Khuks and guns

S

Steven F

Joined
Oct 12, 1999
Messages
1,237
I think it's probably safe to say that most khuk owners are gun owners. That being the case, I thought it appropriate to post this quote that I came across. Though from a past era, I think there's a real clear message here about where this country is heading.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." -- Adolf Hitler, 1935
 
OK, Steven

How do you think, does US have Adolf or should US have?

------------------
\(^o^)/ Mizutani Satoshi \(^o^)/
 
I for one may well be here to witness my right ( as a US citizen )to defend myself receive an ignomious burial. Matter of fact if I bury just one gun a week for a year, they can have what's left over. But then I could change my mind by then.

Before they came up with "Never Again" for a motto, the JDL used to use "Every Jew a .22". To my knowledge, my family hasn't been Jewish Since the Pope gave Prince Stephen of Hungary a set of royal jewels for converting about a thousand years back, but...

There have almost always been more decent people out there than outlaws. And outlaws fear guns and knives and sticks and dogs. They especially fear cops who have guns and sticks and dogs to hurt them with, and who ( the cops ) belong to the biggest gang on the street. The more guns in a community the less the crime and the politer the government workers treat the citizens.

Works where I live. Matter of fact, the Deputies around here have a steel plate shoot every year that civilians and cops from all over the state come to. The county judge shoots his Les Baer .45.

BTW, Uncle Bill, Ghost was talking about the WWII Liberator pistol a while back. Silver State Arms has one in a glass case. It's on the NE corner of Kietzke and E. Moana.

------------------
' ...and on the Eighth Day, God said: "Murphy, you take over... " '


[This message has been edited by Rusty (edited 12 November 1999).]
 
Rusty, a book-length scientific study has just come out that completely supports your idea that the more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, the less crime. I have the book at work, so when I get to work Monday, I'll post the name and author. Unfortunately, the national, liberal media will never give this study the attention it gives the anti-gun stuff.

WrongFriend, I would like to respond to your question, but I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm not real sharp, so if you'll take the time to make your question more simple for me, I really will try to respond. I'm more than happy to give my opinion, even on matters I know nothing about.
 
Criminals will always want guns. They will always get them someway. If they can't steal them from civilians because the civilians can't own them anymore, then that leaves just one bunch of people walking around armed to bushwhack and get a gun from. Good luck to all you cops.

Your first gun only has to be good enough to get you your second gun.

And at 5'4" tall, the saying " God created man, but Col. Colt made them equal " makes a lot of sense to me.
 
Well, Steve... I have to agree that you are correct at least as far as I am concerned. I own a couple of handguns as well as a Khukuri. I think that it is important for people to remember that you have a right to defend yourself. The most important thing to remember is that the most effective and powerful weapon we have at our disposal is a focused mind. (I can honestly say, from the point of view of a person who has had to use force to defend self and others, that as far as my weapons are concerned, that is the most money I have ever spent on something I hope never to use.) For myself, I really try to avoid situations and places that would place me in a situation which would require such measures.

I think that the entire gun control issue only targets the law-abiding gun owners. People need to be held accountable for their actions. I for one am awfully tired of having to pay for the anti-social and irresponsible actions of the criminal element. If you use a weapon to commit a crime, then they ought to nail you to the wall - not penalize the segment of the population which is comprised of responsible law-abiding citizens. I enjoy shooting... I find the dicipline involved in it to be very Zen. I am grateful that I have the right to carry a gun to protect myself. I am confident that should the need ever arise again, God forbid, then I would be fully capable of protecting the lives of my loved ones and myself. We should jealously guard our right to defend ourselves.
From what I have read, the kamis pray over the khukuris... blessing them in the hope that the owner never has to use it in violence. I find that to be an awfully nice sentiment. I bought mine to for use as a field tool. However, if a vine or small tree menaces me or mine, I won't hesitate.
smile.gif
 
We outnumber the BG`s,and are better armed.Why do people allow this criminal behavior?
 
One of the problems we may have with a gun thread here is that some of the people outside the US may not fully understand.

Let me give a primer on the issue, as quick as I can.

A nation's violence level is a function of it's level of "cultural violence", not the amount or even type of weapons. Examples: Mexico has gun control laws as strict as Japan, Singapore or wherever but have crime rates so far in excess of the US it ain't funny. See also the US Department of State travel advisories for Mexico...last I checked it ran several pages. The classic opposite example is the Swiss with less crime than most European nations yet shooting is the national sport, full-auto machine guns are required in the majority of homes, gun carry permits are fairly easy to obtain.

If you're in a strict gun control nation like Japan and you're being told the low crime rate is due to gun control, you're being lied to. It's that simple.

In the US over the past decade, a number of states have put in systems whereby people able to pass a background check and willing to take training are able to get permits to carry loaded concealed firearms. The total number of states allowing widescale civilian armament of that type is now 31 out of 50. We call these permits "CCW" for "Carry Concealed Weapons". None of those 31 states suffered any increase in violence; most saw small decreases, and in the most violent inner-city areas the violence *drops* were the greatest. There are now about five million legally armed people in the US. See also the original Lott/Mustard study from the University of Chicago School of Law and Economics...any search engine will turn it up.

The upshot: reducing or eliminating gun control doesn't hurt public safety, it increases personal freedom and it reduces the risk of tyrrany.

That last is controversial but the fact is, most of the true non-war, unjustifiable murders in the 20th century have been by governments. Would the East Timorese have needed help from the Gorkas if all 400,000 of 'em had had an Enfield 10-shot bolt-action rifle and 50 rounds of ammo? Hell no - Pala's friends and relatives could have stayed home! Go find the Nazi invasion plans for Switzerland, they took one look at the idea of dealing with 4,000,000 armed determined people in the mountains and just shuddered, regardless of how big their bank accounts were!

Any government that tries to convince you that your disarmament is necessary for your safety isn't just lying - it's deliberately giving itself the potential to commit mass murder.

Why risk it?

Jim March
Webmaster, Equal Rights for CCW Home Page http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw
(I am an activist trying to force a CCW system in California where there isn't one yet.)
 
Thank you for clarifying the situation, Jim. Well said. CCW should be allowed in all 50 of our states provided you pass the background check. I really don't think that the government is seeking to disarm the population so that it can oppress it, though. I think that that is just the by-product of the legislation. Our legislators are simply trying to maintain the support of their constituancies and the gun control lobby is a very vocal part of it. In the wake of social disasters such as the one in Columbine High school, it is easy to see how the knee-jerk reaction to "get rid of the guns" can be appealing. I say, hold the parents accountable for the actions of their children. The mentality that these children had to develop in order to perpetrate the kind of violent crime that they did, did not form overnight. And it most certainly did not appear without warning. I firmly believe that if their parents had been more attentive to what their kids were doing, reading, watching on TV and downloading from the internet, then this sort of event might never have occurred. At the very least, the likelihood would have been greatly reduced. This is what I meant when I said earlier that gun control isn't what we need. That's simply "feel good legislation." It gives the appearance to its supporters that we are taking steps to remove the violence from our streets and schools. Well, I submit that I have never seen a gun go off by itself. It takes a person to squeeze the trigger. Gun control simply sidesteps the issue. In the absence of guns, violence would be perpetrated by other means... knives, clubs, etc. Gun control, to my mind, is not only unconstitutional, but just plain foolish. I don't agree with the all the dogma of the NRA, but I am grateful they are there to speak out for our rights.
 
Dave, a couple of points related to:

"I really don't think that the government is seeking to disarm the population so that it can oppress it, though."

First, realize that on THIS forum especially we are an international bunch. While that comment *may* be accurate in the US it most definately isn't in, say, Indonesia - the forced disarmament of the population is a key factor in the army's fight to control "captive populations" that want to break away from tyrrany. East Timor isn't alone in wanting a divorce from that (literal) gang.

Second, in 1946 a pitched gunfight threw out a totally corrupt political machine in one area as citizens shot up the local jail where ballot-boxes were in mid-stuff. The citizens took over all local government functions until new elections could be held. That wasn't Burma or some little flyspeck in Africa, it was in Athens TENNESSEE. Once that county was cleaned up, the citizens hailed as heros after the fight became part of a larger state-wide reform movement. One of the politicians to jump on the reform bandwagon and praise that use of force was a gent by the name of Al Gore Senior!

So when his son, vice president Al Gore Jr today talks about rabid gun control, he knows from his family's history that citizen gunfire can indeed be used to fight tyrrany IN THE US. So somebody please tell me what that jackarse has in mind?

References:

Articles on the Battle of Athens: http://www.tngenweb.usit.com/newspaper/kns001.htm
http://users.netonecom.net/~gwood/TLP/ref/tnrevolt.htm

Official state of Tennessee history page with a quick blurb on the battle plus details of Al Gore Sr's connection: http://www.state.tn.us/sos/history/modern.htm

Jim March (Who is fighting a lawsuit against my Sheriff over illegallity and unconstitutionality in CCW permit issuance next month, on 12/20/99 - if I lose, I'm out $30,000+ in opposing counsel legal fees so I've done years of research in preperation. In other words, yer dealing with a pro here!)
 
A salute (21 guns!!) to Jim March. I faced a similar problem with a local anti-gun police chief about 25 years ago, but I didn't fight, I just carried illegally til my state passed a 'shall issue' law for CCW. Jim has put a lot on the line here and I for one wish him well!
 
...and a couple of comments on other posts: Dave: Any government, anywhere, that engages in wholesale disarmament of its population base is BY DEFINITION oppressive and tyrannical. Concentration camps, progroms and massacres ALMOST inevitably follow.

StevenF: I'm reasonably sure that the quote you attributed to A. Hitler has been shown to be bogus...although I can't quote anything to prove my recollection.

And lastly: long before I owned my first firearm, I had already defended myself several times with knives. The real weapon is the brain and heart, and a determination not to let yourself be victemized. The tool will make itself available.

[This message has been edited by gunhou (edited 13 November 1999).]
 
Just after Veteran's Day in the US, this is very pertinent to the changes in the US. Some years back an article pointed out something that said it well. In the '50's an 03 Springfield, a Krag, a 1917 Enfield, Garand, M1 Carbine or Johnson rifle was a symbol of our country's independence, freedom, and justice. It stood for those who defended us and we only issued the best to our soldiers, to be venerated for those countrymen who had used it to keep our country free. It was given respect, as was our military, who were us or ours.

Let me say it another way. Our nations's service rifle was GOOD. It stood for the things and ancestors that had gone before and were still looking over our shoulders, and the men still on duty. Like the Gorkha's service khukuri, it meant dedication, honor, bravery, sacrifice.

In the 90's, service rifles are evil. So evil, that the public shouldn't be allowed to buy civilian ( semi automatic ) versions of the ( full auto ) military ones even the obsolete ones.

------------------
' ...and on the Eighth Day, God said: "Murphy, you take over... " '


[This message has been edited by Rusty (edited 13 November 1999).]
 
There is some very learned and valuable information here which I'm guessing is appreciated by everybody.

Personally, I'm keeping my fully loaded antique .38 police special in the drawer next to my bed no matter what Al Gore or anybody else says.

Unless this old memory is failing me again I recall a little town down South, Georgia, I think, where the mayor made it mandatory that every household own a firearm. If you did NOT have a gun you got busted. The crime rate in the town dropped dramatically after all citizens complied with the new ordinance.

------------------
Uncle Bill
Himalayan Imports Website
http://members.aol.com/himimp/index.html
 
There's nothing wrong with the "lowly" .38spl. My most potent handgun is a 5shot .38spl "snubby" with a 2" barrel.

Let me make one last argument. When I ride a motorcycle, I wear a helmet (did so before it was mandatory) plus I wear $100 gloves with heavy armor, elbow/forearm high impact plastic armor, a padded segmented nylon spine protector under my jacket and knee/shin armor. And boots. The last time I crashed I went down at 50 miles an hour, rolled for 75 feet, and with all that on got up without a scratch. To say I was pleased about the outcome was an understatement...true, I had to limp the bike to a salvage yard and pick up about $75 in parts but compared to what could have happened?

Is anyone ready to argue that those preperations indicate a DESIRE to crash a motorcycle? I can assure you that's not the case...no more than getting a CCW permit and packing a gun means I *want* to get in a gunfight!

My legally-carried gun poses no more threat to society than that crash armor, and is carried for exactly the same reason:

"Just in case!"

Minor point: Gunhou, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that "Concentration camps, progroms and massacres" *inevitably* follow civilian disarmament. My point above is that the RISK is too great, and that there's no counter-balancing benefit to a disarmed society.

For more info on just how common such "out of control murderous governments" are and their link to strict gun control, see also: http://www.jpfo.org

Jim
 
Weapons rarely become obsolete, rather they become obsolescent as a rule. Which means either a technology improvement ( detachable as opposed to fixed, stripped fed magazines ) is achieved, or a cheaper way to manufacture something that'll do as good a job. Contrast the Thompson SMG and the UZI SMG. That there are advances in the field does not take away from the effectiveness of a firearm thus made obsolescent. The M1 Garand and the FN49 and for that matter the SKS are every bit as accurate, as dependable, and as hard hitting as they ever were.

A determined and competent marksman can be counted on to take out 5 lesser opponents with a 126 year old design ( Colt 1873 SAA 45 ) before stopping to reload. The 1860 Light Cavalry Saber can be used in every bit as devastating a fashion today as it could back then.

And a khukuri in the hands of a Gorkhali sends the same message today as it did 200 years ago.

I'm not saying that we should stop being scrupulously fair, loving, compassionate, and longsuffering. But a gentle, humble man with a 45 on his hip is more apt to accomplish his purposes without trouble or interuption than one who is defenseless. Just my opinion.

As I've said before, I don't carry, I just don't often get very far away from personal safety equipment.

[This message has been edited by Rusty (edited 13 November 1999).]
 
Well, between a recent little article in my school newspaper and _this_ happy little thread, we have finally added the one straw that broke the camel's back and I will finally be joining the JPFO.

(how's that for a mangled metaphor?)

Funny part is, I don't even necesarily agree with their take on Judaism...

I completely agree with their views on the second amendment, however.

I'm kind of excited; I've never joined a political group before.

-Dave
 
Jim, I have to say that your analogy of the motorcycle armor and the ccw is perfect. Well said!
 
The town is Kenasaw,GA.I wear my cop armor on the BMW R100R.It got pretty light at 130 mph.I don`t know how fast it will go.It will get there in a hurry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top