"Attempted attack in Australia" Topic

Legion.
You have been well whooped.
Walk away buddy. You are about to be come an embarrassment.

Says you ! But since you agree with Chris and not me or Winston, etc., … You'd probably think I'm an embarrassment anyway … Nothing new there. But she may be a better man than I …

Once Bill sees what is going on … he'll probably DH me anyway … Again …

I find it rather notable that all those who have served come down on a particular side of this debate…it does not appear that there is anything further to be gained here. Certain members have made fools of themselves, Legion not being among them in my estimation.

I appreciate that SP … And yes, seems generally most Vets & LEOs see things differently than some … well … who did not serve in either capacity … No surprise there either. Thanks again !

I fail to see how having military service has any bearing on gun law outside that service.

I can only assume you think 13k avoidable deaths every year in your country are a price worth paying for youre alleged right to own a firearm.

I wonder if you'd make that argument to the bereaved of Sandyhook.

Didn't forget about you stu.

which is why I get riled when the likes of Legion wonder what help the USA ever gets…

Again you read into my posts to fit your narrative of me, etc., … And I'm well aware of all the allies that the US has served with in many locations and situations. And the UK seems to always be one of them. Like Foxweasle …

I fail to see how having military service has any bearing on gun law outside that service.

You would … it really does not, save for the fact that many who served have been trained and experienced, etc., with using weapons, carrying them, maintaining them, etc. And in many cases what weapons can do and how deadly they can be in the proper hands. I guess that may count for something.

I can only assume you think 13k avoidable deaths every year in your country are a price worth paying for youre alleged right to own a firearm.

Avoidable ? You were there ? Does that include deaths from knifes, baseballs bats etc., … And let me say again. It is the USA … not the UK, Oz, etc.

My alleged right to own a fire arm ?I'm pretty sure it has been concluded that the 2d Amendment makes it legal to own firearms.

Legion, your flailing in the face of your total demolition wa painful to witness.

Well as I have said already on this thread. Since you and some others who also agree with Chris and hold malice towards me. Hence to you and your kind, you believe I was duly "trashed" by a 35 year old female. Whose posts constantly allude to the fact of her being more "intelligent" than many of us older Neanderthal males that are denizens of TMP.

However, those that believe as I do, don't see the way you do when it comes down to who was demo'd, etc. As nothing I can say will change your minds. No matter what I or others like me post. And we didn't expect to. But as I said, every one is entitled to an opinion and that opinion can be agreed or disagreed with. [flailing ? Really ? Are were on the same thread ? ]

I wonder if you'd make that argument to the bereaved of Sandyhook.

I wonder how you would ? Many in Sandyhook bought weapons after that tragedy. They saw the reality that sometimes the only way to save the lives of their loved ones. Is to remove the threat …

The account of Chris Vermont has been locked, as this is a formerly banned member.

I must protest this.

Bangorstu wrote:

I can only assume you think 13k avoidable deaths every year in your country are a price worth paying for youre alleged right to own a firearm.

The right to bear arms is not an 'alleged right' in the USA, it is an explicitly stated right as per the second amendment of the US Constitution and has been so since 1791. One may not agree with the validity of that right but one cannot argue that it does not exist unless one is willful enough to ignore 225 years of American history.

I happen to agree with much of what Ms. Vermont has posted but I also acknowledge that this is a debate for Americans to be had by Americans alone. So Ms. Vermont and her fellow citizens must decide this and there is no place for non-Americans in this debate except as interested spectators and bystanders.

Cheers and Happy New Years!
Rod Robertson.

Thank god for that. Utter dribble.

I've never understood this attitude that one is not allowed to comment on other countries' internal laws and standards.

If that were true then the UK and the USA have some explaining to do for recent events.

PS I DON'T believe that and have nowhere near as much of a problem in our attempts to do the right thing overseas as many of my compatriots appear to have.

The right to bear arms is not an 'alleged right' in the USA, it is an explicitly stated right as per the second amendment of the US Constitution and has been so since 1791. One may not agree with the validity of that right but one cannot argue that it does not exist unless one is willful enough to ignore 225 years of American history.

Didn't I just post that only in a shorter form? At least that is something we can agree on. "My alleged right to own a fire arm ? I'm pretty sure it has been concluded that the 2d Amendment makes it legal to own firearms."

Vale, Chris.

The account of Chris Vermont has been locked, as this is a formerly banned member.

Hmmm ? The more I read her[is Chris really a she and/or 35 ?] posts. The more I became to see. That I've heard such drivel many times before. And it seemed to me, she(?) was not trying to have a conversation about the topic or wargaming. But to start arguments.

And as soon as she(?) mentioned the site that will not be named, seems a little "suspect".

Was she(?) trying to say she(?) served in the military or was a LEO. Or just read about it ? Was she trying to make some think she(?) was a Veteran or LEO ? That is very reprehensible, deplorable, disgraceful, "despicable", etc., IMO.

Did anyone ever see her(?) even mention wargaming or model building ?

stu … link
link

Agreed Hazza31B !

Thank god for that. Utter dribble.

And I agree with this as well !

"The account of Chris Vermont has been locked, as this is a formerly banned member."

Which one Bill?

"…such drivel…"

A number of readers seem to think that some of what she said made a lot of sense. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it "drivel" any more than anything you, me or anyone else writes that others disagree with.

Small technical (but crucial) correction re: the US Constitution 2nd Amendment. The ACTUAL text is:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

While the scope has been adjusted over time, the basis was the notion that a militia could be relied on in lieu of a standing army. History would prove otherwise and the original militia system was subsequently replaced with the current National Guard system.

The US notion of private ownership of arms was based on English Common Law and the the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and was, in the main, related to maintenance of a militia.

That said, private weapon ownership in the US is a long tradition dating back to the frontier days (when being armed was required for survival in a harsh unforgiving environment).

And most weapon owners well understand the responsibility that comes with the privilege of ownership and are safe and sane about it.

And while I don't currently own a weapon, I used to, but sold it when my interest waned (and since I don't live in the boonies, my odds of really needing it was nil).

That said, private weapon ownership in the US is a long tradition dating back to the frontier days (when being armed was required for survival in a harsh unforgiving environment).

And most weapon owners well understand the responsibility that comes with the privilege of ownership and are safe and sane about it.

Agreed …

"I find it rather notable that all those who have served come down on a particular side of this debate"

Not sure I would agree with your statement. In my family both my grandfather WW1 wounded and decorated combat veteran and my father in law again a wounded and decorated WW2 combat veteran with 3rd Ranger battalion would disagree with you. Neither ever wanted to carry a gun again, never felt a need to own. Both felt America was too quick to go to war and sacrifice her young men. Once they ended their miltary service they never wanted to talk about what did.

I was … 15 maybe? when the mama moose charged me. Standing on my next-door neighbor's front porch. No pistol. I went over the side, over the barbed wire fence, and about 30 feet down the embankment. I'd still be in jail if I would have shot said moose, those things are a once-in-a-lifetime tag lottery. If I even had a gun on me at the time. Idaho has a "duty to retreat" law that applies anywhere outside your own home.

Chris, what your statistics show is that there are a lot of [expletives deleted] that shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. I'm talking about people who beat their wives here, with proof. Because it seems like every divorce/separation case comes with a side order of "he beats me" whether it's true or not (which is why an accusation of domestic abuse or restraining order is no longer a prohibition from buying a firearm, violation of due process). I've had to do emergency extractions before, pulling lady and small child out of a house with whatever they could carry at the time. I really did want a firearm then, but I was living in the barracks.

The problem with requiring psychological screening for purchasing a firearm is that it seems that half the American Psychological Association thinks that desiring a firearm (regardless of reason) is a sign of mental instability. Yet practicing Tai Chi, Kendo/kenjutsu, or Kyudo is perfectly acceptable behavior. When a Tai Chi adept or a kendoka could kill someone in very short order (faster than someone will die from a gunshot wound, considering that 90% of all GSW victims that reach the hospital survive).

Dingos for example. We get a pack travelling through several times a year. They eat cats. Think coyote not ravening wolf.

Coyotes are much more dangerous than wolves. Far more livestock attacks by coyotes than wolves. Or people/pet attacks.

I've been tracked/watched by wolves and cats, they are rather curious critters. Wolves and cats will often break contact after you look at them and don't change your other behavior. Me, nonverbally: "I see you, I'm not food, and I don't consider you food, either. Just passing through." Wolf/cat, nonverbally: "Oh, ok. Guess you're not that interesting after all."

Bears? Not usually seen *in* Boise, but 30 minutes up in the mountains? Yeah. Been chased out of a camp by a bear before, once at Crater Lake and at least once up in the Sawtooths. Another time, came around a corner and had baby bear go skittering up a tree while mama bear went diving over the side, then spent the next 15 minutes wondering where exactly the hell mama bear disappeared to as I kept going. Wished I had a gun, then, but thankfully didn't need one.

I've been charged by more allegedly-pet dogs in the last 6 years living in Boise than I have had to deal with wildlife in my entire life. Had to start using my big walking stick because the damn dogs were between my house and the university (university being a gun-free zone so I couldn't bring one with me to class). If you run from a dog, it WILL attack you, no questions asked. If you stand your ground it probably won't. Which is why Idaho doesn't have a duty to retreat in case of animal attack. Just a duty to retreat in case of person attack.

[edit]And Chris, I'd still take you out shopping for defensive tools of your choice.

Interesting person, this "Chris". I don't recognize a TMPer by the verbiage.

I will take her assertion on: That men with guns are the biggest danger to her as a woman, rather than a potential protector. Bull pucky.

Here's the question: How many of those men who shot their estranged GFs or Exes, et al. women that "they know", were concealed carry? How many of them had rap sheets already? The answer, I am confident, is, very few if any of the former, and a lot, a majority, of the latter. So the clincher isn't that the guy you are with has a gun, it is the kind of guy you are with. Get a grip, girl!

Angry, dangerous animals. Coyotes are far more numerous than wolves. That's the difference right there.

There was a guy in western Canada a scant few years ago who was killed by wolves. So *ding* to that assertion.

Militia: yes, and the corollary was/remains that an armed citizenry would hold their gov't accountable and replace it by physical force if necessary. A National Guard is just an arm of the gov't. The other corollary was self defense. It is in the writings of the Founders, all over the place.

Militia: yes, and the corollary was/remains that an armed citizenry would hold their gov't accountable and replace it by physical force if necessary.

Sorry, but you got it wrong. The militia was seen as working WITH the new republic's government (in lieu of a standing army), not AGAINST the government.

A National Guard is just an arm of the gov't.

As was the militia. And it failed miserably (see War of 1812).

It is in the writings of the Founders, all over the place.

Not really (at least, not in the Federalist Papers. Or Jefferson).

Unfortunately, yours is a very common misinterpretation (accidental or intentional) of the original intent of the framers.

I will take her assertion on: That men with guns are the biggest danger to her as a woman, rather than a potential protector. Bull pucky.

Crime stats show otherwise…

From James Madison's Federalist paper # 46 (Jan. 1788) comes this description for why the militias and the people must be armed and how they should be always ready to overwhelm a standing, regular army:

… Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

The armed populace, the militias and the local/state governments were seen as a countervailing military force against a US regular, standing army and possible tyranny from a central state.

See also the following for more jurisprudence about the 2nd Amendment and its inherent individual right to bear arms as opposed to a collective right to participate in a militia:

guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

and:

link

The line of argument followed by Charlie 12 was also made by Samuel Byran ("Centinal") in the anti-federalist papers.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

The armed populace, the militias and the local/state governments were seen as a countervailing military force against a US regular, standing army and possible tyranny from a central state.

And, as events would show, were absolutely useless… So much for the vaulted militia.

B6GOBOS, there is a difference between not seeing a need and not wanting to relive traumatic memories, and believing that no one could possibly have such a need. Semantics, but an important distinction in my eyes.

"I find it rather notable that all those who have served come down on a particular side of this debate"

Totally untrue. I'm a vet, both my sons are active service, and my father served during WW2. We all own or owned guns and all at one point or another enjoy hunting and goodness knows I'm building deep in the Colorado mountains where bears, mountain lions and coyotes along with elk and moose are common yet we all favor sensible restrictions on gun ownership, have no fear of government conspiring to take our weapons as we are sane and responsible and most of all, are not so silly as to think that a) a sincere desire for dictatorship exists for either party or b) the vast majority of serving members of the civil and military authorities would condone a dictatorship for a micro-second.

It is not irrational to prohibit people who should not have weapons because of past criminal or mental history from owning guns. It is irrational to allow someone deemed too threatening to fly on a commercial airliner to own a gun. It is irrational on a 'for God's sake up the Xanax and get that tin foil hat off them' level to think a vast conspiracy exists to the extent that Sandy Hook or Columbine were a mere figment manufactured by the ominous "them" to take away guns.

We as a society have managed to solve most problems through compromise. Surely we can protect ourselves from the criminal, the crazy and the simply too stupid without fundamentally eliminating the right to own. Only about 1 in 3 of US adults owns a firearm and that percentage has not been growing and if that recent Harvard study is to be believed, about half of all guns are owned by just 4% of the population. It behooves responsible gun owners to support reasonable restrictions or else, the time will come, when intransigence and denial results in that which they fear, a significant majority of the populace runs out of patience and over reacts genuinely impinging on what should be a reasonable right to own subject to reasonable restrictions.

The account of Chris Vermont has been locked, as this is a formerly banned member.

Which one Bill?

Thaddeus Blanchette, if I remember the name correctly.

Both felt America was too quick to go to war and sacrifice her young men. Once they ended their miltary service they never wanted to talk about what did.

That's been my experience as well. Coming from a military family (eg Mum's 5 brothers all fought in WW2), not a peep from real soldiers who saw fighting.

My big brother, who fought in Vietnam, actually said when I once tried to push him to talk, "The only soldiers who'll sprout about combat were desk jockeys."

I am sorry to see the banning of Chris Vermont. The posts from her were intelligent and well thought out. Not silly name calling, nor hiding behind titles. You could disagree with her, but it was a intelligent discussion.

As to her banning, and the suggestion she was a previously banned member that sounds like a excuse to remove an undesirable. Reminds me of this quote: "Ahh, but the strawberries that's… that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with… geometric logic… that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers…"
Extra points for who said this orginaly

Caine Mutiny: said by Captain Queeg.

Later spoken by Bogie in the movie.

What did I win?

(The really interesting thing about the quote was Queeg was actually correct. The frozen strawberries were stolen, though by the mess boys who the exec, Maryk?, lied to protect. However, I don't think B6GOBOS was trying to make that point.).

just arrived at the party and read this all through. great discussion ! … I love how the topic of 'gun control' heats up the debate with those in the USA.

I'm Australian, ex-military (infantry), a farmer , and like to think I'm relatively sane.
I personally don't believe civilians need access to military-grade firearms whatsoever.

I live in a country town where I can still leave my back door unlocked (even when we go away) and the keys in my truck parked on the main street (altho' I don't make a habit of it).. No problems in over ten years here. we have a good community of people here who are also relatively sane. Yes we have our drug-addicts and meth producers too, but they make up a very tiny proportion of the population and the troublesome ones are easy to spot if you care to look.

I say all this because I'm on the side of the debate that "guns don't kill people …people kill people" , I'd even extend that a bit further to say it is a "FUBAR-thought process that leads people to kill other people". (no direspect to FUBAR the ruleset)

If it were as easy as "guns kill people" then would it be fair to extend that the countries with the highest gun ownership per capita would also have the highest homicide rate per capita . …and that's not how it is .

looking here link and here link

The USA lists here as no 1 for gun ownership but number 11 for deaths by firearms per capita. (although do I read no 1 for suicides by firearms ?)
Honduras lists here as No 1 for firearm deaths per capita but no. 87 for gun ownership per capita.

I do wish it were as easy as "take away all the guns and nobody gets hurt" … but it's obviously not.

Personal maturity, good mental health and attitude, proper weapon handling/safety/maintenance/storage,and avoiding drugs and alcohol is what it takes to be a responsible gun owner…and it is a serious responsibility.

I do own a firearm … a military grade semiautomatic rifle even ! ..but I leave it at the range armoury because I don't need it at home (a farm) where I have young-ish children (and their friends), and I am away often. I admit I still own the thing for sentimental reasons only. It has no 'practical use' other than a range shoot weekend once or twice a year (and costs me money) … stupid habit really.

B6GOBOS, there is a difference between not seeing a need and not wanting to relive traumatic memories, and believing that no one could possibly have such a need. Semantics, but an important distinction in my eyes.

Agreed … my Father was an Infantry SGT in WWII France. He rarely talked about it. But sometimes he mentioned a few things that he thought were of some worth. He was awarded a Silver Star, Bronze Star & Purple Heart. He was not a "Desk Jockey". Until he was pulled from the front after a German mortar round, caused him to lose hearing in one ear. And lose some movement of his wrist.

Surely we can protect ourselves from the criminal, the crazy and the simply too stupid without fundamentally eliminating the right to own.

Agreed …

It behooves responsible gun owners to support reasonable restrictions or else, the time will come, when intransigence and denial results in that which they fear, a significant majority of the populace runs out of patience and over reacts genuinely impinging on what should be a reasonable right to own subject to reasonable restrictions.

Agreed …

Personal maturity, good mental health and attitude, proper weapon handling/safety/maintenance/storage,and avoiding drugs and alcohol is what it takes to be a responsible gun owner…and it is a serious responsibility.

Agreed …

Thaddeus Blanchette, if I remember the name correctly.

I thought the same. And IIRC that is his(her?) name. As he(she?) became more "excited", and go after older white males, etc., whose beliefs are different than his(hers). And his/hers posts' language, etc., began to sound very familiar, etc.,…

Though him deciding to disguise himself/herself as a 35 year old female. May be a bit reveling … ? You really must have a very sad existence to hide behind a "secret" identity to go to a site where you know you will have differences with /some of the members. And push an agenda/narrative that will certainly start a problem. Isn't that called the "T" word ? [ ]Sad, very sad. But he/she has a problem with Bill and TMP in general … after being banned/locked out a few times now, IIRC …

I once tried to push him to talk, "The only soldiers who'll sprout about combat were desk jockeys."

Well many here were not in combat in Vietnam. So Vets are not allowed to talk about military topics that we may know something about ? That we were trained in or experienced ? Even about the history of a certain era or event. On a website that is about wargaming and military modelling, etc. ? Hmmm ? You really have an "agenda" and constantly push your narrative about this topic. You may want to look closer at that predilection ?

As has been suggested by the Ed., maybe hitting the stifle bottom might be called for, by some. But than that would not allow some to push their agenda and narrative. Again, and again and again. I won't do that. I don't back down generally when confronted, especially on the net. When someone like Chissy or others can hide behind the safety of the web.

And if my beliefs on many subjects are different than others. They need to realize that their agenda and narrative will not change my or those that think like I do, minds.

And it became rapidly clear to me and some others I'm sure. As many have pointed out I'm not that wise or intelligent, etc., that this Chrissy or who ever she/he really is. Had no intention to talk about wargaming, etc. but to look for arguments. Which those that do not have her/his same SJW progressive (?), etc. agenda and narrative. In an obvious condescending, patronizing, etc., manner …

And what is really amazing to me … why would anybody give a rat's what some think here on the net ? Are they just so offended, upset, etc., by some here's beliefs, etc. That they are forced to "act" and correct the sub-humans that are clearly not as evolved as they are. Hmmm ?

And some say I'm condescending ?

>"I find it rather notable that all those who have served come down on a particular side of this debate"

I served and I don't own any guns and outside of a ww2 piece or two, have no intention of owning any.

>I admit I still own the thing for sentimental reasons only. It has no 'practical use' other than a range shoot weekend once or twice a year (and costs me money) … stupid habit really.

Shooting is pretty fun though, so I suppose the cost is worth it in that sense.
Probably cheaper than the bars :-)

Just to clarify, I don't sport shoot or hunt … Have not used/handled my fire arms in a very long time. But they are there if I need them. I don't drink or do illegal drugs either.

I'm about the last person Chissy and her sisters[or her SJW bros ?] should worry about. But then that would not fit her or some others agendas and narratives about some people like me … Sorry to upset some … well … no … really I'm not …

Just for the record I too think the banning of Chris smacks of someone trying to close down a debate rather than maintain order.

Legion 4,which posts on this thread did address wargaming?
I can't seem to find them.

Just for the record I too think the banning of Chris smacks of someone trying to close down a debate rather than maintain order.

I'm sorry, but banned members are not allowed to return without permission.

It behooves responsible gun owners to support reasonable restrictions or else, the time will come, when intransigence and denial results in that which they fear, a significant majority of the populace runs out of patience and over reacts genuinely impinging on what should be a reasonable right to own subject to reasonable restrictions.

The problem is that, as Australia shows, what were described as "reasonable restrictions" have simply lead to more and more types of firearms being banned, with an observable end goal of ALL firearms being banned.

Including this great threatening new thing called a lever-action shotgun. Design has only been around since 1887 (Winchester Model 1887 lever-action shotgun).

Also, please read the Second Amendment to the US Constitution: "A well-[trained] militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, I did change the word "regulated" in the original text to trained, as "trained" is what "regulated" meant in 1790.

English major time: The phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is what is called an explanatory clause. If we were writing it today, it would read: "Because a well trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Then we step to the Militia Act of May 1792 (and as amended in 1795, which removed the sunset clause), which specifies that every white male property owner (ie, everyone who was able to vote) was required to maintain a firearm and equipment comparable to that used by the Federal Army (including same caliber). Musket, cartridge belt, bayonet, etc. Yes, the law specifies that people are supposed to own a bayonet.

I'm pretty sure everyone here would agree that there is no civilian purpose for a bayonet.

This makes Founder's Intent quite clear, that everyone allowed to vote was expected to maintain a firearm and accoutrements as used by the US Army.

You really have an "agenda"

"Agenda"? In the words of the immortal Inigo, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Opinions, sure. I'm not allowed any that contradict yours? I can't talk about my family, according to you?

are not allowed to talk about military topics

Great Grandfather who fought in the Boer War, both grandfathers fought in WW1 (at Jutland & in the trenches), 5 Uncles in the military (HLI, Paras, Commandos, RAF & Ally Sloper's Cavalry) in WW2. Brother in Vietnam. Real soldiers with combat experiences & they're not relevant? Ralph, you seem to want to restrict a lot of things.

Why do you apply everything I write to you? I don't think about you very much at all.

It's a shame you no longer see fit to be a Supporting Member, Ralph. Then we could (like we used to do) deal with these issues in PMs & not clog up the boards with your baseless assertions.

Legion4:

Someone once wrote:

I agree, based on the situation that the individual was using the word. To talk down to people. Being condescending, demeaning, etc., … The thread that the offense occurred has been removed by Bill [I guess ?, AFAIK]. It was getting pretty argumentative, etc., … Bill even threatened me with punitive action.[No real surprise there … I may have deserved it …] But … as I well know … you mess with the Bull [or Bill] you get the horns … huh?

and:

Come on … even on the internet, one usually can tell when words are used in a condescending, superior, demeaning, etc. manner. If you had read the thread in question, it was pretty clear what was being said.

From:

TMP link

Given that using the term "honey" was deemed condescending and insulting, what about your repeated use of the diminutive term "Chrissy" when referring to the poster Chris Vermont? Should there not be a symmetrical responsibility on your part and consequences from the editorial staff to make you not demean another poster if you use condescending and insulting words to address them?

And isn't your transgression made that much worse because you only started to use that diminutive term publicly after that other poster was locked-out and could no longer confront you or defend themself? I do not push the complaint button and will not now, but perhaps you should reflect upon your own behaviour as it pertains to condescension and name-calling. We must all police ourselves as much as possible on a public forum, so perhaps it's time to review your own behaviour here on TMP.

Rod Robertson.

I will take her assertion on: That men with guns are the biggest danger to her as a woman, rather than a potential protector. Bull pucky.

Crime stats show otherwise…

No they do not. They show the number of women killed by men and the number of murders by firearms. They do not show how many of those men with guns are concealed carry and how many had rap sheets. Women are endangered by MEN. Armed men are more dangerous usually. "She" was arguing a point from the position of selective evidence, ignoring the spectrum of men, and asserting that gun-toting men automatically pose a danger. The opposite is true. Men who go through the concealed carry process are among the most law-abiding in the Nation. Felonious men are already dangerous to be around sans guns.

Actually, according to one respected study, a woman is 500% more likely to die during a domestic dispute when a gun is in the house.

Ace, I'm not going to debate the issue further. Consider it closed.

Grand dad John & two brothers. Lest we forget.

It's worth pointing out that US legal precedent has established that a general right to ownership of firearms does not mean you cannot lose your right (felons f.x.) or that certain types of weapon cannot be prohibited.

In other words, in reality, things operate on a scale.

People always talk like there's only two possible solutions:
No guns at all or guns everywhere for everyone and one solution must fit the entire country.

That's not how the world works though and no matter what you believe, rational and reasonable people disagree with you.

And, as events would show, were absolutely useless… So much for the vaulted militia.

You are judging intent by subsequent events. The intent remains: hold the central gov't accountable and demand its respect. An armed populace can do this. A deliberately disarmed populace cannot.

Just because the National Guard was organized and the "militia" allowed to lapse, did not change the original intent of having every free man and voter bear arms. Clearly this was an individual right. And just as clearly our system of fragmented governments chosen by armed citizens would pose an insurmountable barrier to any intrigues seizing the central gov't.

That such a coup would fear an armed citizenry is obvious, by all attempts to whittle away at the right to bear arms, infringing on it with increased regulation and bans and costs, until it effectively no longer existed. Only then could such a coup have any chance of success.

If the populace remains armed, its first efforts at resistance would be checkered to say the least. But the effort to stamp out resistance would require enormous time and cost. Meanwhile, as such things always go, the resistance would become rapidly adept at their work and better armed. Where in the beginning their only advantage would be sheer numbers, in the end that advantage would prove overwhelmingly decisive, once competency was attained.

Also meanwhile, the military, which is a citizen one, would side, State by State, with its armed citizenry. The massive numerical advantage proposed by the Federalist, would be even more one-sided, as the attempted coup would have to rely almost entirely on mercenaries. It would be our own military, training the masses of willing, armed citizens, who would realize the affecting of competent training in short order.

But the whole issue depends on the citizens retaining their arms in the first place.

Were you to try this dire scenario in OZ, the result would likely be subjection first, black market arms obtained as quickly as possible second, and a series of endless confrontations from that point on. Whereas, if you still retained sufficient arms, you could entertain an immediate threat to your central government that has betrayed your liberty and rights. Voting them out of power would never, at any point, be an option. This holds true for every European country that does not possess privately owned arms. In other words, almost all of them. The people flatter themselves that they are free, mistaking politeness and peace for actual liberty; depending on the democratic vote to control intrigues. Only an armed people can back up their peaceful democratic voices with power…………..

Actually, according to one respected study, a woman is 500% more likely to die during a domestic dispute when a gun is in the house.

Surely you have a source link? I'd like the chance to judge your assertion of "respected study"………….

Try:
PDF link

which references the specific source for that figure (although all the figures in the above study are rather shocking) which is:
link

The problem is that, as Australia shows, what were described as "reasonable restrictions" have simply lead to more and more types of firearms being banned, with an observable end goal of ALL firearms being banned.

Clearly, Lion, your grasp of Australian domestic politics rivals your grip on our wildlife. This is a nonsense.

Please read:
link

A (conservative) 85% of Australians are happy with firearm restrictions. They work. The 6% or so who want them toppled are extremists. Should we listen to them (& you) in the teeth of democratic choice?

GWA's last paragraph (above) is pure fantasy & needs no reply.
Again, I would ask those who advocate Australia proceed down the US's tragic road to look to their own problems.