French keep safe with gun control


PDA






telomerase
January 8, 2006, 04:53 PM
Or maybe not... (http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2006/01/05/derailed/)

If you enjoyed reading about "French keep safe with gun control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
whm1974
January 8, 2006, 05:15 PM
The Frence are a nation of cowards. THey should a shot the rioters before it got out of hand. Because they didn't they will have this sort of thing for years.

-Bill

Boogyman
January 8, 2006, 05:44 PM
The Frence are a nation of cowards. THey should a shot the rioters before it got out of hand. Because they didn't they will have this sort of thing for years.

-Bill

The French saved our butts in the Revolutionary War. Gave us the Statue of Liberty, remember?
Are we to start shooting rioters in this country too? Remember Kent State? Maybe you're too young.
I just love people that think shooting everyone is an intelligent answer to all problems. They are so easy to argue with.

scubie02
January 8, 2006, 06:49 PM
i thought i had heard that comparatively gun control wasn't as bad in france as, say, great britain, which is just scarily orwellian these days...

alan
January 8, 2006, 06:58 PM
The French that "saved our butts in the revolution", which might well be the case, never mind WHY, and France today, are quite far from being the same thing.

telomerase
January 8, 2006, 06:59 PM
i thought i had heard that comparatively gun control wasn't as bad in france as, say, great britain

I think you're right. Still bad enough that not one passenger in 600 had a gun.

Tom C.
January 8, 2006, 07:00 PM
IMO France is a nation of cowards. It isnít their fault. When they helped us, it was before they took some major hits. Thousands killed in the French Revolution, Napoleonic wars, little wars of the 19th Century, millions killed in WWI, probably thousands killed in WWII, Viet Nam, Algeria. Those left are the draft dodgers and physically unfit. Unfortunately for us, they still think of themselves as a great nation.

McCall911
January 8, 2006, 08:41 PM
So French are cowards...

Sure, it was terrible that a group of thugs from North Africa (possibly some of them illegal aliens, as France has this problem to a great degree also) could commandeer a train and victimize a large group of people.

But didn't something even worse than this occur in the recent history of our own country? For instance, anyone remember what happened on:

9/11/2001?????

All this condemning of France that I've been seeing on these boards proves to me how true this old saying is: "What we think we hate in others is only what we really see in ourselves."

telomerase
January 8, 2006, 08:45 PM
For instance, anyone remember what happened on:

9/11/2001?????

Apparently not, only 50 or so of our airline pilots are allowed to arm themselves.

50caliber123
January 8, 2006, 08:58 PM
I think so. Yes, it has been done before. I read in an issue of combat arms, a guns & ammo spinoff, that Israeli military fields snipers against such threats. When a riot occurs, a marksmen armed with a supressed ruger 10/22 spots for and shoot the agitator in the crowd (the leader). The sniper aims for the groin, incapictaing, but not killing. The riots usual disperse with the crowd getting the idea. What's wrong with this? It is lethal force, but applied in a safe manner. If a riot goes unchecked, many peoples lives are at risk. I do not favor shooting all rioters, but in certain cicumstances, where a riot is out of control, this method can work. It will not work in all scenarios, however.

Old Dog
January 8, 2006, 09:32 PM
Ah, whm1974 and Tom C.,

The Frence are a nation of cowards.Always great to return home from a productive day at the range to check in on the France Bashing Forum ... er, The High Road ...

So, how many Frenchmen do you know personally? (By the way, if you're gonna bash a country, at least spell the name for its inhabitants correctly; although it might have been more proper to say, "France is a nation of cowards" or perhaps even, "The French are all cowards" ... anyway, I digress ... ) I know quite a few, and I wouldn't call any of 'em cowards (especially the females).

Once again ... having spent a fair amount of time in that country (and one wonderful summer, but that's another story), I would tend to agree that some of the habits of the average Frenchman might seem a bit peculiar to someone born and raised in this country (I personally prefer my cheese not to smell like my old sneakers) .... but you cannot label an entire country a "nation of cowards." Gee whiz, guys.

Kodiaz
January 8, 2006, 11:19 PM
If someone starts rioting in Fl on my street and they are running around burning people's houses and cars. I'm not shooting for the groin with a .22 I'm looking at COM from my 12 gauge. And so will my neighbors.

Boogyman
January 8, 2006, 11:30 PM
I think so. Yes, it has been done before. I read in an issue of combat arms, a guns & ammo spinoff, that Israeli military fields snipers against such threats. When a riot occurs, a marksmen armed with a supressed ruger 10/22 spots for and shoot the agitator in the crowd (the leader). The sniper aims for the groin, incapictaing, but not killing. The riots usual disperse with the crowd getting the idea. What's wrong with this? It is lethal force, but applied in a safe manner. If a riot goes unchecked, many peoples lives are at risk. I do not favor shooting all rioters, but in certain cicumstances, where a riot is out of control, this method can work. It will not work in all scenarios, however.

I'm not sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember anyone being killed in these recent riots in France. Didn't they just burn a bunch of cars? Shooting people STARTED the riots, didn't they?
And if I am wrong, and people were killed, do you really think shooting more people would solve the problem? I tend to believe that such excessive force would most likely incite even more violence, and maybe result in even more deaths.
Plus it would take one hell of a good shooter to hit someone in the groin in the middle of a moving crowd without accidently hitting an innocent bystander, perhaps someone just caught up in the confusion. This doesn't seem very practical.
Hey, I'm just as pro-gun as the next guy, but along with gun ownership comes a great responsibilty, to our rights, our sport, and to other gun enthusiasts. Going around shooting people unnecessarily or talking about shooting people as a way to solve social problems doesn't do any of us any good.

Boogyman
January 8, 2006, 11:35 PM
If someone starts rioting in Fl on my street and they are running around burning people's houses and cars. I'm not shooting for the groin with a .22 I'm looking at COM from my 12 gauge. And so will my neighbors.

Let's hope you don't go to prison for unjustified manslaughter. Hey I would probably want to shoot someone for burning my car, but as far as I know it's not justified unless your life is directly threatened. Now burning your house? If you were in it, or a member of your family was, That might be justification enough to shoot the bastards.

KriegHund
January 8, 2006, 11:35 PM
Another example of gun control backfiring.

As for the french... My grandparents are from france. I equate france as i equate much of america-and for that matter almost any country in the world.

Majority of the people are great. Majority of those peoples governement is horrid.

50caliber123
January 9, 2006, 06:02 AM
the original riots that ran over two weeks were started because two teenagers, who were running from the police, hid in an electrical powerplant and died, from hiding there, NOT from bullets. Shooting people is never a good thing, I didn't mean to make it sound like that, but sometimes it has to be done. What happened recently was a mass-sexual assault by a group of about 30 french adolescents armed with knives on a train against its occupants. For approximately four hours the police did nothing. Doing nothing encourages violence, it does not deter. The police are suppossed to protect civilians, not be bystanders.:fire:

beerslurpy
January 9, 2006, 10:15 AM
Had a discussion with some friends that live part of every year in France. Apparently the police in France are the lowest paid and least desireable of all public service jobs. The job is generally looked down upon and they tend to be filled with the stupidest and least motivated of individuals. One of these friends described french police as the scrawniest and most ill fed group you ever saw. They are paid barely well enough to feed themselves.

There are also the usual problems with them not actually living in the communities that they work in, etc. You know that "5% of the population that police deal with 95% of the time?" When something goes wrong, the french police have no idea who is who, so they usually just stand back and do nothing.

French police are less than useless, yet the average french citizen has this attitude of "the goverment will protect me." The american concept of taking the iniative and dishing out an ass-whupping is just that, an american concept not found in many other places in the world.

dpesec
January 9, 2006, 10:22 AM
The French saved our butts in the Revolutionary War. Gave us the Statue of Liberty, remember?
Are we to start shooting rioters in this country too? Remember Kent State? Maybe you're too young.
I just love people that think shooting everyone is an intelligent answer to all problems. They are so easy to argue with.
Well, Kind of. The French actually used the Revolutionary War as a diversion to keep the British off ballance. Believe me the French didn't do it because of their love of liberty. They were just following the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

McCall911
January 9, 2006, 10:52 AM
The american concept of taking the iniative and dishing out an ass-whupping is just that, an american concept not found in many other places in the world.

I used to believe that too, until just before 9/11/2001. I regret to say that I'm now of the opinion that this kind of spirit must have died long ago.

I mean, look: A plane full of people allowed just a couple of thugs, armed only with box cutters, commandeer four different airlines and--then do what they did???? Where was this initiative then?

What happened in France was atrocious, yes. And the poor police response should be very much open to scrutinity, yes. And the French government should also be accountable and take corrective measures for this lack of response, yes. And I agree that the citizens of France now need to look into what they can do to defend themselves, if their police force actually happens to be so understaffed and underfunded.

But so much for France.

What are we going to do in our own country, since we ourselves are in danger of turning into the sheep that we criticize others for being?

Crosshair
January 9, 2006, 02:34 PM
We repaid the debt to France on June 6, 1944.

Boogyman
January 9, 2006, 06:26 PM
We repaid the debt to France on June 6, 1944.

Oh, ok, so now that we're "even", it's ok to trash France.

HankB
January 9, 2006, 07:05 PM
The French saved our butts in the Revolutionary War. Gave us the Statue of Liberty, remember?And lately they've done . . . what?

. . . do you really think shooting more people would solve the problem? I tend to believe that such excessive force would most likely incite even more violence, and maybe result in even more deaths.
Well, let's take a look at actual results in the USA. After MLK was killed, riots broke out here in a number of cities. Detroit in particular was hard hit, and large parts burned. Restrained, French-style police work was, well, ineffective.

When rioting began in Chicago, Mayor Richard J. Daley issued - with much fanfare - an order to the police department: Shoot to kill arsonists. Shoot to maim looters. (I remember this well, considering I lived there at the time.)

The rioting stopped within a few hours. Chicago didn't burn.

Boogyman
January 9, 2006, 07:51 PM
That was 40 years ago. Are you saying things are the same now? That would be niave, I think.
Besides being around then myself, it's an exaggeration to say the riots stopped just like that. There was widespread rioting across the country, not only Chicago.
Look I'm all for shooting someone to protect human life. But to kill someone for destroying property is rather extreme. What the French do in their own country is their business, but burning cars is not a death sentence.

rick_reno
January 9, 2006, 08:32 PM
Ah...the French. From the book 1491 by Charles Mann - "The Huron, in Ontario, a chargrined missionary reported, thought the French possessed "little intelligence in comparison to themselves." Europeans, Indians told other Indians, were physically weak, sexually untrustworthy, atrociously ugly and just plain smelly."

HankB
January 9, 2006, 09:31 PM
Boogeyman, are you saying today's rioters have more intestinal fortitude than yesterday's? :confused:

Look at the rioters, and who do you see? Today I see bums, thugs, low class products of the welfare entitlement mentality . . . just like it was 'way back then. Much less difference than some think.

And when you say it's an "exaggeration" to say the riots stopped just like that . . . well, they pretty much did in Chicago. No other mayor that I recall issued a similar order, so yes, the widespread rioting continued.

Elsewhere.

TexasRifleman
January 9, 2006, 10:38 PM
The French that "saved our butts in the revolution", which might well be the case, never mind WHY, and France today, are quite far from being the same thing.


Be careful with that comparison... neither are we the same strong Freedom loving Republic that the French helped out.....

If that "old" France of which you speak were to see what we have become, do you think they would still help out?

swampsniper
January 9, 2006, 10:51 PM
Oh, ok, so now that we're "even", it's ok to trash France.
No doubt the French have done the right thing, a couple of times, when it was in their personal interest.
When all is said and done, however, if I must pick between a Frenchman and a rattlesnake, to share my foxhole, screw you, Jacques!
I always know what a rattlesnake will do, damned if the French can ever be so reliable!

silverlance
January 10, 2006, 03:17 AM
boogeyman = troll / media spy.

"mother earth love it or leave it" is sounds disturbingly equivalent to "believe in peace and love or else I'll kill you".

and, one a final note - a burning car might not be a death sentence for the guy tossing the firebomb, but for the guy for whom his car is his only method of work - say cab driver - then you might as well have hacked off his left foot.

i can tell you for sure that if i go outside and some kid for whatever socially injust reason is trying to burn my car, and refuses to stop when I tell him to, I would be very hard pressed to keep from getting my gun / bat / dog.

Crosshair
January 10, 2006, 05:09 AM
I always know what a rattlesnake will do, damned if the French can ever be so reliable!
Plus the rattlesnake will leave you alone and mind its own business.:D

Boogyman
January 10, 2006, 05:17 AM
Boogeyman, are you saying today's rioters have more intestinal fortitude than yesterday's? :confused:

[/B]

No, but with today's technology world-wide communications, news, and cell phones, if you started shooting rioters the word would get out very fast.
Rioters are not always "bums, thugs, and low class products of welfare" as you say. This almost sounds racist, but your not like that are you?
Sometimes rioters are people who have had enough oppression and unfair treatment by their governments, such as the "student revolution" in China a few years back.
Hell it might even be you or me someday, if our government ever became a totalitarian dictatorship...

Boogyman
January 10, 2006, 05:28 AM
boogeyman = troll / media spy.

"mother earth love it or leave it" is sounds disturbingly equivalent to "believe in peace and love or else I'll kill you".

and, one a final note - a burning car might not be a death sentence for the guy tossing the firebomb, but for the guy for whom his car is his only method of work - say cab driver - then you might as well have hacked off his left foot.

i can tell you for sure that if i go outside and some kid for whatever socially injust reason is trying to burn my car, and refuses to stop when I tell him to, I would be very hard pressed to keep from getting my gun / bat / dog.

What the hell is this "troll /media spy crap? Name-calling is the first thing that comes out of an idiots mouth.
And your interpretation of my by-line is so far off it's pathetic. How you can get "believe in peace and love or I'll kill you" out of Mother Earth, Love it or Leave it is beyond me. It's simply a statement in irony, as in "We better take care of this planet, there's no where else to go".
You can disagree with me all you want, but your personal attacks are uncalled for and show total lack of class on your part.
As far as what you would do to someone who's burning your car, hey do what you have to do, buddy. Your the one who'll have to explain it to the cops.

HankB
January 10, 2006, 10:45 AM
No, but with today's technology world-wide communications, news, and cell phones, if you started shooting rioters the word would get out very fast.Right, and the riots would stop FASTER! (It wasn't Mayor Daley's "shoot" orders that stopped the rioting, it was the widespread public announcement that stopped the rioting.) Rioters are not always "bums, thugs, and low class products of welfare" as you say. This almost sounds racist, but your not like that are you? Thank you - by injecting race into the argument (read prior posts - you did, I didn't) you've tacitly admitted your own position is untenable.

Old Dog
January 10, 2006, 02:07 PM
Wow, did this thread turn ugly quickly. Guys, Boogyman did make a couple good points, which apparently your blinders didn't allow y'all to understand. First,
Originally Posted by Boogeyman
. . . do you really think shooting more people would solve the problem? I tend to believe that such excessive force would most likely incite even more violence, and maybe result in even more deaths. I think he's actually correct here, except I'd change his "maybe" to a "certainly."

Then HankB said:
Well, let's take a look at actual results in the USA. After MLK was killed, riots broke out here in a number of cities. Detroit in particular was hard hit, and large parts burned. Restrained, French-style police work was, well, ineffective.

When rioting began in Chicago, Mayor Richard J. Daley issued - with much fanfare - an order to the police department: Shoot to kill arsonists. Shoot to maim looters. (I remember this well, considering I lived there at the time.)

The rioting stopped within a few hours. Chicago didn't burn.
Well, having actually lived through the Detroit riots, my recollection is of anything but "restrained, French-style police work." I hoist the B.S. flag on that one. The police were simply overwhelmed by the fast outbreak of the rioting and were spread very thin (there was also a bit of bad leadership involved.) As for Chicago -- boy, everybody always quotes that Daley order. The rioting ran its course, but there's been evidence that some of the heavy-handed tactics of the CPD actually created more violent resistence from the beginning.

Boogyman then noted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogeyman
No, but with today's technology world-wide communications, news, and cell phones, if you started shooting rioters the word would get out very fast. So Hank, you don't think once every gangbanger and other miscreant in your city wouldn't see this as open season on cops and civilians? Look what happened in L.A. -- once the images got on the tube, it created MORE rioting. Those who would riot -- these days -- are not gonna be deterred by hearing that LE will shoot them. They know better, anyway. Look at today's p.c. climate with regard to restraining LE during civil disturbances. To the contrary, it'll inspire resistence -- and thoughts of post-riot lawsuits against the cities and the LE agencies.

Boogyman doesn't need anyone to defend him, but silverlance's comment regarding his sig line was ... out of line and unnecessary too.

MechAg94
January 10, 2006, 03:03 PM
No, but with today's technology world-wide communications, news, and cell phones, if you started shooting rioters the word would get out very fast.
Rioters are not always "bums, thugs, and low class products of welfare" as you say. This almost sounds racist, but your not like that are you?
Sometimes rioters are people who have had enough oppression and unfair treatment by their governments, such as the "student revolution" in China a few years back.
Hell it might even be you or me someday, if our government ever became a totalitarian dictatorship...
There is a BIG difference between rioting and protesting. Violent rioting should be met with violence, though cities are not always equipped to do so.

I do think law enforcement should act more forcefully. I don't think it is acceptable for law enforcement to simply step back and allow rioters to control an area. I understood that is what happenned in LA. I think a stronger LE response would discourage a lot of the looters and opportunists.
From what I have heard of the 60's riots, the problem I don't like is that they sent in National Guard troops and such into a troubled areas and then didn't want them to actually do anything. If you send in guys with guns, don't be surprised if they use them.

As for death and property, shooting someone to prevent property damage may not be good legally in many cases, but I have some possessions that I value more than the life of some criminal who would be trying to destoy them.

HankB
January 10, 2006, 03:05 PM
As for Chicago -- boy, everybody always quotes that Daley order. The rioting ran its course, but there's been evidence that some of the heavy-handed tactics of the CPD actually created more violent resistence from the beginning. Bluntly, you're wrong. (I lived there at the time.) It DID stop the rioting - especially the arson - almost immediately. Detroit burned, Chicago didn't. Maybe you're confusing the MLK riots with the '68 Democratic National Convention, which was a whole different kettle of worms. Look what happened in L.A. -- once the images got on the tube, it created MORE rioting. BUT NOT IN KOREATOWN! The Koreans, once they started resisting, pretty much saved the balance of their neighborhood. LA got out of hand because Darryl Gates' LAPD was basically GONE. Oh, they may have been standing around, watching - I remember seeing video of a bunch of LA's finest just watching a Sears store being looted - but they let it go on far too long. And LA's mayor, rather than taking care of business, was appearing on TV talk shows like Letterman (or was it Leno?) mouthing politically correct pablum.

MechAg94
January 10, 2006, 03:18 PM
Reading the original story, that is a tough one. If I was unarmed, that would be a tought situation.

Warlock7
January 10, 2006, 03:21 PM
The French that "saved our butts in the revolution", which might well be the case, never mind WHY, and France today, are quite far from being the same thing.

Agreed. I dont care about ReV. War Tehy are in MY TIME and they are nothing but cowards and Hypocrits.

Boogyman
January 10, 2006, 03:34 PM
Thanks, Old Dog, I hope your post calms folks down a little.
My only intention here is to discuss the topic, not insult people or throw rocks. That would be starting a "text riot"... hehe
My opinion is just that, I may be right or wrong but I'm sure gonna say what I think. So will ya'll. So let's have a little mutual respect, if we were sitting in a bar discussing this I'd buy the next round.

McCall911
January 10, 2006, 03:41 PM
My opinion is just that, I may be right or wrong but I'm sure gonna say what I think. So will ya'll. So let's have a little mutual respect, if we were sitting in a bar discussing this I'd buy the next round.

^5 Boogyman!!!

The drinks are on you!

:D

Old Dog
January 10, 2006, 03:46 PM
I dont care about ReV. War Tehy are in MY TIME and they are nothing but cowards and HypocritsAnd this informed opinion would be based on how much time you've actually spent in France and how many French people with whom you've actually engaged in political and philosophical discussion?

Maybe you're confusing the MLK riots with the '68 Democratic National Convention, which was a whole different kettle of worms. Could be, Hank ... but I still believe that those who would riot today (in our country) are a new breed, and would not, will not, be deterred by agressive law enforcement tactics.

BUT NOT IN KOREATOWN! The Koreans, once they started resisting, pretty much saved the balance of their neighborhood.Yes, and the lesson is clear. Criminals are more deterred by citizens willing to use deadly force that by law enforcement ... And, the rioting became confined to the ... other minority neighborhoods, became more "black on black" and the LAPD merely sat back and watched the community self-destruct.

Byron Quick
January 11, 2006, 05:09 AM
Old Dog,

Those LA rioters were certainly deterred by armed Korean Americans. Guess they were not as sure of their forbearance as they would be of the cops.


Shooting them might not deter rioters, looters, and arsonists. It will certainly prevent them from doing it again.

MTMilitiaman
January 11, 2006, 05:49 AM
In a situation like NOLA, a car may very well be your life. Any hopes you have of leaving the troubled area may rely on your ability to prevent them from burning it. Legally, that may not be defensible. But if they are within throwing distance of my house, you can bet I am going to shoot them. If it gets their attention, it is supposed to. If it pisses them off, tough. I got ammo to burn. But only one house. If they think taking on a family of rifleman with Movaltov cocktails and rocks is a good idea, they aren't that smart. If it is their desire to vent anger and frustration, they should get a boxing bag or destroy their own stuff. If they expect to earn my sympathy to their plight or support for their cause by burning my house or car, they are sadly mistaken. And if they wish to make a statement or prove a point, I challenge them to make a louder one than my Kalashnikov. Will more people die because of it? Probably. But not the people I care most about, and face it, some people desperately need to be shot. If you think destroying other people's property and livelihoods is a valid way to draw attention to a transgression, actual or perceived, you're one of them. There is a difference between "peaceably" assembling to "petition the Government for a redress of grievences," and smashing and burning everything in sight. One is morally upstanding and protected by the Constitution, the other is morally indefensible and reduces you to nothing more than a varmint or pest to be eliminated in the interest of damage control. It's like shooting mice before they chew through a lamp cord and cause a house fire. It is a sad condition, but if that is how it must be, then so be it--behave in a civil manner or die.

As for the French, they are not my favorite people. My main "beef" with them right now is how hypocritical and assanine they, of all people, sound calling us arrogant. It is almost as bad as the British calling us imperialistic or the Germans criticizing us for going to war.

Old Dog
January 11, 2006, 02:31 PM
Byron Quick, yes, I acknowledged that ...
BUT NOT IN KOREATOWN! The Koreans, once they started resisting, pretty much saved the balance of their neighborhood.

Yes, and the lesson is clear. Criminals are more deterred by citizens willing to use deadly force that by law enforcement ... My point is, again, those who would riot seem much more willing to do battle against law enforcement than an armed citizenry. In L.A., the rioters destroyed their own neighborhoods despite police presence; when confronted by rifle and shotgun toting business owners, the rioters collectively seemed to instinctively understand the rules of engagement ... had turned on them.

It is perhaps some strange quirk of the culture we've spawned in our urban areas, but an aggressive law enforcement response has, in the past, seemingly exacerbated riot situations and seen increased violence and shootings, contrasted to events where response by a significant number of armed citizens seemed to de-escalate the spread of further violence and shootings.

Boogyman
January 11, 2006, 04:36 PM
> if they are within throwing distance of my house, you can bet I am going to shoot them.
>If it pisses them off, tough. I got ammo to burn.
>If they think taking on a family of rifleman with Movaltov cocktails and rocks is a good idea, they aren't that smart.
>I challenge them to make a louder one than my Kalashnikov. Will more people die because of it? Probably.
>face it, some people desperately need to be shot.
>reduces you to nothing more than a varmint or pest to be eliminated in the interest of damage control.
>It's like shooting mice before they chew through a lamp cord and cause a house fire.
>behave in a civil manner or die.


Let me ask you something. Have you ever killed anyone?
The reason I ask is because I have, in war, and it's not something I would want to do again unless I had absolutely no other choice.
Having a "Kalishnikov" does not make you a man. Having CHARACTER does.

Duncaninfrance
January 11, 2006, 05:07 PM
Some of you may know me by now, some may not BUT.........I am English and I now live in France.
You may remember that the English were quite involved with fighting the French over a long number of years before the 20C arrived.

I have visited many WW1 & WW2 cemetaries and battlefields here and if any of you have been to Verdun, or the Marne, or the Somme or Oradour-sur-Glane or the Vercors, or a thousand other sites that commemorate the dead of France in the 2 World Wars then you would know what a pathetic and repulsive attitude those who call them cowards really show.

As a nation you have never had to live under the control of another, even for a short time ( and DON'T bring up the war of indipendance because that was the English fighting the English! )

I have seen too many memorials to those who were murdered by the Nazis and I know too many people who remember the suffering that was imposed here. So, stop shouting about things you cannot understand.
Duncan

MTMilitiaman
January 11, 2006, 10:51 PM
Boogyman, so what are you suggesting? You let them burn your house? Just run out the back door? And then what? I personally don't see much of a choice when you have a mob advancing with the intent to destroy everything, or most everything in their path. Or even just looters. Just tell them to take what they want and leave? As long as they leave you alone? And then you do what for food, water, medical supplies?

All I am saying is that if it comes down to living in a refrigerator box if I am lucky enough to survive the lunicy without my house as shelter and the equipment it provides, or defending what is mine, I am going to defend myself. I am not going to stand idly by and watch my house burn, and I am not going to allow myself to become part of their statement. That is what firearms ownership for self-defense is all about--refusing to be a victim. I don't see how combat experience is required here. It could be a benefit, for sure, but the statistics tell us that firearms are used by law abiding American citizens for self defense perhaps up to 7000 times a day. I have a hard time believing all of these people have previous combat experience, and yet they get the job done because they aren't sheep, they enjoy life, and refuse to allow it to be taken from them without a fight.

CAnnoneer
January 12, 2006, 12:08 AM
I have visited many WW1 & WW2 cemetaries and battlefields here and if any of you have been to Verdun, or the Marne, or the Somme or Oradour-sur-Glane or the Vercors, or a thousand other sites that commemorate the dead of France in the 2 World Wars then you would know what a pathetic and repulsive attitude those who call them cowards really show.

The French have historically been great fighters since the times of Julius Caesar. Nobody has questioned that. However, their back was broken in WW1 due to horrendous casualties. That made them defeatist and unwilling to fight in WW2, and that attitude seems to have remained the dominant one, with the notable but statistically insignificant exception of OAS in Algiers.

If you are still not convinced, please consider what Charles Martel, Cardinal Richelieu, Louis XIV, Napoleon Buonaparte, or even Charles de Gaule would feel seeing Paris burnt by Muslim foreigner hooligans. If the modern French are of the same stature as their famous predecessors, shouldn't we see a respective reaction? We certainly have not.

Let's face it: Europe is wallowing in white guilt, mandated multiculturalism, socialism, and executive impotence exactly because anybody who stands up and tries to defend national interests is immediately labeled and discarded as "racist", "bigot", and "nazi". The result is a pathetic downspiral of cultural and national suicide.

If we do not get our act together, we're next...

f4t9r
January 12, 2006, 12:24 AM
The French saved our butts in the Revolutionary War. Gave us the Statue of Liberty, remember?


that was then , now they turn thier Backs on the USA

Don Gwinn
January 12, 2006, 12:45 AM
All the French-bashing is pretty pointless. Whether this same thing could happen in the U.S. is a matter open for debate, but personally I wouldn't be that surprised to see it.

Boogyman
January 12, 2006, 01:43 AM
Boogyman, so what are you suggesting? You let them burn your house? Just run out the back door? And then what? I personally don't see much of a choice when you have a mob advancing with the intent to destroy everything, or most everything in their path.

All I am saying is that if it comes down to living in a refrigerator box if I am lucky enough to survive the lunicy without my house as shelter and the equipment it provides, or defending what is mine, I am going to defend myself. I am not going to stand idly by and watch my house burn

statistics tell us that firearms are used by law abiding American citizens for self defense perhaps up to 7000 times a day.

I don't have any problem at all with your protecting yourself and your family and home. In fact I would help you do just that if there were no other alternative. It was the many statements you made in your earlier post #42, which I singled out in my post #44, which indicated to me that you considered shooting people as if they were just pests or mice as you put it. You also stated something about some people "desperately needing to be shot", and that sounded to me as if you were the one that desperately wanted to shoot someone.
Killing people changes you forever. Some people end up with the attitude that life is cheap, others that life is precious. I'm of the latter opinion, and when I see someone making careless, bravado statements such as yours, I feel the compulsion to respond.
I also feel that posts like that put a bad light on the entire pro-gun community. Some anti-gunner could take your post and hold it up as evidence that we are all a bunch of trigger-happy, paranoid lunatics who are just waiting for a chance to blow people away.
Where did you get the 7,000 incident a day number? I find that hard to believe, can you tell me how you arrived at that?

MTMilitiaman
January 12, 2006, 02:44 AM
Point taken Boogyman. Perhaps it comes across differently than I intended it. I am not anxious to shoot anyone. But at the same time, I don't feel a lot of compansion for those who feel it necessary to throw a temper tantrum at the expense of the rest of society. The anti-gunners aren't likely to agree with a lot of what I say. And while many of them might try to sympathize with the rioters and blame it on society or what not, I am far less willing to sympathize with them until they drop the fire bombs and stop behaving like 3 year-olds. Then we can discuss grievances as adults in a civilized society. Until then, all bravado aside, my primary concern is protecting myself and my family from their immature foolishness and pathetic, unresponsible antics. Everything else, including who or whatever pissed them off is a very distant second.

I can't say I wouldn't feel any remorse or that it wouldn't change me, and without ever being put in such a situation I can't say for sure, but I just doubt I would lose too much sleep over it. Maybe I am wrong. I hope I never find out.

roscoe
January 12, 2006, 03:27 AM
When they helped us, it was before they took some major hits. Thousands killed in the French Revolution, Napoleonic wars, little wars of the 19th Century, millions killed in WWI, probably thousands killed in WWII, Viet Nam, Algeria. Those left are the draft dodgers and physically unfit.
Please, I would love to hear your theories of French eugenics. Were the survivors somehow genetically deficient? Wait, how does genetics work again? Oh, lord!

Boogyman
January 12, 2006, 04:15 PM
Point taken Boogyman. Perhaps it comes across differently than I intended it. I am not anxious to shoot anyone.
Understood. Thank you.
I am far less willing to sympathize with them until they drop the fire bombs and stop behaving like 3 year-olds.
Not sure who "they" are, is this a generalisation?
my primary concern is protecting myself and my family
You should see my "armory" and "ammo depot" in the basement
I can't say I wouldn't feel any remorse or that it wouldn't change me, and without ever being put in such a situation I can't say for sure, but I just doubt I would lose too much sleep over it. Maybe I am wrong.

First of all, putting another human being in your sights and actually pulling that trigger for the 1st time is a hell of a lot harder than people think, even when they are shooting at you.When someone talks about it as if it's like lighting a cigarette they have no idea what they are saying.
Secondly, when you walk over and look down at your 1st kill, that moment will change you profoundly and stay with you the rest of your life. Mine was a 14-year-old kid with the back of his head missing (my bullet). I still lose sleep over it 35 years later.
I, too, hope you never have to experience that, I would'nt wish that on anyone.

CAnnoneer
January 13, 2006, 12:17 AM
when you walk over and look down at your 1st kill, that moment will change you profoundly and stay with you the rest of your life.
I still lose sleep over it 35 years later.

Please explain.

Art Eatman
January 13, 2006, 01:09 AM
Y'all can discuss the emotions of killing by PM. This thread has gone wandering, and it's nighty-bye time.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "French keep safe with gun control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!