What is your stand on gun ownership?

[GaryTaylor]

My family escaped from Cuba back in 1960. They, like all Cubans who fled at that time believed that Castro would be ousted once the people realized he was a Communist, and they would be able to return. They believed this because Cubans never tolerated tyranny and would always rebel when they felt oppressed. Unfortunately, Castro convinced everybody to turn in their gunss for the sake of peace and safety. Because they turned in their guns they became defenseless against the totalitarian regime and unable to oust Castro.

So basically, getting rid of the right of gun ownership is a very bad idea.

I know many people are killed every year but as the immortal Archie Bunker once said to his daughter, Gloria, “Would you rather they be thrown out of windows?”

Sad eh? Well, I have to admit, I’m a firm believer in the right to bear arms. I will admit though, I don’t anymore. Yes, I still have 12-gauge pump here hidden, no I don’t hunt. So that will give you an idea what its for. Haven’t even looked at it in decades, hope I never have to.

I spoke with a close friend recently whom I did hunt with back in the 60’s. He said, “I shot a Buck last weekend”. I said “Thank God I wasn’t there, I would had to have helped you drag it out of the woods”. He said “I know, I wish I didn’t shoot it, it took 4-hrs”

I see nothing wrong with protecting life, in fact I encourage the concept.

Peace

 

[jwinch2]

I see nothing wrong with protecting life, in fact I encourage the concept.

Yep, so does the Church.

In Christ,

 

[jwinch2]

By Abhijeet Singh

Colonial Roots of Gun-Control
I live in India and I am a proud firearm owner - but I am the exception not the norm, an odd situation in a country with a proud martial heritage and a long history of firearm innovation. This is not because the people of India are averse to gun ownership, but instead due to Draconian anti-gun legislation going back to colonial times.

To trace the roots of India’s anti-gun legislation we need to step back to the latter half of the 19th century. The British had recently fought off a major Indian rebellion (the mutiny of 1857) and were busy putting in place measures to ensure that the events of 1857 were never repeated. These measures included a major restructuring of administration and the colonial British Indian Army along with improvements in communications and transportation. Meanwhile the Indian masses were systematically being disarmed and the means of local firearm production destroyed, to ensure that they (the Indian masses) would never again have the means to rise in rebellion against their colonial masters. Towards this end the colonial government, under Lord Lytton as Viceroy (1874 -1880), brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878); an act which, exempted Europeans and ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description unless the British masters considered him a “loyal” subject of the British Empire.

An example of British thinking in colonial times:

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” --James Burgh (Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses) [London, 1774-1775]

And thoughts (on this subject) of the man who wanted to rule the world:

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.” – Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler’s Table Talks 1941-1944)

The leaders of our freedom struggle recognised this, even Gandhi the foremost practitioner of passive resistance and non-violence had this to say about the British policy of gun-control in India:

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” – Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)

Post Independence
India became independent in 1947, but it still took 12 years before this act was finally repealed. In 1959 the British era Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878.) was finally consigned to history and a new act, the Arms Act, 1959 was enacted. This was later supplemented by the Arms Rules, 1962. Unfortunately this new legislation was also formulated based on the Indian Government’s innate distrust its own citizens. Though somewhat better than the British act, this legislation gave vast arbitrary powers to the “Licensing Authorities”, in effect ensuring that it is often difficult and sometimes impossible for an ordinary law abiding Indian citizen to procure an arms license.

“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

 

[jwinch2]

Also the policy of throttling private arms manufacturing was continued even after independence. Limits on the quantity and type of arms that could be produced by private manufacturers were placed - ensuring that the industry could never hope to be globally competitive and was instead consigned to producing cheap shotguns, of mostly indifferent quality, in small quantities. A citizen wishing to purchase a decent firearm depended solely on imports, which were a bit more expensive but vastly superior in quality.

More Recently
This changed towards the mid to late 1980s, when the Government, citing domestic insurgency as the reason, put a complete stop to all small arms imports. The fact that there is no documented evidence of any terrorists ever having used licensed weapons to commit an act of terror on Indian soil seems to be of no consequence to our Government. The prices of (legal & licensed) imported weapons have been on an upward spiral ever since - beating the share market and gold in terms of pure return on investment. Even the shoddy domestically produced guns suddenly seem to have found a market. Also since the Government now had a near monopoly on (even half-way decent) arms & ammunition for the civilian market, they started turning the screws by pricing their crude public sector products (ammunition, rifles, shotguns & small quantities of handguns) at ridiculously high rates - products that frankly, given a choice no one would ever purchase.

“That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” – George Orwell, the author of Animal Farm and 1984, himself a socialist

Why Citizens Need to be Armed
Curtailing gun ownership, to curb violent crime, through denying licenses or making legal arms & ammunition ridiculously expensive is based on flawed reasoning. The fact is that licensed firearms are found to be used in a statistically insignificant number of violent crimes, motorcycles & cars are far more dangerous. The certainty that a potential victim is unarmed is an encouragement to armed criminals. Less guns, more crime. Most violent crimes involving firearms are committed using untraceable illegal guns. Terrorists or the mafia are not going to be deterred by gun-control laws, they will be willing and able to procure arms of their choice and use them to commit crimes irrespective of any laws. Ironically in India it is cheaper (by several times) to buy the same gun in the black market than it is to buy it legally!

“Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You’ll pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.” – Sammy “The Bull” Gravano, Mafia hit man

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” – Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War in 1775

 

[jwinch2]

And from the world’s gentlest human being:

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” – The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the “Educating Heart Summit” in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate

It is, of course, no coincidence that the right to have guns is one of the earlier freedoms outlined in U.S.A.'s Bill of Rights. Without guns in the hands of the people, all the other freedoms are easily negated by the State. If you disagree with that statement, ask yourself if the Nazis could have gassed millions of Jews, had the Jews been armed with rifles and pistols–there weren’t enough SS troops to do the job. Lest we forget, in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1944, a couple of hundred Jews armed with rifles and homemade explosive devices held off two fully-equipped German divisions (actually about 8,000 men) for nearly two months.

Closer home take the case of the Godhra carnage and the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. Would wanton mobs have slaughtered so many innocent people with such disregard to consequences if their potential victims had been armed and ready to defend themselves? A serious consideration should be given to an armed civilian population as a solution to religious and racial riots as well as other crimes. Since all criminals are instinctively driven by self-preservation allowing legal ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens would act as a serious deterrent. This will make sure that if the Govt. fails to do its duty to protect the life and liberty of its citizens (as it has so often done in India’s recent past), citizens will be able to protect themselves. I’ll take some potential objections and try to answer them:

 

[jwinch2]

Arguments & Counter-Arguments
Q1. Won’t legal owners of arms use the firearms to kill and murder others?
Ans. When a man holds a rifle, he becomes almost godlike: suddenly, he has the ability to deal death and injury to another over a considerable distance–to send, as it were, a thunderbolt of Zeus. For some men, unquestionably, this power is going to be abused, just as some men will always drive a fast car at reckless speeds. For the vast majority of men, however, this power produces precisely the opposite effect: they are humbled by the power they hold, and they become more responsible in its use. That is why, in a nation like the United States with well over seventy million gun owners, only a tiny fraction, less than half a tenth of one percent, use a gun to commit a crime each year. Also since the firearms would be registered with the Govt. along with the owners address, the type of the firearm, its serial number etc. Those (the criminals) who want to commit crimes will not and DO NOT bother to purchase firearms legally and register them. They can and do buy them from the black market (at a fraction of the cost of a legal firearm, I might add). Legal ownership will allow law abiding citizens to protect their and others life and property.

Q2. Won’t there be a free for all during riots?
Ans. By definition riots ARE free for all. However, very few people will participate in riots knowing that a large number of law abiding citizens own firearms in the area. This will actually prevent riots. Riots are mostly started by miscreants (unscrupulous politicians?) who want to benefit from the chaos of riots. However, the risk (loss of life or limb) for the miscreant in starting and/ or participating in such riots, when a large number of the general civilian population owns legal firearms, is significant. Therefore in most cases miscreants will not dare to start riots in the first place.

Q3.What about domestic violence and firearms?
Ans. Domestic violence has nothing to do with firearm ownership. Firearms are merely a tool – not the cause of violence, to quote a famous NRA slogan “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Women in India face domestic violence even today with very limited legal gun ownership. If anything, legal firearms in the hands of women might help even the odds – by removing the physical weakness of women from the equation.

Q4. What about accidents?
Ans. More people in India get killed in automobile accidents than firearm accidents. In countries where gun ownership rates are high like the United States (which has a firearm to population ratio of approx 96:100, i.e., almost 1 firearm for every man woman & child), Switzerland, New Zealand etc. several times more people die in road accidents than from firearm accidents. Firearm accidents can be further minimised by making a gun-safety course mandatory before a permit is issued - so long as this is not used as another excuse to delay or deny permits.

Q5. What about firearm assisted suicides?
Ans. A suicidal person has many different available ways to end his/ her life. Firearms are just another means for him/ her. Statistically suicide rates have little correlation with firearm ownership patterns. Many countries with strict anti-gun legislation have high suicide rates and vice versa.

Q6. Are there any working systems and what are the results?
Ans. Yes, for example in U.S.A., Switzerland, New Zealand. One must note here that different states in US have different degrees of gun ownership and firearm restrictions. Interestingly the states with more restrictions on gun ownerships have a higher crime rate than those that are less restrictive.

I do not condone violence or a violent solution to problems, but there can be no justification for not letting people be prepared to defend their own and their families’ lives and property. When one is surrounded by mobs bent on setting you on fire and the like, in a country where policing is non-existent, owning firearms by people will have a great deterrent effect on mobs. Of course, if I could sue the police for not giving me complete protection, then I might feel differently (but don’t count on it). But by law the State cannot be at fault for not protecting its citizens – so if the cops take 25 minutes (or several hours) to respond to your call, and in those 25 minutes a criminal kicks open your door, shoots you and your wife, rapes your 11-year-old daughter, and beats your baby to death, that’s just tough luck. What about incidents like 1984 and Godhra, where the local administration and police wilfully neglected their duty to protect the citizens of this country?

Please also read the entertaining Parable of the Sheep for an explanation so simple that even a child can understand it.

As the Indian Law stands today a citizen of this country cannot even own a stick without inviting a penalty of 7 years in prison. We live in a country where we have still not cast off the yoke of antiquated laws made by our colonial masters to keep us oppressed and at the mercy of the government, notwithstanding the lofty vision of the first page of our constitution.

Harping on the few who unfortunately misuse firearms unfairly ignores those millions of us spread all over the world who own and use them responsibly. Dreaming romantically about a world where everything has been made perfectly safe “for the children” is just that, dreaming. I’ve tried visualising world peace until I’m about ready to have an out of body experience, but as soon as I open my eyes, they’re bombing civilians in the North East or gunning down innocents in Kashmir. Welcome to the real world.

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”-- Patrick Henry

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

You are not at all familiar with our Constitution and the Bill of Rights if you think we can simply erase an amendment like that.

Why don’t you just mind your own business and enjoy your European lifestyle.

Why are not you polite? I could answer you on stride, but I wont. Your style of answer is the reason why some Americans like to shoot others, who do not like to be shot at. Your answer was a shot by words. Had you a gun and would I be present, I would be a sitting duck for you.

Your Constitution is 200 years old. If your country were 1000 years old, I wanted to see were the guns would be in your Constitution.

Or if you let the owners of the Land, the Indians, make the Constitution. I think you minded their business, no? With guns, of course. And the blacks? With guns, of course. You do not like people to mind your business but you minded, at such a price, the Indians and Blacks business.

Those with glass roofs…

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

The thing about rights is that even if they are not enumerated they cannot be eliminated. They are given to us by God.

Even if the 2A was not in the BOR we would still have the right to keep and bear arms.

A good example of this is the right to life.

Abortion is legal. You can legally kill your unborn child anytime you want while still in the womb. This does not remove the unborn child’s right to life.

Pfaffenhoffen, if you do not want to arm yourself, that is your business and your right. Do not infringe on others. If you think that you can erase another person’s RKBA, then others can erase your freedom of religion or even right to life.

The Second Amendment is the reboot switch for the Constitution.

Eddie Mac
NRA Life Member
Texas State Rifle Association Life Member

Do you think it is a right of yours to have a gun to kill me? funny, Funny, VERY FUNNY !!!
And the right to bear a gun was given by GOD? That is why the Pope (you are Catholic no?) carries always a gun on waist, bishops and priests go to mass with a gun, do not see it as ridiculous as that?
I see that you belong to the Texas State Rifle Association Life Member, so you cannot but defend that. What else can one expect from you? A drunk person defends alcohol, a drug dealer drugs, a Yankee supporter, the Yankees as the best of the world, a poligamist, poligamy and so on.
Tell me, when there were no guns, 2000 years ago, where was the right to bear guns?
Tell me, do I have a right to carry an atomic bomb, when they make a suitcase size one? Is carrying an atomic bomb a God given RIGHT, I repeat, atomic-bomb-God-given-right?

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Godwin’s law for the worst.
That is the kind of irrational thniking to defen the non-defensible.
Look at your argument: Tyrants had gun control, so if you have no gun control you do not have tyrants. It is unbelievably irrational. You have chosen a few countries during a certain amount of time. And other 194 countries? What do you say of them?

I fully appreciate the desire for debate on this site.
I am a gun collector living in NYC. I have a fairly large collection of antique Colt percussion revolvers, which are perfectly legal to posess in NY State and NYC, and I am a proud Endowment Member of the NRA.
The reason I am entering this is to state my resentment against someone from a foreign coountry (Germany) who has not lived in the USDA for any length of time, and has no first hand experience with firearms, having the gall to go on an American based site and tell us that part of our Bill of Rights is wrong.
Especially since you owe your freedom today to American soldiers (who, for the most part grew up with firearms) who rooted out one of the most horrific political systems in the history of Western civilization. Without them, you would either be living under the NAZI’s or the Communists, and not have any freedom of speech or religion.
Lastly, if guns are so terrible, why are people in your country going crazy over Wild West re-enactment?

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Do you think it is a right of yours to have a gun to kill me? funny, Funny, VERY FUNNY !!!
And the right to bear a gun was given by GOD? That is why the Pope (you are Catholic no?) carries always a gun on waist, bishops and priests go to mass with a gun, do not see it as ridiculous as that?
I see that you belong to the Texas State Rifle Association Life Member, so you cannot but defend that. What else can one expect from you? A drunk person defends alcohol, a drug dealer drugs, a Yankee supporter, the Yankees as the best of the world, a poligamist, poligamy and so on.
Tell me, when there were no guns, 2000 years ago, where was the right to bear guns?
Tell me, do I have a right to carry an atomic bomb, when they make a suitcase size one? Is carrying an atomic bomb a God given RIGHT, I repeat, atomic-bomb-God-given-right?

All rights are from God. No man can grant you any right. Man (governments) only grant priviledges. Driving is a priviledge.

When there were no guns, the weapon of choice in self defense was whatever weapon existed at the time. Peter used his sword in an attempt to defend Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. Obviously Christ reprimanded Peter because it was not proper at the time because Christ was fulfilling His Father’s will. At the same time, Christ knew Peter was armed and obviously allowed it.

Why do anti-RKBA individuals always lay claim to the old “atom bomb” straw man argument? We are not talking about suitcase nukes. Stick with the argumant at hand. The right to keep and bear arms deals with firearms, not nukes.

And, yes, I do own guns specifically to kill humans that threaten me, my family, or anyone who needs defending from evil. If you happen to be the one threatening me I would without a shadow of doubt put two or three center of your mass. You posed the question, and I answered it.

Eddie Mac

 

[jwinch2]

All rights are from God. No man can grant you any right. Man (governments) only grant priviledges. Driving is a priviledge.

When there were no guns, the weapon of choice in self defense was whatever weapon existed at the time. Peter used his sword in an attempt to defend Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. Obviously Christ reprimanded Peter because it was not proper at the time because Christ was fulfilling His Father’s will. At the same time, Christ knew Peter was armed and obviously allowed it.

The other thing that happened when there were no guns is that “might makes right” existed. If you were physically weak, injured, female, etc. you had almost no chance of defending yourself from attack. If more than one person was attempting to harm you, forget about it. Guns allow for someone who may be wheelchair bound, the aged, the weak, etc. to be able to defend themselves, their family, and other innocents through the equalization of force that they are able to apply.

Are we supposed to go back to swords or clubs where whoever was the strongest or had the most friends was able to do whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted? No thanks. I sleep better when I travel knowing that my wife, who is all of a 120 pounds will put two rounds center mass into anyone who attempts to harm her while I am gone.

 

[jwinch2]

Those who don’t like the idea of guns being used for self-defense should consider showing their support for getting rid of guns by proudly displaying the bumper sticker attached below. Just think of all the minds you will change…

:doh2:

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

All rights are from God. No man can grant you any right. Man (governments) only grant priviledges. Driving is a priviledge.

When there were no guns, the weapon of choice in self defense was whatever weapon existed at the time. Peter used his sword in an attempt to defend Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. Obviously Christ reprimanded Peter because it was not proper at the time because Christ was fulfilling His Father’s will. At the same time, Christ knew Peter was armed and obviously allowed it.

Why do anti-RKBA individuals always lay claim to the old “atom bomb” straw man argument? We are not talking about suitcase nukes. Stick with the argumant at hand. The right to keep and bear arms deals with firearms, not nukes.

And, yes, I do own guns specifically to kill humans that threaten me, my family, or anyone who needs defending from evil. If you happen to be the one threatening me I would without a shadow of doubt put two or three center of your mass. You posed the question, and I answered it.

Eddie Mac

No atomic bombs, yes? where is this forbidden in the 2nd amendment? It is because you say?
You are talking about gun? But they are selling automatic sub-macinhe gund and machine hunes? is this for self-defense?
And, big mistake, the 2nd amendment does not talk about self-defnse but defense of the State !!!
for that you have the Armed Forces and Police !!!

 

[chain]

That is why the Pope (you are Catholic no?) carries always a gun on waist…

No, but the Pope does use the Swiss Guard who are currently armed with SIG Sauer P220 handgun (P75) and the Heckler & Koch MP5 sub-machine guns (not to mention their ceremonial rapier, partisan, halberd and flamberge). I should point out that those are personal body guards - not guards to protect a nation or police to maintain domestic peace.

 

[Calgar]

I have to wonder about people who think it’s the government who should have a monopoly on guns.

 

[promethius]

Do you think it is a right of yours to have a gun to kill me? funny, Funny, VERY FUNNY !!!

That ultimately depends on your actions. If you’re trying to harm my family, then the church teaches that I have every right to defense, including a lethal blow… even by firearm if need be.

And the right to bear a gun was given by GOD? That is why the Pope (you are Catholic no?) carries always a gun on waist, bishops and priests go to mass with a gun, do not see it as ridiculous as that?

SURPRISE! There DO happen to be priests who carry concealed pistols.

I see that you belong to the Texas State Rifle Association Life Member, so you cannot but defend that. What else can one expect from you? A drunk person defends alcohol, a drug dealer drugs, a Yankee supporter, the Yankees as the best of the world, a poligamist, poligamy and so on.

Okay, Pfaffenhoffen, your attitude is getting very tiring. Those who support gun rights are not at all equivalent to alcoholics, drug dealers, or poligamists. You don’t have to bash our military, or call Americans stupid… especially when everyone has been reasonably polite in not pointing out the elephant in the room (namely, that gun control didn’t work so well for the Jews in your country)

Tell me, when there were no guns, 2000 years ago, where was the right to bear guns?

Rights do not evolve over time. People have the right to bear arms for legitimate defense. Guns are a category of arms. It is not a right to bear guns, it is a right to bear arms (swords, knives, clubs, axes, bows, crossbows, spears, etc)

Tell me, do I have a right to carry an atomic bomb, when they make a suitcase size one? Is carrying an atomic bomb a God given RIGHT, I repeat, atomic-bomb-God-given-right?

Nuclear weapons are not arms (personal weapons), but rather ARMAMENT, meaning “great weapons of war”, and typically applying to military grade hardware (cannons, etc). As such, no one has a right to possess armament, as engaging in just war is the duty of the state, whilst self-defense requires possession of arms.

No atomic bombs, yes? where is this forbidden in the 2nd amendment? It is because you say?

Again, highlighting that nuclear weapons are considered ARMAMENT and not ARMS.

And, big mistake, the 2nd amendment does not talk about self-defnse but defense of the State !!!
for that you have the Armed Forces and Police !!!

First, it is not merely about defense of the state, but preservation of the security of a FREE state. There is a reason that the amendment was ratified exactly as it was worded, even including the capitolization of specific words.

Second, we still do have militias (valid, state government controlled ones) which are primarily charged with defense of the nation and its various states. Furthermore. our military is restrained by posse comitatus from acting as a police force inside our national boundaries. And, as has already been pointed out to you, our police are neither explicitly for protection nor defense. If you don’t understand our system, please, refrain from commenting on it.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

No atomic bombs, yes? where is this forbidden in the 2nd amendment? It is because you say?
You are talking about gun? But they are selling automatic sub-macinhe gund and machine hunes? is this for self-defense?
And, big mistake, the 2nd amendment does not talk about self-defnse but defense of the State !!!
for that you have the Armed Forces and Police !!!

You really need to work on your typing and spelling skills because your post makes very little sense but I will try and answer intelligently.

In order to understand scripture you must understand the context and in which it is written and the time it was written along with the customs and mores at the time. This is Church teaching. The same holds true for the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As pointed out by my brothers, atom bombs are armaments and firearms are arms; firearms are what the second amendment are addressing. Nuclear weapons did not exist at the time the documents were established. Get over the atom bomb reference because it is making your comments ignorant of facts and the issue at hand.

I can purchase full automatic weapons if I so desire. They are controlled not prohibited.

As is pointed out the 2A is to guarantee a free state and to allow citizaens to defend themselves against an oppressive government, the likes of which existed at the time the documents writing.

Also, the military is not allowed to be used against the citizenry as was pointed out.

The Supreme Court of the US has ruled that the police are not required to protect the citizen populace, have no requirement to act, and cannot be held liable for not acting to protect and intervene. We are responsible for our own protection.

You have no more understanding of the Constitution and BOR as I have of any German equivalent. I could care less what you europeans do with your socialist tact and can care less. American blood was spilled in two world wars defeating Germany and you owe your freedom to us. It is a debt you take for granted and can never repay.

You are welcome. Enjoy your freedom. Only two individuals have ever died for you, Jesus Christ and the American fighting man. One for your sins, the other for your freedom. Get over it.

Eddie Mac

 

[Calgar]

Your Constitution is 200 years old. If your country were 1000 years old, I wanted to see were the guns would be in your Constitution.

Since they didn’t exist 1,000 years ago it couldn’t be in any constitution.

What country are you in? I want to make sure my children never go to school there.

 

[promethius]

What country are you in? I want to make sure my children never go to school there.

Be nice. Snarky comments aren’t going to help your case any more than his comments have helped him…

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Why are not you polite? I could answer you on stride, but I wont. Your style of answer is the reason why some Americans like to shoot others, who do not like to be shot at. Your answer was a shot by words. Had you a gun and would I be present, I would be a sitting duck for you.

Your Constitution is 200 years old. If your country were 1000 years old, I wanted to see were the guns would be in your Constitution.

Or if you let the owners of the Land, the Indians, make the Constitution. I think you minded their business, no? With guns, of course. And the blacks? With guns, of course. You do not like people to mind your business but you minded, at such a price, the Indians and Blacks business.

Those with glass roofs…

You, my dear Catholic friend, know nothing about this nation. You think you do, however. I think you should just let this thread alone and as I said, politely, enjoy your European lifestyle.