NationStates

Papait wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
Indeed. Just because someone chooses to give up a right is no reason for them to take away anyone elses right to make that decision by forcing them to conform to their choice.

It's the social contract, it's the base of any state. People who do not want to abide the social contract and wish to keep their right to violence should move to Somalia or Liberia where there is no functioning government.
You have to choose between living in a state where the government protects you, or where you protect yourself, you can't choose both

How about those who do not like Americas gun-rights move to a m,re restrictive nanny-state?

The government CAN'T protect you 100% of the time. You have to be prepared for your own defense.

I'm not sure how to answer the OP. Every mentally sound woman should be able to possess a gun, and have the ability to buy one. But, I'm not quite sure what the question being asked implies.

All citizens of the US should receive gun educational training.

It's the right of every American to use a firearm but let's not educate any of them in their use before selling them one.

I could take archery in high school (didn't have to pass it) and had to take a mandatory driving class (BS class) before being eligible for my license. When I turn 18 I can go to army and get my own gun for free! But they train me in its use. Or I could go out and buy one with no education on it! Cool!

Guardians & parents can opt out but not allowing the citizen the opportunity to learn about a basic right is utterly stupid, especially the most directly lethal one.

I agree with gun education. In the US, we have a "hands off, just say no" approach to controversial subjects like sex, drugs, and guns and, rather than taking the rational approach to educate people about advantages and disadvantages, empowering them to make decisions on their own, we just tell them "say no!".

Well gee, that is profoundly ignorant and short sighted. For one, there are very positive and negative experiences for each subject, and since humans are naturally curious and inclined to see what the fuss is all about, it is better to evaulate those pros/cons so that proper risk matrices can be individually ascertained. It beats an uneducated person getting a STD, overdosing on a drug, or inadvertently shooting somebody because they played with their dad's gun.

That is illogical and disasterous. It is also very lazy.

"out of sight, out of mind": The American Way tm

Techno-Titania wrote:All citizens of the US should receive gun educational training.

It's the right of every American to use a firearm but let's not educate any of them in their use before selling them one.

I could take archery in high school (didn't have to pass it) and had to take a mandatory driving class (BS class) before being eligible for my license. When I turn 18 I can go to army and get my own gun for free! But they train me in its use. Or I could go out and buy one with no education on it! Cool!

Guardians & parents can opt out but not allowing the citizen the opportunity to learn about a basic right is utterly stupid, especially the most directly lethal one.

We used to have gun safety classes in schools. Try doing that now and every damn liberal would have a conniption.

Big Jim P wrote:

Techno-Titania wrote:All citizens of the US should receive gun educational training.

It's the right of every American to use a firearm but let's not educate any of them in their use before selling them one.

I could take archery in high school (didn't have to pass it) and had to take a mandatory driving class (BS class) before being eligible for my license. When I turn 18 I can go to army and get my own gun for free! But they train me in its use. Or I could go out and buy one with no education on it! Cool!

Guardians & parents can opt out but not allowing the citizen the opportunity to learn about a basic right is utterly stupid, especially the most directly lethal one.

We used to have gun safety classes in schools. Try doing that now and every damn liberal would have a conniption.

Yep, I remember back in the 70's in grade school, firearm safety, ended around the mid 80's but was mostly due to budget cuts in the school district.
The only way to get any sort of firearms safety training now days for kids, is either in private schools, or by an adult/parents(s).
The private school my kids attend use air rifles and they target shoot 1 day a week in gym class, they also teach archery. Then on the weekends I usually take them down to a local gun range.

As for the OP. I think all women who wish to be armed to do so, the same goes for anybody really.

Big Jim P wrote:

Techno-Titania wrote:All citizens of the US should receive gun educational training.

It's the right of every American to use a firearm but let's not educate any of them in their use before selling them one.

I could take archery in high school (didn't have to pass it) and had to take a mandatory driving class (BS class) before being eligible for my license. When I turn 18 I can go to army and get my own gun for free! But they train me in its use. Or I could go out and buy one with no education on it! Cool!

Guardians & parents can opt out but not allowing the citizen the opportunity to learn about a basic right is utterly stupid, especially the most directly lethal one.

We used to have gun safety classes in schools. Try doing that now and every damn liberal would have a conniption.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but don't only a third of Americans own guns? Exactly why should every student be taught something the majority of them won't use?

Ifreann wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
We used to have gun safety classes in schools. Try doing that now and every damn liberal would have a conniption.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but don't only a third of Americans own guns? Exactly why should every student be taught something the majority of them won't use?

Why teach children how to identify, nouns, adjectives, predicates, etc. when a majority won't use when they graduate? What is wrong about teaching and instructing on firearms? There is instruction on how to operate a vehicle in schools.

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Maybe I'm misremembering, but don't only a third of Americans own guns? Exactly why should every student be taught something the majority of them won't use?

Why teach children how to identify, nouns, adjectives, predicates, etc. when a majority won't use when they graduate? What is wrong about teaching and instructing on firearms? There is instruction on how to operate a vehicle in schools.

The majority of Americans neither speak, read or write in English when they leave school?

I would say that men should simply keep any rude comments/actions to themselves, then it would be largely unnecessary, at least in this case.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:
Why teach children how to identify, nouns, adjectives, predicates, etc. when a majority won't use when they graduate? What is wrong about teaching and instructing on firearms? There is instruction on how to operate a vehicle in schools.

The majority of Americans neither speak, read or write in English when they leave school?

in parts of LA, maybe.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:
Why teach children how to identify, nouns, adjectives, predicates, etc. when a majority won't use when they graduate? What is wrong about teaching and instructing on firearms? There is instruction on how to operate a vehicle in schools.

The majority of Americans neither speak, read or write in English when they leave school?

What I am getting at is, what is wrong about learning or being instructed on the safe use of firearms?

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
The majority of Americans neither speak, read or write in English when they leave school?

What I am getting at is, what is wrong about learning or being instructed on the safe use of firearms?

Ifreann answered that in the post you quoted. It's a waste of time for the majority.

And your counterargument was "why teach English and driving?", two things that are used by almost 100% of students after school. Are you even trying here?

Why not ban guns alltogether? We Europeans could and our society is safer...

Considering America is a country where the police allows white guys with guns (and possibly a violent past) to walk around freely and untouched (even if they shoot an innocent black guy in the street), but will open fire on a completely innocent black man (with no violent history) just for leaving a store with a purchased toy sword, I think this will spell a very bad time for any non white female holding a weapon at all.

No, because this is about equality. Giving only women guns isn't exactly equal, also you know that some people consider just LOOKING at somebody harassment, and wouldn't hesitate to shoot or threaten somebody because of it.

Braberbourg wrote:Why not ban guns alltogether? We Europeans could and our society is safer...

Really? I'm European and the last time I checked guns were still legal here.

Number of Icelanders: 325.670

Number of registered firearms owned by Icelanders: 72.640

Must be very unsafe here, oh wait.

Heisenbee wrote:No, because this is about equality. Giving only women guns isn't exactly equal, also you know that some people consider just LOOKING at somebody harassment, and wouldn't hesitate to shoot or threaten somebody because of it.

Women have an equal right to self defense, including the use of guns should they so choose.

It's like, they are people too. Who knew. [/sarcasm]

Big Jim P wrote:

Heisenbee wrote:No, because this is about equality. Giving only women guns isn't exactly equal, also you know that some people consider just LOOKING at somebody harassment, and wouldn't hesitate to shoot or threaten somebody because of it.

Women have an equal right to self defense, including the use of guns should they so choose.

It's like, they are people too. Who knew. [/sarcasm]

I'm not saying they CANT get guns, I'm saying that they all shouldn't get guns because of "misogyny"
And I think that men and women are equal.

Heisenbee wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
Women have an equal right to self defense, including the use of guns should they so choose.

It's like, they are people too. Who knew. [/sarcasm]

I'm not saying they CANT get guns, I'm saying that they all shouldn't get guns because of "misogyny"
And I think that men and women are equal.

I was agreeing with you.

Big Jim P wrote:

Heisenbee wrote:
I'm not saying they CANT get guns, I'm saying that they all shouldn't get guns because of "misogyny"
And I think that men and women are equal.

I was agreeing with you.

Oh.

Heisenbee wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
I was agreeing with you.

Oh.

It is about equality. Women are equal. They have the exact same rights to self defense as men, including the right to use a firearm if they so choose. That doesn't mean that every woman (or man for that matter) should have a firearm, and no one should ever be forced to own or carry one against their will.

Exactly yes but they need some training so that they can use Army-grade guns in the case of war and this policy is also for all genders too.

"Fear no man or woman,
No matter what their size.
Call upon me,
And I will equalize."
-Engraved on the side of my M1911 .45
So yes I believe in the right for both men and women to carry a gun for self defense. I'd rather have a woman explain to the cops why the rapist is dead as opposed to allowing the rapist do as he/she pleases. And speaking from experience I'd rather have my (female) mugger bleeding out then being beaten to within an inch of my life. As the saying goes "God didn't make all men equal, Mr. Colt did".

WestRedMaple wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:Nor did I claim that you said that I did. I said that I never said the word "lead" or anything close to it. Do you seriously just stop reading mid sentence?

Sorry, I don't want reduce my pace just to keep up with someone so far behind.

No, it isn't. It's exactly what you've done.

Oh, have we reached the point where you just cut out things that blatantly prove you wrong? Sorry, but I'm not playing that.


Please refer to which post where I quoted something that is irrelevant to the topic. So far, I have only quoted two things and used them to expose your complete failure to read: my own posts, and the source we're talking about. Not once have I quoted anything that is "entirely different than what was being discussed." So either you're suffering from amnesia or you're blatantly being dishonest.

So you're I'm going with the 'nu-uh, nu-uh' gambit.

Fixed that for you. I'm sorry you have trouble with pronouns.

I mean really, you had all that time and the BEST you could come up with is "NOPE!!!" You could at least PRETEND you have am actual argument by attempting to address what's posted. Fuck, I even explicitly asked you to show me where I quoted something that is off topic of the discussion. Either you have a problem with amnesia and cannot remember things you've literally JUST read or you have a problem with projecting your problems onto others. Either way, not a single person is buying your childish game. You've lost. Bad. Your refusal to address basic questions is clear evidence of that.