A Firearm in Every Home.

[blue]

And this new program to require folks to Pack Heat will do what for
the average citizen?

No, citizens would not be required to "Pack Heat". Simply be trained in firearm safety and usage.

What size canon are you suggesting - .22, .357, .45 cal? Full Auto?

There is no one size fits all. I can handle a .45 and even the .50 BMG rifles, they arent for everybody.

Hey - canon - good idea ...
How about a 5" gun mounted on my front steps ... In case I feel 'threatened'.

Why a 5"? Why not build a bowling ball cannon and call it good?

"Threatened".

Also depending on the ordinance used your "cannon" could be classified as a destructive device and not legal.

Will I get a free Body Armor Vest with my government issued peace-keeper?

No. You will not be issued any firearms, only trained to safely use them. To my knowledge Body Armour currently used by Police and military are not legal for civilians to own.

Can I just *pass* on this New Deal?

You could certainly "pass" on owning a fire arm, but you would still be trained to safely handle and operate a variety of firearms.

You must be joking!!! Or is this how you'd plan to bring down the population of the world?

How would this bring down the population of the world? And no Im not joking.

Please guys...don't feed the trolls. It only encourages them.

I was asked a question and I responded. You on the other hand never miss a chance to be insulting and added nothing of value to this thread.

So you think we should teach everyone in the world to use a gun? And everyone should have a gun? How about those with mental disorders? They may not of done anything yet, but if someone is developing some form of mental health issue and they get a gun....?

Yes everybody should know how to safely use a firearm, even those with mental disorders. Obviously if you have a mental disorder you should not be allowed to own or be in unsupervised posession of a firearm.

And we do not need any more kids thinking guns and violence is cool thank you very much. Yes you are teaching them saftey but how much are 1st graders really going to take in? The main message you are teaching them is guns are ok.

Part of the problem is people are teaching kids that firearms equal violence, and that firearms cause violence. We need to be teaching kids younger then 1rst graders that firearms are not toys and to respect the damage they can do. Kids are taught not to play with knives, matches, lighters, etc, etc, before the first grade and most kids take it in quite readily. The main message everybody needs to learn is guns are OK and they need to be respected and handled accordingly.

As if people don't feel vunerable enough in this day and age out in the city! Yes they would have there own gun but thats no help when you are dead. A few seconds is all it takes, how the hell is someone meant to defend themselves in that time?

So people are better off defenseless is your argument?

It's awful even thinking of getting charities to hand out guns! Charities are meant to protect and help people, not turn them into killers, or allow more people to be hurt by these nasty guns.

Yes, its better to let the people recieving aid, food, and medical supplies be able to defend it. Arming them dosent turn them into killers it lets them defend themselves against those who will kill them for the goods they recieved. Giving them food and medical supplies only to turn them around and let others kill them is not charity.

I say tax on owning a gun should be increased everytime someone is shot. Enough people are killed as it is, do you really think giving more people guns is going to help that?!? End of.

Yes I do. Legal gun owners do a small minority of unjustified killings. Making it harder for people to legaly own firearms only makes for more victims and increases crime in general.

Come on people, you know that Blue KNOWS this topic is going to, well lets just say, "Hit the fan." Don't give him the satisfaction of sitting back and reading how everyone is going to get riled up over this. No matter how wrong this thread is to us all, it is his opinion and as far as I'm concerned, the only one with this opinion. As hard as it is to some, lets just leave him to his opinion and don't act on it.

Couldn't have said it better myself.....
Thanks!

Again, I was asked a question this is my response. I was hoping for a calm, rational discussion but that may have been wishfull thinking on my part.

What are we going to do with those who refuse to arm themselves?
Do we get to shoot them?

Nothing, this isnt Switzerland, or Israel. Thank you for taking this seriously, .

I think we should arm people with grumpy little dogs instead. You can carry them around in little holsters and everything (just in case). Start training people early on how to raise and train their own family protection. I can see it now...."you'll get your own chihuahua when you're old enough little Timmy. In the meantime, we're gonna teach you how to use it properly. First off.... never tell your yappy little dog to attack anyone unless you are sure they're a bad guy".
[/sarcasm]

Maybe issue an Adam West cat launcher?

honestly if eveyone had a gun, it would just come down to whoever could shoot first. Bad guy wouldn't have any reason not to shoot you on sight if they knew you were willing and able shoot back if you saw them first.

Bad example. The bad guy would in turn be detained by a legal gun owner trained for such situations.

Ooooh, I love it! Let's force everyone to own and use an item, whether they like it or not! That's true democracy at work, there.

While we're at it, let's force everyone to own and ride a motorcycle. Or own a green iguana. I personally think requiring ownership and skills in use of hand grenades and Arabian horses would be a great pre-requisite to buying prom tickets.

Brilliant!! I'm sure it's just what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution.

Nowhere did I say citizens would be forced to own or use a firearm, only that they would be trained to safely handle firearms. And I believe the Founders had this very thing in mind, an armed populace.

(Caveat: I own and know how to use firearms.)

So your point is what, exactly? To take what I wrote out of context for the amusment of those who are scared of firearms?

HHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa! Love your post!

Not saying your afraid of firearms but just maybe.

I was the person (or perhaps there were others) that PM'd blue a while back and asked how such a thing could be practical. Not everyone could carry arms - training is needed, and not all people have the aptitude or the ability. Some could not hit the broad side of a barn, and there would be others with physical, emotional or mental limitations.

It was a post from you that I am responding to.

Nowhere in blue's posts here did I see the word "EVERYONE". Other posters added that.

Whether I agree with the proposal or not is irrelevant - blue has plainly given this some thought and has proposed under what conditions arming citizens might be accomplished.

Okay, maybe some of this, or even all, would not work. The type of arms carried would have to be regulated - and law-abiding citizens would abide by that. (Yes, it's still the crooks that cause the trouble).

If, as blue suggests, you had been educated in firearm SAFETY (not USE) since the first grade, would you feel more at ease with this?

Is there anything here that anyone sees as workable, or has suggestions for improvement aside from calling blue a troll, and the stuff hitting the fan?

Firearm ownership is a contentious issue in Canada also - and is far too serious a subject to be derided and dismissed as I see being done here.

JMHO

Thank you.