The gun as an instrument of peace

[wyntrout]

This isn't like our Constitutional Right, but then most of Europe doesn't allow civilian gun ownership for self-defense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gHX5lAslnTc

[LaP]

That was the most powerful, articulate, and structured pro-gun argument I have ever listened to. He laid out the most rational explanation for bearing arms in peacetime as well as wartime.

Please, I urge all forum members to watch this video. It confirms our beliefs and it gives us a clam and logical argument against the anti-gun crowd.

[mr surveyor]

I didn't see/hear anything "pro-gun" in that 18 minutes of Amsterdam, world peace drivel. All I got from it was that government controlled military needed to have the best guns available to promote peace around the world.

What did I miss?

[wyntrout]

I just said this on the Human Right post:

Yeah, but in a government-controlled monopoly kind of way, not for civilian self defense!

I kept waiting for anything pro-gun for civilian self defense, but he was all about doing the protecting himself... and being a part of the World-Peace, one-world-type crap. That's more along Obama's aspirations... being the World Leader.

In other words, Mr S, ditto what you said.

Wynn:)

[LaP]

I didn't see/hear anything "pro-gun" in that 18 minutes of Amsterdam, world peace drivel. All I got from it was that government controlled military needed to have the best guns available to promote peace around the world.

What did I miss?

I guess I'll have to listen to it again. I came away with the impression that "choosing the gun" for the reasons he gave, was a just and honorable ideal. That being Anti-gun was foolish and naive.

Maybe it was I who missed something.

[wyntrout]

He only made the case for the government-controlled military having guns to protect the civilian populace... good guns.

Wynn:)

[LaP]

He only made the case for the government-controlled military having guns to protect the civilian populace... good guns.

Wynn:)

He did bring up the dramatic decline in violent crime in relation to civilian gun ownership. I guess I took his argument as more pro civilian gun ownership than governmental protection.
I'll review the vid tomorrow, it's getting late.

[TheTman]

The only part on individuals with gun was the story of his Father shooting at the *****. It sounded to me like guns needed to be in the hands of well governed army and police. Yes it says guns are necessary, if you are in the army. It's pro-gun in way that says yes they are needed, but only for government forces. Sounded very anti-gun OWNER to me. People with guns start wars .... my take is that it's Pro Gun, but Anti Gun Owner. Why did his Father only have some old gun that couldn't shot across the River, they probably already had gun control, and that one was something he had hid for years or something. Kind of New World Order type stuff.

[TheTman]

I didn't know the WWII term for Germans would get starred out.

[TriggerMan]

I guess I'll have to listen to it again. I came away with the impression that "choosing the gun" for the reasons he gave, was a just and honorable ideal. That being Anti-gun was foolish and naive.

Maybe it was I who missed something.I agree and noted that he asked for the audience to support their troops and fund them so they have appropriate weapons.

[TriggerMan]

The only part on individuals with gun was the story of his Father shooting at the *****. It sounded to me like guns needed to be in the hands of well governed army and police. Yes it says guns are necessary, if you are in the army. It's pro-gun in way that says yes they are needed, but only for government forces. Sounded very anti-gun OWNER to me. People with guns start wars .... my take is that it's Pro Gun, but Anti Gun Owner. Why did his Father only have some old gun that couldn't shot across the River, they probably already had gun control, and that one was something he had hid for years or something. Kind of New World Order type stuff.
One could make a long list of things he didn't say, but, you're jumping to conclusions which aren't warranted when you say he was against individual ownership.

He was explaining why armed services are still needed, how bad the world might be if there were no army and why he made a personal choice to become a soldier. He ended with an appeal to support their troops. Why read more into it?

[mr surveyor]

I don't have the time nor desire to sit through it again, but I was under the impression that his father joined the military resistence prior to the german invasion and was issued the inferior firearm. I don't think he was just "joe blow the citizen" trying to keep the riffraff off his lawn with his antique rabbit gun. And the statements concerning the reduction in violence when comparing statistics over the last 500 years....... wasn't he referring to the societal changes that were in part brought about by the way wars were fought, i.e., moved away from hand to hand brawls with pointy objects to firearms that were much more effective/deadly. The introduction of firearms and their steady technological advancement over the centuries made it possible for the smallest man in one group to be as effective as the largest/strongest man in the opposing group - at distance. This tended to even the odds for all, and thus reduced (not eliminate) the threat of invading hordes of those that would rape and pillage. That's just the way I interpret what the man was saying about firearms in general. I heard absolutely no suggestion that the common citizen should be armed.

just my take


surv

[LaP]

I guess each of us will take away something different from this video. That's OK, the basic premise was that guns are not the enemy.

[TriggerMan]

I guess each of us will take away something different from this video. That's OK, the basic premise was that guns are not the enemy.
good summation, like the brevity