whether the right to bear arms also *necessarily* implies the right to kill.

 

I know my proposed "stun gun" is entirely hypothetical, and that TODAY there is nothing as reliable as a pistol. But what if that alternative did exist? Would it still be vital constitutionally that we have the right to kill?

 

Keith


 

This is a totally different question than your first.

 

To the first question I would answer "maybe". If such a thing existed I would seriously consider carrying it instead of a gun for my personal protection.

 

As to the NEW ? The right to bear arms truthfully exists to allow us the means to overthrow the government AGAIN if it ever becomes necessary. That is the PRIMARY reason for amendment 2.

 

I doubt that a war can be seriously fought and permanently won with stun guns.

 

An old Indian proverb: "Kill your enemy- then you won't have to fight him again."

 

This "proverb" doesn't apply to muggers and what not.

 

And for that matter, a modern war cannot be fought with only small arms so the usefulness of the 2nd amendment in modern times, for its primary purpose, is moot.

 

Even if the GCA 1968 and the FFA were repealed, not many people can afford to arm themselves with F14's and cruise missiles anyway.

 

Caint never did nothing.

GDAE, Dave

Link to comment

I started carrying about eight years ago...not all the time, but sometimes for work-related reasons, almost all the time in the woods fishing, hiking, etc.

 

I just wanted to add that for me, "concealed" means !!concealed!! None of my friends or family outside my wife (and she doesn't know when I have it on my person) even knows I have a shrouded .357 that I am quite competent with. Or that I carry it. Period. I've never told a soul. I won't even carry if it's an activity that I am not 100-percent sure I can completely conceal the weapon.

 

I am probably way more "paranoid" that someone would suspect or assume I have it, than I am about anyone in the world causing me to ever reveal it on my person in a dangerous situtation.

 

I was held up in a convenience store at gunpoint while I was carrying and the last thing, too tell you the truth, I thought about at first was pulling my gun. Or even acting like I had it. He got the drop on all of us standing there and he was in control. He did everything perfectly and never even gave any of us a chance, even if one of the other five had a gun. Nobody got hurt. But if he had started doing something really stupid, or I was cornered, drawing my weapon was definitely an option. And I'm the first to admit, I'm not sure what that would of been that caused it, but I have a pretty good idea. (He was a very calm, cool professional stickup guy. Even with the gun waving at us, we all agreed we never really felt threatened...if that makes any sense in the whole darn world.)

 

cy

 

p.s. Washington may have one of the most liberal definitions of when you can shoot with it's whole "stop a felony against you or another person" doctrine.

Link to comment

Please allow me to join in. It's been awhile, and first let me offer salutations to so many of you I've blathered with before. icon_wink.gif

 

I've noticed one thing. People who do not choose to excercise their legal rights seem to have a problem with those that do choose to do so. Those that do "carry" don't seem to have bunched panties because many others choose not to carry. At the very least, there seems to be a fair amount of "disgruntled" folk who think those who carry are "irrational" or that they seem to enjoy a power-trip because they have a big piece of fine, manly metal strapped to their leg. icon_wink.gif

 

All to often there seems to be these pre-conceived notions of people who "carry." They are all lumped together like a bunch of lunatics. I dare say I would rather live in a neighborhood with fellow lunatics than live in this sweet, patsy world of people who think guns are evil. Those are the people who are left with dropped jaws when an evil crime happens to them or a loved one. You know, the teary-eyed defenseless soul wailing about how "I never thought this could happen to me......"

 

I do own weapons. Ideally, my weapon of first personal defense would be my Benchmade Elishewitz lockback knife. This I carry almost 100% of the time. On night caches, I wear my Aitor Jungle King II knife. I have a beautiful Survival Staff which makes a great tool for personal defense at about 6' tall.

 

Oh, dear me... Here goes my memory kicking in. We just had a lady get raped and killed while on a trail. Uncommon? No. Too many times for me to list. This is definitely one of those issues where, if questioned, I can swiftly suggest the person doubting me do a bit of current-events homework. icon_rolleyes.gif A gun might save a person's life against an evil attacker, or an attacking animal. Sorry, but I value my life far more than an attacking animal, or "person" for that matter. Some can effectively use a knife even against some crook wielding a throwaway Saturday-night special.

 

Do I sound aggressive? Do I sound like a nut? Am I "making the case" for those that say gun-toters are maniacal lunatics? Are you leaning back from your computer screen, smiling that you have "outed" yet another nut? Well, let me "out" myself as a father of three - three children whom I love dearly. And I shudder to think that if an armed intruder (ever hear of home-invasion robberies? again, current events...) were in my house, prepared to rape/beat/kill any of my family members that I would be defenseless.

 

"Oh, wait Mr. BadGuy... Let me dial 911. Please hold while they play 21 questions... Hold off on that strangle-hold; my son's only 2 1/2 years old..."

 

I would consider myself a disgrace to my family if I didn't protect them to the fullest extent in my power. Notice I didn't say YOU would be a disgrace if you didn't. That's the difference between "gun nuts" and lovejoys. Gun nuts don't care if a percentage of the population makes a personal choice to depend on others to keep their families safe. We may feel sorry for your family, but when it comes down to it we realize their fate is in your hands and the choices you've made for their safety.

 

So, now you say "Slack up, there big Grandmaster Cache fella... We're talking about packing while caching."

 

Thank you. That will bring this full circle. I like to think of my home as the best, safest sanctuary for my family. You would agree, perhaps, with my decision to protect them and keep a gun here to use if necessary. Check back a few lines.... My home is my sanctuary... S

 

Still confused? Here's the black-and-white: If I would keep a gun in my home to protect myself and my family, why in damnation wouldn't I extend that same protection OUTSIDE my sanctuary????

 

I'm travelling across the country - I'll be leaving in two weeks. I'll be taking my 2 1/2 year-old, and my 12 year-old daughter. Just us. We hope to make it out to Ohio to see a good friend, then travel back along old U.S. RT 66. Just the three of us. We're on a really tight budget, but I don't want that to be the reason for not taking this opportunity to let my daughter see at least 16 states, the Grand Canyon, Roswell N.M., (okay, that's my wish!) icon_wink.gif Flaming Gorge in Utah, and a host of other great spots. No time is the "right" time. But we will have fun. We may have to roll out and crash in the Suburban a few nights, but we're going to have a wonderful, educational 2 months. I hope to get some good writing material. I want to see Oklahoma City. We'll pass through the top of Texas. We might spend a few days in Kansas.

 

But if I didn't have my gun, I wouldn't feel safe. If someone attempts the unmentionable, I will not be marched off to the sidelines to watch my son or daughter lose their innocence by some sicko. I remember the Yosemite killer, Cary Stayner. What if they would have had a gun? They'd have been alive, that's what.

 

I feel like I offer better protection for my family if I am armed, and prepared to use whatever weapon necessary at my disposal. I trust I would make a rational decision on whether or not to use lethal force. But I know I won't have to make that decision if nobody decides to infringe upon my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

I would like to point out that there is not a trend of violent shootings by those who carry a firearm for personal protection. WE are not the problem. If anything, there is an inferiority complex. "Hey, I don't have the juice, why should you????"

 

Well, I have it because I have three children who depend on me to do whatever it takes to keep them safe in this increasingly screwed up world. That means either in the home or ON THE TRAIL where rapes/murders occur all too frequently (again, see current events). And this world is not being made any safer by those who would choose to have everybody sink to their level of personal vulnerability. Because that's what it all boils down to: Personal vulnerability. I'm not the "brave" one. Not by a long shot. The "brave" person to me is the person who gambles his/her own life and/or the lifes of family members who would otherwise depend on them for protection. I know my kids would think me far more a "lunatic" if I entrusted them to their common man and put away my weapons of personal protection. And when I close this dialogue box, that's who matters to me: My kids. Someone who practices personal vulnerability and thinks of me as a lunatic is otherwise fine by me. I'd actually prefer if you advertised, as someone has already suggested, that you practice said personal vulnerability... The sign is wonderful... Hey, then you would be saving the life of some potential criminal. If they come in my house they'll most likely get shot. So invite them in to do their "business" with you and yours, and promise them complete surrender. Well, okay... You can wield a bat until they yank it out of your hands with a chain... But odds are you won't. If you won't wield a gun, you'd be even more nuts to pick up a bat to a thug(s) in the darkness of the night.

 

For some people, guns save lives. I respect firepower. I respect the danger presented with having firearms around children. That's where education, safety and a good deal of love come into play.

 

If I'm going to offer that protection in my sanctuary (home) I can't imagine discarding such protection and heading out for the boonies where some people are sending a clear message that there are easy victims to be had. Excuse me for not being part of the wooden duck club. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

Peace, hopefully.... If not? Protection.

 

Monty

 

If you hide it, they will come.

Grandmaster Cache

Tank at: FISH WHISPERER'S LAGOON

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by ChurchCampDave:

Why would you carry a stun gun?

I thought arming yourself was "irrational" and "paranoid" according to your post.

Now you indicate you would carry a weapon if it were "convenient". Why? You obviously don't "need" it.


I didn't say I would, I said I might. I often carry my GPSr with me although I never really need it (except to Geocache). It however, wasn't designed to KILL people.

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

geol4.JPG

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by brianmcm:

Here in Massachusetts, we have one of the toughest if not the toughest firearms law in the Country. Unless you are Law Enforcement, private armed security or a business owner, it is difficult, if not impossibnle to get a PLP (Protection of Life and Property)to carry a concealed weapon, from your local Chief of Police.

 

I'm waiting for the National Carry Law which will let active and retired Law Enforcement Officers the right to carry anywhere in the US if they posses a valid License to Carry from their home state. This law is very close to passing, hopefully in the next month or so. Its sad to say, but the events of September 11, 2001, helped to push this bill through the House and Senate. Its a shame that it took a tragedy to allow this law to pass.

 

I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.

 

I love my Country but fear my Government.

 

When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading.

Henny Youngman (1906 - 1998)icon_cool.gif


 

Why should this only be allowed for active and retired police officers from other states?

 

Let me clue you in: I quit a law enforcement program in Michigan for a few reasons:

 

Reason 1: Overhearing the Director and Assistant Director of your police training program on the quad, musing about how they're looking forward to "kicking around the troops" at their new academy starting the following summer. (Up to that point, this school didn't have an "academy" style training environment.)

 

Reason 2: Getting the leeriest and most uppity and snooty stares from your fellow "officers-to-be" on a consistent basis when you arrive late for your lectures. As I was commuting 50 miles, this was something that could not be helped, due to other personal responsibilities I could not get out of. (If I'm paying for it, if I'm late now and again, that is my business. If the instructors have a problem with it, we have a good ol' talk with my attorneys.)

 

Reason 3: This is my own personal philosophical view on the entire "law enforcement" issue, as is currently taught in the schools:

 

Choosing to become a police officer means one thing and one thing only: you want to help protect the lives of those around you PERIOD!

 

It is not a place to train to obtain authority to harass other human beings. It is not a position to allow yourself to become "untouchable," just because you "wear a badge."

 

It is not a place to learn to threaten or intimidate other civilians. Oh, and this brings up another point, one that any prospective, active, or retired police person NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND! That understanding is this:

 

YOU ARE ALL CIVILIAN PEACE OFFICERS! Unless you're in the military and you're an MP, YOU ARE ALL CIVILIANS!! You have no more privileges than any non-police *civilian*, just because you wear a badge. Any laws that make it "illegal" for other civilian citizens to carry firearms, yet exempt police from same, ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE LAWS BECAUSE THEY ARE U N C O N S T I T U T I O N A L! PERIOD!!!

 

Get this through your heads! We are not serfs, we are not subjects, we are not bound by laws that violate any of the first ten Articles of the Bill of Rights, PERIOD!!!

 

PEACE OFFICERS:

 

A person taking police training is not an ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, he or she is a ***PEACE OFFICER***

 

A Peace Officer's job is not to harass kids skateboarding on the sidewalk by writing citations (something I witnessed recently), but rather to Teach and Instruct, not threaten. (The smug look on this "enforcement" type's face was the kind that I want to slap half way around the world and back, and that's just to get their attention!)

 

It insults my intelligence to see this kind of behavior being perpetrated on children! I'm tired of curfews (which violates the right to freedom of peaceable assembly [who has the right to impose a "because it's a school night" upon anyone? No One! As long as no one's doing anything destructive, our children have the right to be allowed to experience spending time with their friends, regardless of the time of day!]).

 

I'm tired of seeing "mere gatherings" of young people--who are just congregating and communicating with each other, i.e., *holding conversations*, or just *hanging around*. (There is nothing wrong with children who do this, it's been done for years--they like to associate with people of their own age groups, DUH!).

 

Minors who are breaking windows, writing graffiti on walls with spray paint, hoarding into groups that are *engaged in an active act of wanton destruction or hurting or killing, are not among the above. I'm just talking about kids who want to be able to ride their skateboards on the main sidewalk so they can get to where they're going in reasonable time, and so they can *stay off the street* (so they don't get hit by other vehicles, another DUH!!)

 

ACADEMIES:

 

I make no bones about this subject: Civilian Peace Officer schools should be just that: Schools! Not military-style training "academies!" Why am I so staunch on this?

 

Reason 1: Military style "academies" train police officers to be officers of the "enforcement" mentality, which doesn't do to "protect and serve" the general populace. The bottom line is this: Military style "academies" work in much the same vein as, say for example, a U.S. Army Boot Camp. The difference is, becoming a soldier requires this type of training. If I went into the service, I'd expect this, all the time while getting yelled at up and down by First Sargeant! The thing is, SO WOULD EVERYBODY ELSE!

 

It's understood. It's accepted. (At least by the Very Serious, and there shouldn't be anyone who isn't Very Serious if you're going into the U.S. Army, or any other of the Armed Forces!)

 

This should not be the way that Civilian Peace Officer Schools should operate. They should be just that: Schools. Tactical training should be done, but not with a "Boot Camp" mentality. Again, this kind of attitude should be limited to the Armed Forces, not a Civilian School of Peace Officership.

 

Reason 2: Becoming an Officer with an "enforcement" or "by the book" mentality will not sit well with fellow citizens who have no concept of:

 

1. How you were trained (as an "enforcement" officer)

 

2. Why you feel you are justified in "enforcing" the "letter of law," when most civilians operate under the "spirit of law." [ie, the act of knowing the "letter of law" and applying it in a manner that denotes "JUSTICE", not FORCEFULLNESS.]

[To me, this is what causes the greatest rifts between police and non-police civilians today!]

 

3. A non-police civilian is liable to argue with you because they *observe* that their Constitutional Rights are being infringed if you are--as an Officer with an "enforcement" mentality--applying the law, that anyone with a reasonable modicum (amount) of education could observe, in such a fashion that simply "chokes" the ability of the Citizen to do anything productive at all.

 

REMEMBER! Arguments Lead To Bullets! Therefore, DON'T TAKE ON AN "ENFORCEMENT" MENTALITY IF YOU'RE GOING INTO CIVILIAN PEACE OFFICERSHIP!

 

1. Citizens don't need "walking egos" that are wearing badges and carrying guns. It's too dangerous, both for them, and for you.

 

AND

 

2. Citizens aren't trained in any "boot camp" style "academies," they're trained in Schools, schools that espouse education and reservation--not to mention Questioning and Critical Inquiry--more than enforcement. (Most schools, anyway, but that *that's another subject for another thread*.)

Ergo, (Therefore) you will not receive the immediate response (from the Citizen) you were expected to give to your "enforcement" style "academy" First Sargeant. Citizens just don't respond that way. They Inquire, Question, and *expect controlled (meaning emotional control), well-thought-out, and conservative reactions out of you. Again, You--AS A PEACE OFFICER!

 

BOTTOM LINE POINT HERE:

 

These people should've gone into the service as MP's or some other branch of the services; either that or get into high-profile private security guarding some head of state that deals with difficult and touchy matters of diplomacy. These types usually have Diplomatic Immunity. The "enforcement" types are expected to act this way when guarding this type of person.

 

SUMMARY OF CITIZEN'S RIGHTS:

 

Peace Officers should have instilled within their Minds peace a healthy amount of reverential awe. Why? A number of reasons.

 

You're life may depend upon a Citizen coming to your aid if something goes wrong during a stop--or any other such matter of your being on duty. However, remember this: If the citizen is unarmed, *THEY PROBABLY CAN NOT HELP YOU, WILL NOT STOP TO ASSIST YOU, AND WILL FEEL THAT "There Isn't Anything I Could've Done* (primarily due to their being unarmed).

 

Supporting Article II the way it was meant to be supported will ensure that you--A WELL RESPECTED ***PEACE OFFICER***--will have a healthy amount of Armed Citizens around who will rush to your aid and be Able-Bodied, Themselves to fend off any evil that may be working to abolish your ability to breathe.

 

These same types will properly yield authority to your fellow ***Peace Officers*** when they arrive, and even establish a second level of perimeter patrol to keep you and yours Safe and Sound, as well.

 

When you've recovered you will find those same Citizens ready and able to assist you in not having to go through that "hell" ever again. Increased citizen observance of strange activity, general patrol, and neighborhood watch programs are all good examples. The kick in the butt is this: If you expect to have assistance for the Unthinkable, you must--as a ***Peace Officer**--also allow non-police Citizens to carry their own armaments. PERIOD!

 

Okay, back to the beginning of this thread. A National Carry Permit is necessary, as I see it. But not only for a select few. If one segment of society is allowed to carry, then *THE ENTIRE SOCIETY MUST ALSO BE INCLUDED!* PERIOD!!!

 

I hope that this is of some use to someone.

 

{--Firefishe--}

...Caching In on the Journey

 

Flat_MiGeo_B88.gif

---------------------------

The year is 2003.

The name is S.A. Brown.

BrowNAV (Brown Navigation)

---------------------------

 

[This message was edited by Firefishe on June 22, 2003 at 12:20 AM.]

Link to comment

"I often carry my GPSr with me although I never really need it (except to Geocache). It however, wasn't designed to KILL people."

 

That's almost a poetic conclusion, seneca.

 

But, ummmmm...well...yes, actually, it was.

 

It's called the US Military; that technology has been used to kill a lot of people.

 

 

cy

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

quote:
Originally posted by clearpath:

These ‘bad apples’ will eventually turn public opinion against the firearm freedoms that many of us have worked so hard to grow and maintain.


I think you are right Clearpath. The "bad apple" posts that show up on these forums have definitely made me think of gun owners in general in a more negative way. I never really had too much of an opinion on this subject until I read the words on these forums of a number of persons who openly admitted that they perceived a need to take a concealed handgun with them when they went Geocaching. To me that is compelling evidence that there is a very serious problem with gun ownership in the U.S.

 

_I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me._

http://www.cslaw.ca/geol4.JPG

 


 

Compelling evidence there is a serious problem with gun ownership? Because gun owners use their guns?

If a person legally carries a gun, how exactly does that affect you? I mean, are you worried that someone who took the time to go through the proper channels, and become licensed by their state govenment to carry a firearm is a threat to you somehow? The only reason I can think of for disarming someone, is to facillitate doing them some harm. Are you worried that you can't pick a fight with someone because they might be packing? Or perhaps if for some reason you feel the need to break into their home, they can defend it with deadly force? Tell me, what is the serious problem with gun ownership? Why is it important for you, specifically, that your neighbors are unarmed? The same government that you trust to choose responsible law officers to protect you issues permits to responsible citizens to protect themselves. Would you feel better if wearing a uniform was a requisite for a carry permit?

 

Some of the same people that protested the war with Iraq (WHICH WAS TO DISARM A DANGEROUS ANTI- AMERICAN MANIAC) vehemently support the disarmament of their fellow Americans. Hypocrites.

 

I tell you what, when you can tell me beyond a shadow of a doubt when, if ever, the exact day I need to protect myself from a violent criminal is going to arrive, I'll promise not to carry a gun except on that day. Untill then, I'll make sure I have acces to a means of protecting myself. Talk to victims of violent crime, ask them how they feel about it. Ask plenty of them. Chances are they wish they had been armed. Please don't give me an example of someone you know that was victimised and doesn't agree, we both know that's an anomaly.

Serious problem with gun ownership? No, serious problem with crime.

 

Why have you decided it is pointless to change the mind of gun owners? Appatently you are of the opinion that licensed carriers should refrain from doing so. Why? How do you feel about unlicensed felons with guns? There are more of those out there. I dare you to open a discussion with one of them about leaving their gun at home. You might be suprised at how hard it is to present a differing opinion.

 

Finally, about your community of passives. I invite you to spend a month with me in the real world. I work for a land surveyor in a city that has avereaged a murder a day. Just two days ago, I watched helplessly as a woman was chased down the street by her (boyfriend, huband, pimp?) and slapped, cursed, and thrown against a fence. I say helplessly because I was unarmed. There was no visible police presence. People in the neighborhood apathetically watched the display from their porches. The streets are littered with garbage, burned out cars, used drug baggies, adn the occasional needle. Half of the time, my job is spent in gated communities with million dollar homes, the other half is in the inner city. (They sell houses in crappy neighborhoods too) Five years ago, one of my coworkers was shot on the job by some kid who got $10 bucks out of the deal. He was leaving that day to take his family to Disney World. He was lucky enough to survive, and I asked him, did you wish you had a gun at the time? Yes. Yes. Emphatically, yes. Why, you might ask, do I not pack at work? My boss has an (get ready for this) IRRATIONAL fear of guns. But I get a crawling feeling whenever my back is turned to strangers in those "hoods". I would feel a lot safer if I was armed, and I bet that you would too. I'm happy for you, you are fortunate enough to live a life that does not expose you to that kind of situation, and in your case, a weapon might not be necessary.

 

eyes.GIF

"The fertilizer has hit the ventilator"

 

[This message was edited by BloenCustoms on June 22, 2003 at 02:10 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BloenCustoms:

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

quote:
Originally posted by clearpath:

These ‘bad apples’ will eventually turn public opinion against the firearm freedoms that many of us have worked so hard to grow and maintain.


I think you are right Clearpath. The "bad apple" posts that show up on these forums have definitely made me think of gun owners in general in a more negative way. I never really had too much of an opinion on this subject until I read the words on these forums of a number of persons who openly admitted that they perceived a need to take a concealed handgun with them when they went Geocaching. To me that is compelling evidence that there is a very serious problem with gun ownership in the U.S.

 

_I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me._

http://www.cslaw.ca/geol4.JPG

 


 

Compelling evidence there is a serious problem with gun ownership? Because gun owners use their guns?

If a person legally carries a gun, how exactly does that affect you? I mean, are you worried that someone who took the time to go through the proper channels, and become licensed by their state govenment to carry a firearm is a threat to you somehow? The only reason I can think of for disarming someone, is to facillitate doing them some harm. Are you worried that you can't pick a fight with someone because they might be packing? Or perhaps if for some reason you feel the need to break into their home, they can defend it with deadly force? Tell me, what is the serious problem with gun ownership? Why is it important for you, specifically, that your neighbors are unarmed? The same government that you trust to choose responsible law officers to protect you issues permits to responsible citizens to protect themselves. Would you feel better if wearing a uniform was a requisite for a carry permit?

 

Some of the same people that protested the war with Iraq (WHICH WAS TO DISARM A DANGEROUS ANTI- AMERICAN MANIAC) vehemently support the disarmament of their fellow Americans. Hypocrites.

 

I tell you what, when you can tell me beyond a shadow of a doubt when, if ever, the exact day I need to protect myself from a violent criminal is going to arrive, I'll promise not to carry a gun except on that day. Untill then, I'll make sure I have acces to a means of protecting myself. Talk to victims of violent crime, ask them how they feel about it. Ask plenty of them. Chances are they wish they had been armed. Please don't give me an example of someone you know that was victimised and doesn't agree, we both know that's an anomaly.

 

http://angelfire.com/pro/bloen/images/eyes.GIF

"The fertilizer has hit the ventilator"


 

I couldn't have said it better, myself icon_biggrin.gificon_cool.gif

 

...Caching In on the Journey

{--Firefishe--}

 

Flat_MiGeo_B88.gif

---------------------------

The year is 2003.

The name is S.A. Brown.

BrowNAV (Brown Navigation)

---------------------------

Link to comment

Guns are fun.

 

At my age they are not as fun as they used to be. My eyes aren't as good as they used to be either. I don’t carry a gun for personal protection.

 

At one time in my life I believed in the creed: Live fast, die young, and leave a good-looking corpse. Well it is too late for that. icon_razz.gif

 

I always liked Gunnery Sergeant Dan Daly’s quote: "Come on men, do you want to live forever?" Dan Daly extolled this challenge as he rallied his Marines out of the trenches during WWI.

 

I don’t want to live forever so I don’t carry a gun for self protection. If a man wants to kill me, bring it. If a bear wants to kill me, even better.

Link to comment

If I was a woman I would always carry, even in California, no matter what.

The laws and the feeling that it would be very difficult to get a weapon out in time...a man can close the distance very quickly when intending harm, keep me from carrying. But I totally understand the police won't be there....

 

There are many other ways to be aware of and avoid danger... works so far. A number of people in my life that carried/lived with firearms ethier almost shot someone in the family or took the easy way out....and then there's the burgluries for the weapons...dam lost a really nice AR-15:-(

 

There are murders and robberies and plenty of gunfire in nearby OAKLAND. I never seem to run into the riff-raf out hiking/geocaching. They seem to be unwilling to walk outdoors, scares them I think, except to dump off bodies at the trailheads.

Those urban parks/caches can be a little dicey.

 

Genuine rural communities, especially those stocked with the paroled sexual predators, cranksters or misfits that can't live with other human beings, may be a different story. I usually feel safer with country folk though.

 

=============

"This is my GPS receiver. There are many like it, but this one is mine."

=============

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by NewportKeith:

What I was trying to get at, delicately of course, is the question of whether the right to bear arms also *necessarily* implies the right to kill.

 

I know my proposed "stun gun" is entirely hypothetical, and that TODAY there is nothing as reliable as a pistol. But what if that alternative did exist? Would it still be vital constitutionally that we have the right to kill?

 

Keith


 

Well, your hypothetical stun gun would be a great idea, but I'm afraid it would be mired in legislation before it gets out of the prototype stage, lol. No one has the right to kill, no one should. The only question we need to ask ourselves is "Am I willing to die, or allow a horrible, insufferable crime to be committed against me in order to avoid killing the perpetrator of said crime?" If the answer is no, then we must do whatever it takes to save ourselves. Often, even daily, in this country people create situations where one person will definitely die. We have the legal right to choose not to die, and own the means to make that choice. I don't believe we should ever give up our right to gun ownership, but I will happily give up the right to carry as soon as I can be reasonably assured that no one else is carrying weapons of any kind, and every person is made to be of the exact same physical strength, and boxers and martial artists have their violent craft erased from their mind. Oh, wait, didn't they try that already. Seriously though, I'd really hate to have to shoot someone, let alone kill them. But that's just another way that criminals victimize us. Either you die, or you live with the knowledge you killed someone, no matter how despicable they are. Either way, you still lose. But as another pointed out, some people have dependants, better to be alive to provide for them.

 

eyes.GIF

"The fertilizer has hit the ventilator"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Cire Yamel:

"I often carry my GPSr with me although I never really need it (except to Geocache). It however, wasn't designed to KILL people."

 

That's almost a poetic conclusion, seneca.

 

But, ummmmm...well...yes, actually, it was.

 

It's called the US Military; that technology has been used to kill a lot of people.

 

 

cy


 

You beat me to it. It was most certainly designed to kill people and break things.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BloenCustoms:

quote:
Originally posted by NewportKeith:

What I was trying to get at, delicately of course, is the question of whether the right to bear arms also *necessarily* implies the right to kill.

 

I know my proposed "stun gun" is entirely hypothetical, and that TODAY there is nothing as reliable as a pistol. But what if that alternative did exist? Would it still be vital constitutionally that we have the right to kill?

 

Keith


 

Well, your hypothetical stun gun would be a great idea, but I'm afraid it would be mired in legislation before it gets out of the prototype stage, lol. No one has the right to kill, no one should. The only question we need to ask ourselves is "Am I willing to die, or allow a horrible, insufferable crime to be committed against me in order to avoid killing the perpetrator of said crime?" If the answer is no, then we must do whatever it takes to save ourselves. Often, even daily, in this country people create situations where one person will definitely die. We have the legal right to choose not to die, and own the means to make that choice. I don't believe we should ever give up our right to gun ownership, but I will happily give up the right to carry as soon as I can be reasonably assured that no one else is carrying weapons of any kind, and every person is made to be of the exact same physical strength, and boxers and martial artists have their violent craft erased from their mind. Oh, wait, didn't they try that already. Seriously though, I'd really hate to have to shoot someone, let alone kill them. But that's just another way that criminals victimize us. Either you die, or you live with the knowledge you killed someone, no matter how despicable they are. Either way, you still lose. But as another pointed out, some people have dependants, better to be alive to provide for them.

 

http://angelfire.com/pro/bloen/images/eyes.GIF

"The fertilizer has hit the ventilator"


 

Living with the knowledge that I had to off a person that absolutely had it in for me, to kill me? I'd mourn them later, but *at that moment*, KABOOM <Big Gaping Hole>.

 

No remorse at that time. Blankety blank fighting mad and willing to slice and dice--and shoot--yes. Martial artists know the technique of fighting pointedly and directly with only the required amount of and expenditure of energy whilst doing so, then going back to a State of Calm Detachment (detachment from over-emotionalizing a situtation), ready to deal with the next high-energy event that comes along during the course of a fight.

 

I simply have decided if someone needs to die to save my life, the matter is decided already. I've achieved enough life experience to know injustice when I see it. If someone wants to "take me out," and have the gall to do it in my face, they'd better be prepared to meet their maker.

 

Not trying to sound like Mr. Touch Guy here. Just pointing out the fact that, in a survival situation, one must have as little as possible going through one's mind, should have come to terms with the possiblity of having to kill someone in self-defense if needed, understand the consequences, but leave the overemotionalization at the door. Overemotionalization and surviving a dangerous encounter do not mix.

 

...Caching In on the Journey

{--Firefishe--}

 

Flat_MiGeo_B88.gif

---------------------------

The year is 2003.

The name is S.A. Brown.

BrowNAV (Brown Navigation)

---------------------------

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

These ‘bad apples’ will eventually turn public opinion against the firearm freedoms that many of us have worked so hard to grow and maintain.


 

Only if people voluntarily turn in their guns, Seneca. If every single person in the country is armed--and the majority are--no amount of legislation would <probably> prevent an all out 2nd not-so-civil, civil-war in this country. Then, only the "authorities" (police/military) would have the weapons. It would not be a pretty sight, imho. Both sides would suffer heavy losses--and needlessly.

 

As I have stated in one of my more recent posts, overemotionalization and survival do not mix. And no one groups opinionizing will change the Constitution of the United States. We're not all together so nice anymore since 9/11, and I would find it appallingly gauche--as well as taking a ton of collective, egotistical gall--for anyone to even hint that Citizens in Good Standing of the U.S. do not have the right to carry in any fashion when pressed...not even in New Jersey or Massachusetts.

 

The people are tired of b/s. We own guns. If pressed, we know how to use them. Most people would rather *discuss* these matters. Nice to see that so many states have passed CCW reform legislation, my home state of Michigan included. The rest are not far off, and it is about time!

 

quote:
Originally posted by clearpath:

I think you are right Clearpath. The "bad apple" posts that show up on these forums have definitely made me think of gun owners in general in a more negative way. I never really had too much of an opinion on this subject until I read the words on these forums of a number of persons who openly admitted that they perceived a need to take a concealed handgun with them when they went Geocaching. To me that is compelling evidence that there is a very serious problem with gun ownership in the U.S.

 

<snip signature line>

 


 

So just because some people perceive a need, that's a problem. Please get a clue! Predatory stalkers murdering women on the trail, husbands tossing their wives into the ocean, Sheesh! Remote areas and such are and can be dangerous places. Don't be afraid, Just Be Alert! Alert and Armed is better!

 

You and only you are responsible for your life-survival. You either know how to protect yourself and loved ones or you don't. This is America, not "Amerika," and never will be with an armed populace who know how to kick some nasty butt when it's necessary.

 

After half a score of evil dictators the world over and two world wars and numerous other conflicts, you'd think that you'd get the idea. We're not a completely, spiritually-in-touch-with-All_That_Is world society yet, friend. Whatever your take on Just What Is Life?, I am not aware. Mine is that you are here to survive and learn. One can not learn in this life if one is not living. Ergo: Learn To Shoot!

 

Constitutionally--and in the eye of the Founders--it's your sacred civic duty to do a couple of things, regardless of your creed or belief system:

 

1. Vote! Those who don't have no say, PERIOD! I Voted This Year! Did you?

2. Own one Rifle, Shotgun, and Pistol or Revolver, learn how to use them, and keep them safe, away from unauthorized users, and Know You Have The Right To Self Protection, PERIOD! Know the laws, but also know that laws can't protect you the same way your own knowledge and equipment can! PERIOD!

 

Remember: When you're on the mountaintop, away from everyone else, your own head-knowledge and your climbing gear are all that's keeping you from an Intimate Date with Gravity! You don't skimp on your nylon climbing rope, why should you skimp in the area of self protection by not owning at least a gun or two? Sheesh!

 

It's America, people, not "Amerika!" And you can't be nice to a meathead with a heavy, steel bat, hell-bent on smashing in your head. There's just no substitue for firepower, son!

 

Okay, end of rant. Be well. Be prepared. Be armed!

 

...Caching In on the Journey

{--Firefishe--}

 

Flat_MiGeo_B88.gif

---------------------------

The year is 2003.

The name is S.A. Brown.

BrowNAV (Brown Navigation)

---------------------------

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Spzzmoose:

 

BloenCustoms... Your dead on!!! Great post! icon_smile.gificon_biggrin.gif

 


 

Nice choice of words, now drop the "on" and it really stands out.

 

Okay, what about the fact (read the paper, watch the news, listen to the radio, etc) that there are far more "accidental shootings" in this country than there are 'justified shootings" by civilians?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...