Are you a gun guy or girl?

[FreedomFeens]

The first thing repressive governments do is ban civilians from owning firearms.  Here are just a few characters you may recognize:

Pol Pot
Adolph Hitler
Stalin

Hundreds of MILLIONS murdered by their own governments because they could not defend themselves.

Make no mistake, the right to bear arms is the cornerstone of the free world.

Not being American or having to live in America I can safely say that I am thankful I can send my child to school without worrying that they're going to get shot by some lunatic who had a collection of lethal weapons, yet as the lunatic was only 20 years old he still can't legally buy alcohol. Where is the sense in this?

I won't even address the logical fallacies in your argument, that is your responsibility to fix.  Government can't stop lunatics from getting guns, lunatics don't care about laws.  If there is a demand for something, the state cannot stop it. The market is greater than the state.  The state made drugs illegal but can't even keep them out of prisons or schools.  

You don't have to own or buy guns or associate with people who do.  Just don't use the state monopoly of violence to FORCE/threaten/use violence against peaceful people(who aren't harming anyone or anyone's property) who chose to pursue their happiness in a way that you don't like.  By doing so your the immoral aggressor.  By using the political process, your stealing money at gunpoint from everyone to fund your aggression.  

If you are anti gun go talk to your neighbors, start gun safety awareness campaign.  Using the state to do your dirty work-well that's an immoral and spineless thing to do.  If you believe in a cause, advocate for it privately, don't use violence to fund it and enforce it.  People who aren't harming anyone or any property should be left alone.  For example, if you make a law saying that high capacity magazines are banned and I happen to own one and am caught by one of you'r thugs with it, they will fine or imprison me.  I was just minding my business, I didn't hurt anyone or any property.  If I resist or refuse to pay, they will cage and assault me, If I refuse to be assaulted they will kill me.  Where is the victim in all of this?  Some of you who advocate politics don't understand the violence inherent in it.

I don't really have an opinion in relation to guns to be honest, I just find the American mentality towards the whole matter rather amusing. I have spent many an hour watching some of these pro gun people rattle on about why they 'need' guns - often laughing hysterically at some of the arguments they bring up. My original post was not implying that I am deadly against the ownership of guns - I'm not, I don't care. I was simply stating that I'm glad that I don't have to live in a country where so many people share such absurd, outdated and backward views.

And your country is that way because people used state violence to FORCE people who weren't hurting anyone or any property to submit to their tyranny or face increasing punishments up to death.  That is not something I would be proud of.  You have no problem with the police being armed?  More people are killed by police than by random shooters.  Any kind of "social progess" that is gained at the barrel of a gun is not real social progress.

[RodeoX]

I shoot and/or build guns most every weekend. Currently I'm putting together a duracoat project. I don't have the nerve to do my rem 700P. I guess I'll get a rem 870 and do some wild colors. Or maybe a cool derringer?
And yes, I buy with bitcoin whenever I can.

[runam0k]

Spent a good hour in Cabela's in CT a year ago. There's no doubt about it, if I lived in the US, I'd be buying all sorts of guns. Shooting is fun.

[jonanon]

The first thing repressive governments do is ban civilians from owning firearms.  Here are just a few characters you may recognize:

Pol Pot
Adolph Hitler
Stalin

Hundreds of MILLIONS murdered by their own governments because they could not defend themselves.

Make no mistake, the right to bear arms is the cornerstone of the free world.

Not being American or having to live in America I can safely say that I am thankful I can send my child to school without worrying that they're going to get shot by some lunatic who had a collection of lethal weapons, yet as the lunatic was only 20 years old he still can't legally buy alcohol. Where is the sense in this?

I won't even address the logical fallacies in your argument, that is your responsibility to fix.  Government can't stop lunatics from getting guns, lunatics don't care about laws.  If there is a demand for something, the state cannot stop it. The market is greater than the state.  The state made drugs illegal but can't even keep them out of prisons or schools.  

You don't have to own or buy guns or associate with people who do.  Just don't use the state monopoly of violence to FORCE/threaten/use violence against peaceful people(who aren't harming anyone or anyone's property) who chose to pursue their happiness in a way that you don't like.  By doing so your the immoral aggressor.  By using the political process, your stealing money at gunpoint from everyone to fund your aggression.  

If you are anti gun go talk to your neighbors, start gun safety awareness campaign.  Using the state to do your dirty work-well that's an immoral and spineless thing to do.  If you believe in a cause, advocate for it privately, don't use violence to fund it and enforce it.  People who aren't harming anyone or any property should be left alone.  For example, if you make a law saying that high capacity magazines are banned and I happen to own one and am caught by one of you'r thugs with it, they will fine or imprison me.  I was just minding my business, I didn't hurt anyone or any property.  If I resist or refuse to pay, they will cage and assault me, If I refuse to be assaulted they will kill me.  Where is the victim in all of this?  Some of you who advocate politics don't understand the violence inherent in it.

I don't really have an opinion in relation to guns to be honest, I just find the American mentality towards the whole matter rather amusing. I have spent many an hour watching some of these pro gun people rattle on about why they 'need' guns - often laughing hysterically at some of the arguments they bring up. My original post was not implying that I am deadly against the ownership of guns - I'm not, I don't care. I was simply stating that I'm glad that I don't have to live in a country where so many people share such absurd, outdated and backward views.

And your country is that way because people used state violence to FORCE people who weren't hurting anyone or any property to submit to their tyranny or face increasing punishments up to death.  That is not something I would be proud of.  You have no problem with the police being armed?  More people are killed by police than by random shooters.  Any kind of "social progess" that is gained at the barrel of a gun is not real social progress.

Just as I said originally reading:

'And your country is that way because people used state violence to FORCE people who weren't hurting anyone or any property to submit to their tyranny or face increasing punishments up to death.'

For me is amusing -what has this got to do with owning a gun?

And being from the UK - most police are not armed so that takes care of that problem.

Also, unless I am not fully aware, I don't remember having to submit to tyranny for fear of my life. Again, perhaps somehow I have been implanted with a mind controlling device against my knowledge and hence have submitted to tyranny - all be it against my knowledge - I guess I will never know.  

[Johnny Bitcoinseed]

Adolph. Hitler. Germany. Modern. Western Country. Takes Guns from the pople. Government then kills Millions. Defenseless People.

Wake. Up.

Media bought and paid for by the very governments that would love to disarm the people.

Nuff. Said.

[EndlessWin]

Adolph. Hitler. Germany. Modern. Western. Country. Takes. Guns. Kills Millions. Defenseless People.

Wake. Up.

Nuff. Said.

are you seriously comparing Hitler to common people who own weapons ?

[Johnny Bitcoinseed]

What I am saying is that when the people are disarmed they are at the mercy of criminals and tyrants who historically have killed FAR more people than the gun owning law-abiding public.

It's not rocket science.  Read your history.

[2tights]

What I am saying is that when the people are disarmed they are at the mercy of criminals and tyrants who historically have killed FAR more people than the gun owning law-abiding public.

It's not rocket science.  Read your history.

yes, read history. First they give themselves power, then they take your guns, then they squash human rights and freedom.

Guns are tools, just like hammers. Guns don't shoot themselves... just like hammers don't swing themselves. 

Violent crime increases in areas with low gun ownership. This makes sense because who has guns if laws forbid guns? Only Criminals and cops, and we all know cops don't actively prevent crime, they only respond!

Look at Detroit...second highest murder rate, considered most dangerous US city. Guess what, they have some of the most restrictive gun laws. So again, criminals don't care. :\

http://people.howstuffworks.com/strict-gun-laws-less-crime1.htm
http://www.policymic.com/articles/22835/gun-control-facts-detroit-crime-rate-is-the-result-of-gun-control
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140103/METRO01/301030038
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Michigan

[enygma]

I don`t think he is for or against guns, but the post might pass off as amusing to some people who live outside of the USA.

It would pass off as amusing to some in the US as well. I'm in Canada and own a small collection of rifles and handguns. I also reload my own ammunition, so I'm frequently buying reloading supplies like primers, gunpowder and projectiles. My next purchase will probably be in a couple weeks. I plan on getting a Trijicon TR24G for one of my bullpup rifles, which is intended for 3Gun and short/medium range hunting.

I'd say that my collection of firearms and ammunition would be considered respectable, even by US standards, and I have friends that are in the same boat.

I have tossed the idea of accepting Bitcoin out to a few guys on the Canadian Gun Nutz forum but got no biters. I just keep a wallet address in my sig line in case anyone wishes to graciously donate bitcoin to help me buy more lead to keep my casting/reloading costs low for some of my high caliber fun...

I am rather curious about what province you are in.

To my knowledge (which is rather limited on the topic I admit), handguns are illegal to own.
Not that I care as long as the owner is an intelligent and VERY responsible person.

Living in Montreal, I don't think it would be easy for me to acquire a license or a few different type of guns... Reason why I got into traditional archery.
But if I was able to easily get my hands on some, I would love to have some Classics, such as a Mosin bolt action rifle, a PPSH41, STG44 and the good old AK47

In reality, I know I wont get any of them, it's just not in my environment nor would I get out of my way to get any of them.  

I am in Alberta, however, since firearms are federally regulated, the laws regarding what kinds of firearms you can own are equal across all provinces. The main exception to this is the long gun registry, where Quebec seems to be quite keen on keeping the registry intact (and is still fighting with the Supreme Court of Canada on it).

TECHNICALLY, in Canada, all firearms are illegal to own, unless you carry a card that says you are allowed to acquire and possess firearms (due to the way the Firearms Act is worded). Handguns and some rifles are classified as restricted, while most rifles are classified as non-restricted. Anyone with a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) can purchase non-restricted firearms. People who have the "Restricted" designation on their PAL can own restricted firearms. I have a restricted designation on my PAL, therefore it is legal for me to own restricted firearms.

The restricted category of firearms have their own stipulation to them. You aren't really allowed to use them anywhere other than a shooting range, and some provincial CFO's (Chief Firearms Officers) won't even allow registration to be transferred from a retailer or another gun seller to you unless you can prove you are a member of a range (even though many ranges allow guests). Mainly to "prove" your purpose for owning a restricted firearm is for target shooting. Given that some high caliber handguns and rifles happen to be listed as restricted, many (including myself) actually question the real intention of the restricted category (It's because my gun is black isn't it).

Firearms that are classified as prohibited are just that... prohibited. Not allowed to own them... unless you fall under certain categories under the Firearms Act that allow grandfather status. These are known as the 12.(x) rules. If you look under section 12 of the Firearms Act, you can see various subsections like 12.1, 12.2, etc. These correspond to the certain conditions for owning prohibited firearms. That law will be used on the PAL just like the "Restricted" designation, only it will say something like "12.6 Prohibited", which essentially means you are allowed to possess and acquire firearms that are prohibited due to section 12.6 of the Firearms Act.

Firearms like the AK47 and their variants (including Saiga shotguns), any other full auto firearm, and any firearm that can be easily converted to full auto are prohibited in Canada. If you want an AK47 like firearm, then you might look at the CZ858 or VZ58 which both have non-restricted variants.

[jonanon]

What I am saying is that when the people are disarmed they are at the mercy of criminals and tyrants who historically have killed FAR more people than the gun owning law-abiding public.

It's not rocket science.  Read your history.

yes, read history. First they give themselves power, then they take your guns, then they squash human rights and freedom.

Guns are tools, just like hammers. Guns don't shoot themselves... just like hammers don't swing themselves. 

Violent crime increases in areas with low gun ownership. This makes sense because who has guns if laws forbid guns? Only Criminals and cops, and we all know cops don't actively prevent crime, they only respond!

Look at Detroit...second highest murder rate, considered most dangerous US city. Guess what, they have some of the most restrictive gun laws. So again, criminals don't care. :\

http://people.howstuffworks.com/strict-gun-laws-less-crime1.htm
http://www.policymic.com/articles/22835/gun-control-facts-detroit-crime-rate-is-the-result-of-gun-control
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140103/METRO01/301030038
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Michigan

Who are you referring to when you say 'they'?

[enygma]

Who are you referring to when you say 'they'?

"They" in this context tends to mean either some form of government or their law enforcement arms.

[jonanon]

Who are you referring to when you say 'they'?

"They" in this context tends to mean either some form of government or their law enforcement arms.

OK thanks for clearing that up.

When you say that violent crime increases with areas of low gun ownership are you talking about on a country by country basis?

In the UK there is less violent crime than in the US yet less gun ownership?

[Wilikon]

http://youtu.be/iJmFEv6BHM0

I support the 2nd amendment. As is.

[FreedomFeens]

The first thing repressive governments do is ban civilians from owning firearms.  Here are just a few characters you may recognize:

Pol Pot
Adolph Hitler
Stalin

Hundreds of MILLIONS murdered by their own governments because they could not defend themselves.

Make no mistake, the right to bear arms is the cornerstone of the free world.

Not being American or having to live in America I can safely say that I am thankful I can send my child to school without worrying that they're going to get shot by some lunatic who had a collection of lethal weapons, yet as the lunatic was only 20 years old he still can't legally buy alcohol. Where is the sense in this?

I won't even address the logical fallacies in your argument, that is your responsibility to fix.  Government can't stop lunatics from getting guns, lunatics don't care about laws.  If there is a demand for something, the state cannot stop it. The market is greater than the state.  The state made drugs illegal but can't even keep them out of prisons or schools.  

You don't have to own or buy guns or associate with people who do.  Just don't use the state monopoly of violence to FORCE/threaten/use violence against peaceful people(who aren't harming anyone or anyone's property) who chose to pursue their happiness in a way that you don't like.  By doing so your the immoral aggressor.  By using the political process, your stealing money at gunpoint from everyone to fund your aggression.  

If you are anti gun go talk to your neighbors, start gun safety awareness campaign.  Using the state to do your dirty work-well that's an immoral and spineless thing to do.  If you believe in a cause, advocate for it privately, don't use violence to fund it and enforce it.  People who aren't harming anyone or any property should be left alone.  For example, if you make a law saying that high capacity magazines are banned and I happen to own one and am caught by one of you'r thugs with it, they will fine or imprison me.  I was just minding my business, I didn't hurt anyone or any property.  If I resist or refuse to pay, they will cage and assault me, If I refuse to be assaulted they will kill me.  Where is the victim in all of this?  Some of you who advocate politics don't understand the violence inherent in it.

I don't really have an opinion in relation to guns to be honest, I just find the American mentality towards the whole matter rather amusing. I have spent many an hour watching some of these pro gun people rattle on about why they 'need' guns - often laughing hysterically at some of the arguments they bring up. My original post was not implying that I am deadly against the ownership of guns - I'm not, I don't care. I was simply stating that I'm glad that I don't have to live in a country where so many people share such absurd, outdated and backward views.

And your country is that way because people used state violence to FORCE people who weren't hurting anyone or any property to submit to their tyranny or face increasing punishments up to death.  That is not something I would be proud of.  You have no problem with the police being armed?  More people are killed by police than by random shooters.  Any kind of "social progess" that is gained at the barrel of a gun is not real social progress.

Just as I said originally reading:

'And your country is that way because people used state violence to FORCE people who weren't hurting anyone or any property to submit to their tyranny or face increasing punishments up to death.'

For me is amusing -what has this got to do with owning a gun?

And being from the UK - most police are not armed so that takes care of that problem.

Also, unless I am not fully aware, I don't remember having to submit to tyranny for fear of my life. Again, perhaps somehow I have been implanted with a mind controlling device against my knowledge and hence have submitted to tyranny - all be it against my knowledge - I guess I will never know.  

It has got to do with owning a gun because at one time people in your country had much more gun freedom, now they have less-a result of the state and those who support it.

Excellent, i'm glad that your police are not armed as much.

You submit to tyranny for fear of your life everyday.  If you disobey one of your governments "laws" they will fine or imprison you.  If you refuse to submit they will kill or beat you up.  This is how it is everywhere.  Men make up stuff, write it on paper and call it law, they imagine they have the power to create law.  You are forced to be a part of their system, when you can't opt out of it, its by definition tyranny.  If you don't view it as tyranny, then you must be giving up all those earnings voluntarily eh?

[FreedomFeens]

http://youtu.be/iJmFEv6BHM0

I support the 2nd amendment. As is.

My rights don't come from paper.  It's nice to support the constitution and I wish also the state was constrained by it, but as lysander spooner said: "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."  

Forcing the government to abide by their own laws is like forcing the mafia to abide by rules, good luck with that.  Besides, the constitution allows the state to tax you and steal your land at will, that's no document I want to live under.  

I never signed any constitution contract did you?  Not being able to opt out of it means its tyrannical.  Before the ink was even dry on it, Washington was using the army to crush tax rebellions and put down competition in his whiskey business, not long after he was sending soldiers to certain death for political purposes.

Check out Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner, You can listen to it for free on youtube.

[enygma]

Who are you referring to when you say 'they'?

"They" in this context tends to mean either some form of government or their law enforcement arms.

OK thanks for clearing that up.

When you say that violent crime increases with areas of low gun ownership are you talking about on a country by country basis?

In the UK there is less violent crime than in the US yet less gun ownership?

You can look at it on a country by country basis, which actually doesn't bode well for the UK statistically. As a matter of fact, in 2013, gun crimes increased 34%, but overall violent crime rates are nearly 10x higher in the UK.

The problem with looking at violent crime stats is that the types of crime and reporting vary country to country. For instance, Stats Canada has different crimes and crime reporting than the US, so there may be a higher number of violent crimes listed by StatCan than the FBI uniform violent crime statistics. Actually, it is a higher number in Canada, nearly 2x, however a study showed that when trying to normalize the data between countries, which is actually somewhat difficult and introduces a little bit of subjectivity to the stats, Canada should technically have a slightly lower violent crime rate if compared apples to apples to the US.

Another problem with comparing stats between countries, it takes a relatively large population group and lumps them all together, so in particular with the US, you will find that by looking at things more locally, about 95% or so of the counties across the country have levels of violent crime in line with, or better than some of the most peaceful European nations. The problem is in the larger urban centers, like Washington DC, Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, etc. They have a tendency to really skew the crime stats in the US as a whole because of an abnormally high rate of violence.

If you look closer at the US, you have to look at who is killing who. Mass shootings are an anomaly, though since Newtown, I know of at least 2 instances of attempted mass shootings in schools that were cut short by armed personnel on site, one of which was in Colorado. The rate of mass shootings in the US is relatively steady and it is difficult to find signal in the noise as to what the trends are.

Typical homicides in the US are generally gang related or drug related. Nearly half the homicides (firearm related or otherwise) are perpetuated by a demographic that only comprises of 5% of the US population (black people). Of that half of the homicides, about 75% to 80% (maybe more, I'd have to check the stats again) are black on black crime, many of which have past criminal behavior (this is actually relevant regardless of race).

Suicide wise, in Canada, you can see laws of substitution in effect. Many try to enact laws like "safe storage" laws to make it difficult for someone to use firearms as a means of suicide. From a lot of the research I've found, suicide by firearm is only about 3 to 5% more effective than suicide by hanging (the second most effective method). In Canada when we introduced safe storage laws, firearm related suicides were down, but suicides were not down. When you broke the numbers down, most of the suicides moved to hanging rather than firearms.

[FreedomFeens]

Well i guess this thread is derailed, anyone who wants to contribute to the poll please do so.

[mufa23]

Never. I lost all my Bitcoins and firearms in a boating accident a while back.

Sounds familiar.  

Yes, sir! Tragic boating accident. Nothing to see here ATF. Move along.

[jonanon]

The first thing repressive governments do is ban civilians from owning firearms.  Here are just a few characters you may recognize:

Pol Pot
Adolph Hitler
Stalin

Hundreds of MILLIONS murdered by their own governments because they could not defend themselves.

Make no mistake, the right to bear arms is the cornerstone of the free world.

Not being American or having to live in America I can safely say that I am thankful I can send my child to school without worrying that they're going to get shot by some lunatic who had a collection of lethal weapons, yet as the lunatic was only 20 years old he still can't legally buy alcohol. Where is the sense in this?

I won't even address the logical fallacies in your argument, that is your responsibility to fix.  Government can't stop lunatics from getting guns, lunatics don't care about laws.  If there is a demand for something, the state cannot stop it. The market is greater than the state.  The state made drugs illegal but can't even keep them out of prisons or schools.  

You don't have to own or buy guns or associate with people who do.  Just don't use the state monopoly of violence to FORCE/threaten/use violence against peaceful people(who aren't harming anyone or anyone's property) who chose to pursue their happiness in a way that you don't like.  By doing so your the immoral aggressor.  By using the political process, your stealing money at gunpoint from everyone to fund your aggression.  

If you are anti gun go talk to your neighbors, start gun safety awareness campaign.  Using the state to do your dirty work-well that's an immoral and spineless thing to do.  If you believe in a cause, advocate for it privately, don't use violence to fund it and enforce it.  People who aren't harming anyone or any property should be left alone.  For example, if you make a law saying that high capacity magazines are banned and I happen to own one and am caught by one of you'r thugs with it, they will fine or imprison me.  I was just minding my business, I didn't hurt anyone or any property.  If I resist or refuse to pay, they will cage and assault me, If I refuse to be assaulted they will kill me.  Where is the victim in all of this?  Some of you who advocate politics don't understand the violence inherent in it.

I don't really have an opinion in relation to guns to be honest, I just find the American mentality towards the whole matter rather amusing. I have spent many an hour watching some of these pro gun people rattle on about why they 'need' guns - often laughing hysterically at some of the arguments they bring up. My original post was not implying that I am deadly against the ownership of guns - I'm not, I don't care. I was simply stating that I'm glad that I don't have to live in a country where so many people share such absurd, outdated and backward views.

And your country is that way because people used state violence to FORCE people who weren't hurting anyone or any property to submit to their tyranny or face increasing punishments up to death.  That is not something I would be proud of.  You have no problem with the police being armed?  More people are killed by police than by random shooters.  Any kind of "social progess" that is gained at the barrel of a gun is not real social progress.

Just as I said originally reading:

'And your country is that way because people used state violence to FORCE people who weren't hurting anyone or any property to submit to their tyranny or face increasing punishments up to death.'

For me is amusing -what has this got to do with owning a gun?

And being from the UK - most police are not armed so that takes care of that problem.

Also, unless I am not fully aware, I don't remember having to submit to tyranny for fear of my life. Again, perhaps somehow I have been implanted with a mind controlling device against my knowledge and hence have submitted to tyranny - all be it against my knowledge - I guess I will never know.  

It has got to do with owning a gun because at one time people in your country had much more gun freedom, now they have less-a result of the state and those who support it.

Excellent, i'm glad that your police are not armed as much.

You submit to tyranny for fear of your life everyday.  If you disobey one of your governments "laws" they will fine or imprison you.  If you refuse to submit they will kill or beat you up.  This is how it is everywhere.  Men make up stuff, write it on paper and call it law, they imagine they have the power to create law.  You are forced to be a part of their system, when you can't opt out of it, its by definition tyranny.  If you don't view it as tyranny, then you must be giving up all those earnings voluntarily eh?

I think most 'laws' are in place for the greater good, not being allowed to rape I think is a good thing.

If you are referring to taxation regarding giving up earnings - I don't like paying tax as mush as the next person but at least I know that if I ever have financial issues I can still send my children to good free schools and have access to good free healthcare a free house to live in and free money for food so it's not all bad  

[FreedomFeens]

The first thing repressive governments do is ban civilians from owning firearms.  Here are just a few characters you may recognize:

Pol Pot
Adolph Hitler
Stalin

Hundreds of MILLIONS murdered by their own governments because they could not defend themselves.

Make no mistake, the right to bear arms is the cornerstone of the free world.

Not being American or having to live in America I can safely say that I am thankful I can send my child to school without worrying that they're going to get shot by some lunatic who had a collection of lethal weapons, yet as the lunatic was only 20 years old he still can't legally buy alcohol. Where is the sense in this?

I won't even address the logical fallacies in your argument, that is your responsibility to fix.  Government can't stop lunatics from getting guns, lunatics don't care about laws.  If there is a demand for something, the state cannot stop it. The market is greater than the state.  The state made drugs illegal but can't even keep them out of prisons or schools.  

You don't have to own or buy guns or associate with people who do.  Just don't use the state monopoly of violence to FORCE/threaten/use violence against peaceful people(who aren't harming anyone or anyone's property) who chose to pursue their happiness in a way that you don't like.  By doing so your the immoral aggressor.  By using the political process, your stealing money at gunpoint from everyone to fund your aggression.  

If you are anti gun go talk to your neighbors, start gun safety awareness campaign.  Using the state to do your dirty work-well that's an immoral and spineless thing to do.  If you believe in a cause, advocate for it privately, don't use violence to fund it and enforce it.  People who aren't harming anyone or any property should be left alone.  For example, if you make a law saying that high capacity magazines are banned and I happen to own one and am caught by one of you'r thugs with it, they will fine or imprison me.  I was just minding my business, I didn't hurt anyone or any property.  If I resist or refuse to pay, they will cage and assault me, If I refuse to be assaulted they will kill me.  Where is the victim in all of this?  Some of you who advocate politics don't understand the violence inherent in it.

I don't really have an opinion in relation to guns to be honest, I just find the American mentality towards the whole matter rather amusing. I have spent many an hour watching some of these pro gun people rattle on about why they 'need' guns - often laughing hysterically at some of the arguments they bring up. My original post was not implying that I am deadly against the ownership of guns - I'm not, I don't care. I was simply stating that I'm glad that I don't have to live in a country where so many people share such absurd, outdated and backward views.

And your country is that way because people used state violence to FORCE people who weren't hurting anyone or any property to submit to their tyranny or face increasing punishments up to death.  That is not something I would be proud of.  You have no problem with the police being armed?  More people are killed by police than by random shooters.  Any kind of "social progess" that is gained at the barrel of a gun is not real social progress.

Just as I said originally reading:

'And your country is that way because people used state violence to FORCE people who weren't hurting anyone or any property to submit to their tyranny or face increasing punishments up to death.'

For me is amusing -what has this got to do with owning a gun?

And being from the UK - most police are not armed so that takes care of that problem.

Also, unless I am not fully aware, I don't remember having to submit to tyranny for fear of my life. Again, perhaps somehow I have been implanted with a mind controlling device against my knowledge and hence have submitted to tyranny - all be it against my knowledge - I guess I will never know.  

It has got to do with owning a gun because at one time people in your country had much more gun freedom, now they have less-a result of the state and those who support it.

Excellent, i'm glad that your police are not armed as much.

You submit to tyranny for fear of your life everyday.  If you disobey one of your governments "laws" they will fine or imprison you.  If you refuse to submit they will kill or beat you up.  This is how it is everywhere.  Men make up stuff, write it on paper and call it law, they imagine they have the power to create law.  You are forced to be a part of their system, when you can't opt out of it, its by definition tyranny.  If you don't view it as tyranny, then you must be giving up all those earnings voluntarily eh?

I think most 'laws' are in place for the greater good, not being allowed to rape I think is a good thing.

If you are referring to taxation regarding giving up earnings - I don't like paying tax as mush as the next person but at least I know that if I ever have financial issues I can still send my children to good free schools and have access to good free healthcare a free house to live in and free money for food so it's not all bad  

sad, truly sad.