Jingle Bells, guns as well, rifles all the way

It's only in a messed up backwards socialistic mindset where posing with a firearm and exercising a natural, Constitutional right is considered bad family values.

No surprise that an Aussie paper (no insult to any THG Aussie friends) would include this on the "weird but true" section. It's not weird at all, it's part of being American.

Took my brother in law shooting as his Christmas present, he loved it, made a convert of him, he's already got the paperwork to buy his own.
 
No ... I think most of the WORLD (perhaps with the exception of the jihaddists ... but they would have a hostage instead of Santa in the picture) would consider posing with Santa and a heap of guns with kids is in fact ... modelling extremely poor family values.

Our "messed up socialist country" is doing pretty well though thanks.

Only a few paranoid Americans seem to think that they need to "exercise their constitutional right to bear arms" by engaging in this sort of behaviour.

Jesus probably wouldn't be impressed ... neither would the pope.

If you have a photo like this on your wall you probably have a mullet too eh?

 
I think the confusion comes from Charlton Heston being in too many religious movies (He is not actually Moses).

I know Jesus would say "Its not a party till you break out the assault rifles!"
 
There are far more than a "few paranoid Americans" exercising their Constitutional rights.

Prior to the rise of anti-gun rhetoric of at least 1965, having a gun in the house was a way of life and absolutely no big deal. When I was a teenager, 20+ years ago, walking through my rural neighborhood with my shotgun to go hit some clay pigeons on my grandfather's farm was seen as a regular Saturday morning activity. Today...fuhgitabowdit...I'd have the cops swarmed around me with guns drawn demanding I succumb or be killed...let alone the aftermath of trips to a fro the police station and county courthouse.

It is only the fearful, the uninformed, the uneducated, and/or the politically motivated who maintain that removing all firearms from a society will reduce violent crime and murder.
 
Did you have a fully automatic assault rifles in your home when you were a kid? Because thats whats in those pictures, not some dude with a holstered handgun. They have fracking MINIGUNS in those "Holiday" pics. Also that looks like a 10 year old kid with an assault rifle and optional Grenade launcher for home protection (Can steal my stuff IF I BLOW IT ALL UP!). And take a breather no one is going to take your guns, but this is weird and American.

And how come no one has asked "Why is it necessary for people to celebrate Jesus H Christs birthday with guns?"

GE_XM214_Minigun-2.jpg


Does not equal

coolest-handgun.jpg
 
You ASSUME they are fully automatic, but much like other anti-gunners, the reality of a firearms functionality is far removed from how mean and evil the firearm looks. The minigun and other "fully automatic assault weapons" in that picture are most likely demilitarized props. Fully auto firearms, grenade launchers, etc can only be owned by a Class 3 FFL obtained through the FBI. Fully auto firearms are severely restricted, regulated, and must be registered with the address of where they are kept. The FBI must be notified when they are moved, even for gun shows and holiday pictures. Given the 2nd Amendment has been subverted and severe restrictions have been placed on the American people regarding what weapons they can own, it is a novelty to take a photo with a prop gun that looks like a fully auto firearm.

Keep in mind that Christmas in is as much a secular family holiday as it is a Christian observance. There are no overt Christian symbols or iconography in those photos. Santa Claus is a secular (created by the Coca-Cola Company mind you), not Christian, symbol of Christmas. The Yule Tree was adopted in the mid-1800's England and is hold over from the druids and pagan practices of the Middle East. The only remotely Christian symbol in those photos would be the wrapped gifts, and even that has been co-opted by commercialism and secular society. So, given the secular nature of the pictures and the secular nature that Christmas has evolved into, so what if they like to take a Christmas picture with guns.

And, so what if they are fully auto firearms? It's just a gun after all. Would there be this much discussion if the people in those holiday picts were holding swords, maces, and spears while wearing chain mail and plate mail armor? I highly doubt it! Where's your sense of tolerance and diversity? Or are guns just too evil that it can't be overlooked and must be demonized?
 



I think we are arguing two different points here I dont have any trouble with gun ownership. In fact Im in the market for my first handgun. Guns are useful. Period.

You bring up the constitutional rights issue right off the bat. I was laughing at the absurdity of the photos. Not trying to restrict gun ownership.

The point about the minigun and grenade launcher is that is in no way shape or form a home protection weapon. Can I buy a nuke? No. What if a sovereign country tries to invade my home? Can i Nuke them then?

Can I buy a tomahawk missile (I would want the tac version). No.

How about ordinance for my F-15? No.

And those guns are totally real (at least in the original report.)

I swear the guy up the street is a North Korean spy.







.
Seriously I think its weird. Not unconstitutional not immoral just kind of an odd thing to do.
 



Agreed with that. And sorry if this is insulting.
There are many things that looks insane side by side with Santa Claus; including guns, girls of little virtue, Stormtrooper etc...
BTW, i definitely can't understand how a handgun can be useful at home. But i think this is a cultural question.

Oh!Oh!Oh!
 
"Civilised" men give away their guns, find them - illegal, uncomfortable, disgusting ,pointless (as in just go to the grocery store) etc

I might remind everyone, go back 150 years ago, and before that til the beginning, and these attitudes would be found foolish.
So, keeping somewhat with those traditions, from the very beginning, some people obviously have the exact opposite POV, and not only should be respected, they also have the guns heheh
 
So, we were uncivil back then?
Might I also remind everyone, that those who wrote did so in a much more elegant way, was closer to nature, and actually knew how to handle nature, something thats often forgotten about as well.
Back then, where guns were wore on the hip, society boomed, and certainly didnt destroy itself.
Theres been many a OP on this forum, and many arent truly being looked at, and shows the disruption this unarmed society today has, where its going, whos leading it, and whether its seen as being better than before these ideas about such things as arms etc or not.
The rising voice is, it isnt getting better, and plays into the fact, guns dont kill people, people do.
Now, if those of us who truly thinks things are better, now that were "civilised", please explain, from that POV, and why having guns or traditional things are no longer needed, but be prepared to defend todays society in full, and no cherry picking
 
I would add, some think things like the death penalty is forbidden and woefully wrong.
However, its much more civilised to make someone stay in a prison for the rest of their lives.
Whos guilt is being assuaged here?
 
You are going a bit far, but never mind.

218437-gun-club-family.jpg


If you are not able to see what's damn wrong with that, so yes, the moral values ​​of your society are inadequate. (on MY point of view... remember, here, even local police officers don't handle gun)
 


But on the flip-side, guns would give any person/s a significant amount of power.

What happens when people get very angry? Or very drunk? Or if they want revenge? Or sex?

Knife attacks are much easier to defend against than gun attacks. Higher chance of survival.

We have tons of guns in Africa. People still get raped, murdered and robbed. Mostly because of a guns, and a hell lot of poverty and did I mention guns?
 
Read and consider before you attack please. 😉



My point is there, guns don't solve problems. More guns doesn't solve anything. Give a villager a gun, he now has power, both to defend himself and to exploit it for his own purposes. In a poor African community, you have gun? You get more food etc. then you become the same thing you wanted to stop. What do you want to do? Give every village a gun like the CIA in Cold War Afghanistan so that after they get rid of Soviet occupation they become a terrorist organisation?



Please, I urge you to read, but read again because I don't know what you're going on about!

"Knife attacks are much easier to defend against than gun attacks. Higher chance of survival. "

Knife attacks (assailant with a knife) are much easier to defend against than gun attacks (assailant with gun). Higher chance of survival. (Links to previous statement)

If you still have trouble understanding the point we both agree with, let me rephrase it: if you get attacked by someone you would be much better off facing a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun.

Less guns = less gun attacks replaced by more knife attacks, more knife attacks = less people dead

Legal guns = more guns, more legal guns = more guns lost, more guns lost = bigger black market of guns



Even if grandma has a gun, the assailant would more than likely have a loaded one. If you're robbing a person or etc. you know you are robbing them, the victim doesn't, you can prepare, they can't. By the time grandma can actually take the safety off and shoot, the assailant who legally (at some point in the food-chain) obtained a gun already has bullet through grandma's brain.

If you say brandishing the gun is good enough, why not just have fake guns? We really don't need to equip each and every person with the capacity to kill another person.

You might be able to rob a bank with a fake gun, but you're not going to be able to directly able to kill someone with a fake gun.

Material goods can be replaced, the lives of others cannot.

Realise crime has reason, people are still people. Given the current economic climate, it wouldn't be hard to imagine an average lower-middle class person who has just gotten evicted from their home, already has a legal gun. Desperate to support his own family after the dole runs out. What does he do?



Ah, yahoo answers, the epitome of non-biased opinion.

Seriously, this thread is going nowhere and nowhere fast.
 
People should defend themselves, just not with guns.

Power should be given to those who will do good with it.

Having a lax attitude on gun control is not going to achieve that.

Perhaps we do have a middle ground.

Guns are awesome in video games. 😛
 
Understanding, since the very beginning, people carried weapons, always did, always have, and to claim that this current society is so much more superior in the last 100 years of humanities existence is either folly or pride.
Only select people demand this at this level, total abandonement of the right to carry, or own or both.
If laws arent either inacted of followed thru regarding the illegal or careless use of firearms, then blame our current society, and its lack of ability.
Next time you see a cop waiting for a speeder, and youve just passed a few hookers, a few hoods, a druggy, a dealer etc, ask yourself why?
 
At the very beginning I argue our culture was certainly not advanced ... selecting a mate with a club and dragging her back to the cave?

Is the removal / reduction in violence not a mark of advancement of a given civilisation ... thats the point I am trying to make?