At Least 26 Dead in Shooting at Connecticut Elementary School

[NateR]

Originally Posted by BradW

it sounds like your legal system could use an over haul.

i never ever said people shouldn't be able to protect themselves with guns
and have guns readily available to them...i just think certain types of guns should have greater restrictions on them and some banned completely.

tell me Nate if someone was breaking into your house and you were home
do you think you would have time to get your hand gun out of the lock box
and load it in time to confront them or not ?

or do you think your hand gun doesn't need to be in a lock box but maybe in your night stand or desk drawer so its easily accessible to you.

I honestly hope you never have to find out but what i will say is if someone broke
into my house i have a 30-30 that im sure would be just as effective at stopping
someone as a hand gun or an assault rifle but would be impractical for going out and
killing a large group of people...mostly because my rifle will hold only 5 plus one in the chamber.

Police forces in the United States have always struggled to maintain a tenuous balance between freedom and safety. It's not actually the job of the police to make their communities safer, their job is to enforce the law. Ideally, public safety is a bi-product of effective law enforcement. However, this nation was founded on the principle that nobody can protect you better then yourself and only a tyrannical government would limit a citizen's ability to protect his/herself.

This quote is usually attributed to Ben Franklin, but it still rings true no matter who actually said it:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Freedom is a dangerous prospect and it always will be.

As for me, I live by myself, so there is no need for a lock box or any reason to store the gun unloaded. Not that I live in a particularly dangerous area. Hillsboro is one of those towns where you don't even have to lock your doors at night. Protecting myself from break ins is not the primary reason that I own a handgun, even though that is always a possibility since we do live near a prison.

I own a gun, because it's my God-given right guaranteed by the Constitution, thus I don't have to provide any other reason.

Do I feel safer with a gun in the house? Maybe. Does owning a gun make me feel powerful? No. Most of the time I forget that I even own it. It just sits in a drawer right now and it's probably been a while since I've actually fired it for any reason. I simply believe I would be derelict in my patriotic duty as an American if I didn't own at least one gun.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by Play The Man

1)Tyburn, I would consider myself an Anglophile. I don't dance on the grave of the British Empire. I wish that Britain would have been better armed prior to WW2. Thankfully, they were able to fight off the Nazi attack; however, it was by no means a certainty at the time.

2) My point is that a country should be well-armed because we never know what dangers and threats await us. I want our country to be well-armed against any threat: be it Mexican drug lords, Muslim terrorists or the Red Chinese Army.
As far as the U.S. saving Britain, I believe the comment Churchill made about his thoughts when he went to sleep on Pearl Harbor Day: I "went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful."

3) The arms donated by the Committee were gifts from private American citizens. The British government also had agents purchasing arms in America. You are probably referring to debts related to the Lend-Lease Act, which involved warships, not private arms donated by private citizens.

4) You sound like a Calvinist saying that God defended you rather than the U.S.
I don't want to burst your bubble about St. Paul's, but I am going to relate a comment I heard from a WW2 pilot's wife. The pilot and his wife were touring Europe many years after WW2 and were touring a cathedral in an Axis country (I think it was Austria but can't recall). The docent mentioned that the cathedral had made it through the war unscathed and attributed it to the beneficence of the Almighty. After the tour, the pilot whispered to his wife that the cathedral was within the area of his bombing runs and was purposely left unscathed so it could serve as a landmark to help with coordinates in the era before GPS. I don't mean to question your faith, but the German pilots probably didn't destroy it so they had a landmark for future bombings (e.g. your next target is a factory 1.3 miles north of the cathedral).

1) I dont know what happened to those guns you know. I know they were not distributed to the general populas. I would suggest that one of three things happened. If they arrived in bulk they may well have been stored somewhere in the city...I am slightly embarissed to say that IF that happened, chances are they are still sitting in a bunker somewhere. The second possibility is that they were returned to the Americans after the war...Government to Government. Dont forget some of the shipment would not have made it if it came in dribs and drabs because the Germans did have a habit of sinking American Cargo vessils when they cottoned onto the fact they were breaching a continental embargo to get to us. I suspect the most likely thing to happen, is that they were given to what was known as "The Home Front" in which case...I strongly suspect that the guns would have never been used, collected up and given to the Territorial Army and Reservists...if thats the case...you have to realize...they never made it to average citizens....they were probably never even aware of the arms shipments. They basically went to the military....I wonder how many private donaters would have given had they known that point. In essence, you contributed arms to an armed force...yet keep arms to save yourself from the armed force...so I'm not sure if they would have given had they known they were simply giving some guns to the British Government...NOT, categorically NOT the British People.

2) We dont have quite the same reverence for Winston Churchill...not even the people who were around during the war. Firstly...He WASNT Ellected. He became Prime Minister by default when the Reigning Minister resigned AFTER the start of the war. Secondly, the moment the war was over, so was Winston...they voted him out right away. Finally...Winston returned in the 1950s...and was dire as a peace time Minister. His charisma and charm were completely circumstantial. The War made Winston...NOT the other way round. He was not particularly liked by some in the Commons because he...erm...he did like his bottle a bit, and he was sometimes increadibly rude to people. "I may be drunk, but you are ugly, and tommorow I will be Sober" is the most well known Finally...the Brittons didnt run with his sudden distaste of Russia....The Americans went absolutely mad with the idea...but you will notice a kinda absence of England in the Cold War....I dont think we'd say that we like the Russians particularly...but England didnt quite follow a dire hatred of all things communistic.

3) British Agents were not supplying the British Public with weapons. They were Government Agents that would definately have been supplying the Home Front rather then the public. THATS WHY you have this reaction from Brits...the general public DID NOT get those guns. I dont think its widely known that America in any fashion gave an firearms before their entry into the war. I have to say that when I read the poster which said with the permission of the British Government it made some sence. They wouldnt give those guns out to the public...its against their own laws...so if they are accepting such gifts its for themselves. In the event of an actual land invasion therefore, it wouldnt have made any difference.

4) The Germans DIDNT work like that. The Germans didnt need to SEE, they used this sonar thing, where the the pilots got two different tones, and when the tones became one tone, they knew they were over the target. The Germans were into mechanics and stuff like that. They had some kinda radar in the baltic and one on the continent that basically gave latitude and longditude...and when the two crossed, the pilots released. After all...they DID bomb Coventry Cathedral during the Blitz...try to understand that for London, Saint Pauls was a symbol of defiance. Goebels, the propergandar minister recognised this, and thus Saint Pauls was the SPECIFIC target...it was more important to distroy that single building then any other...infact, if they only hit the Church and not a single other building, they would have won in terms of morale. Their aim, wasnt to smush the city...the aim was to distroy Saint Paul's. When the Blitz started...we knew it...they avoided Westminister...the avoided the docklands, Canary wharf (which wasnt quite what it is now...the Money centre) NOPE...they attacked a Square Mile where NOONE LIVES...there is only a few things in London....The Barbicon, The Stock Exchange, and Forty Churches NOT including Saint Pauls...plus about Twenty Halls for each of the livery Guilds, The bank of England (but only administratively speaking) Tower Bridge, and The Tower of London.

They didnt hit the houses of parliament, they didnt go after buckingham palace...they didnt even go after residential estates until after the first weeks of the blitz. No they only targetted the Cathedral.

They distroyed everything virtually in that square mile...EXCEPT for the biggest, most obvious, symbol of British Morale. Hitler SPECIFICALLY wanted to distroy the Cathedral...that was made quite clear.

The British did not have the same Technology as the Germans...we needed things to see where we were on the ground, and we couldnt fire unmanned drones....without defections, we wouldnt have attained the nuclear knowledge. You might say that was an act of GOD also....because in all intense and purposes Germany should have invaded England, should have easily smushed the Cathedral, and should have invented the atom bomb first. There is no adequet explaination for some of these things.

Eye witnesses said it was like some huge umbrella had opened above the cathedral...The photographs are...very disturbing...Besides...if you destroyed the city like they did...you dont need to come back, so why leave a landmark?

Remember...I Worked at Saint Paul's Cathedral thats how I know the above.

GOD saved the Cathedral to save the morale of the people as a sign of definace against Evil. Adolf Hitler would be denied the soul of the nation. Goebels cried himself to sleep when they had to cancell the last wave of Bombers...two had gone over. One with incenduries, one with blast bombs...the third wave couldnt get across the channel coz of...bad weather Who knows if the full raid had hit that first night, whether Saint Paul's would have been distroyed. But...it wasnt to be for Deutschland.

[NateR]

Then there is the example set by Kennesaw, Georgia here in the US.

http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

Back in 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law that required every citizen to keep a gun in their home (there are exemptions for those with a criminal records, conscientious objectors, the disabled, etc.).

Most opponents of the law claimed that crime would skyrocket and there would shootings in the streets on a daily basis. None of that has happened. Crime dropped 89% right after the law was passed and has stayed low ever since.

Kennesaw has seen no negative side-effects of the law. Their population continues to grow at levels consistent with the rest of the state, and is actually home to more manufacturing businesses and any other city in its county.

So, that's a real world example of how more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens can actually make our communities safer.

[BradW]

Originally Posted by flo

My feeling is that -- whether the chance of a break-in or assault is great or small - I'm going to protect myself and be prepared. It is my right as an American to own a firearm. It's up to me to be knowledgeable about gun usage, safety and storage.

do you own an assault rifle flo ?

do you feel your hand guns are secure enough that they could not be used
against you or your family?

hand guns are people killers and hunting rifles are animal killers...
now having said that i know either could be used for either purpose...
but when you hold them in your hands they inspire a different thought process as to their individual uses.

but thats just the way i see it.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by NateR

American citizens have no Constitutional right to protection from the police. We do have a Constitutional right to carry weapons to protect ourselves, however.

its EXACTLY the opposite in our case...except...those police officers arent armed any more then us

This is the epitome of the difference. In England, the police and the Government are supposed to protect us...that is their primary function. Its more important that they protect us then provide leadership

Yet they must do that without firearms...its not like we live in a country where we arent allowed guns but the police are...NO...the police almost NEVER have guns either.

Guns are confined to The Military, The Ministry of Defence Police, The British Transport Police, and the special opporations units of the police. The latter shouldnt be allowed firearms period because they dont know how to use them without killing innocent people. This Squad is ultimately responsible for being the trigger that started the London Riots, and for the Charles De Menzies murder. They also lie about the version of events.

The Military...well...we never see them...I dont think we even have much of one now The Navy stay on their ships, the Army are over-deployed...and the airforce are indoors, so I dont really include them, like I wouldnt include tank drivers The MOD Police shouldnt have guns either...they never use them, they just walk around with them trying to look important.

The British Transport Police SHOULD have Guns and deserve them. They were EXCELLENT after the london bombings. They all had machine guns (well...thats what I call them ) and they stood for hours and hours looking after the stattions. They also have their fare share of good results without killing innocent people.

[flo]

Originally Posted by NateR

I own a gun, because it's my God-given right guaranteed by the Constitution, thus I don't have to provide any other reason.

Do I feel safer with a gun in the house? Maybe. Does owning a gun make me feel powerful? No. Most of the time I forget that I even own it. It just sits in a drawer right now and it's probably been a while since I've actually fired it for any reason. I simply believe I would be derelict in my patriotic duty as an American if I didn't own at least one gun.

This.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by BradW

it sounds like your legal system could use an over haul.

i never ever said people shouldn't be able to protect themselves with guns
and have guns readily available to them...i just think certain types of guns should have greater restrictions on them and some banned completely.

THIS

[huan]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

THIS

not in the least. this is why people need to be more informed on firearms in general before making silly claims and assertions.

here is a relevant article, and written by a self proclaimed left-winger, on why renewing the "assault weapon" ban makes no sense:

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/...-ill-tell-you/

[F34R]

Originally Posted by huan

not in the least. this is why people need to be more informed on firearms in general before making silly claims and assertions.

here is a relevant article, and written by a self proclaimed left-winger, on why renewing the "assault weapon" ban makes no sense:

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/...-ill-tell-you/

Great article. I've plastered it on facebook.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

THIS

Not at all. I believe that most weapons available to the military should also be available for private ownership. This includes tanks (which are not specifically illegal in many areas) and most forms of anti-aircraft weaponry.

Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons obviously should be banned; but those are heavily controlled and mostly banned even within our military.

It seems after every Presidential election someone comments on the peaceful transfer of power in the US government that really is a rare and remarkable thing in this world of military coups and armed uprisings.

But why is that the case here in the US? Is it because Americans are just such wonderful people? Not at all. It's because our citizens are so armed to the teeth that a hostile takeover of the government is not possible.

And don't try to claim that you have something similar over there in England. As long as you still have that monarchy (even if it is a puppet monarchy), then you don't have any real transfer of power within your government.