Ladies:

Whoa, STOP. It's getting  a little ugly in here...I think a time out is called for.

There has to be a respect for the various laws on both sides of the puddle, like them or not.

Do I think banning guns is a bright idea? Not really.
Do I think carrying one in Self-Defense is a winner? I don't think so.

Words are strong indicators of ideas. I make a living with words, so I know when to back off...and when I need to chime in. This is one of those times.

Part of this discussion must be based on some measure of respect for all sides. Let's not lose that. After all, that is what makes TrannyWeb special.

Okay, I've said enough for now. Come out of your corners, shake hands, and let's continue to discuss this civilly. It's been too good a thread.

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

This thread certainly became popular quickly.

Sue, I can also answer some of your questions.  In the United States, government is rather decentralized.  Each state has its own set of laws; I can only speak of states with which I am familiar.

In Utah, openly carrying a firearm is only permitted in places where shooting is legal (in the wilderness).  Open carry is allowed without a permit in these situations.  People who have permits, which are easy to obtain for law-abiding residents, may carry concealed weapons anywhere except in secured government properties (airports, court houses, certain federal facilities).  In Arizona, open carry is permitted in cities and is relatively common in some locations.  Business and other property owners can, if they choose, put up a sign indicating that they do not want weapons on their property.  In California, concealed carry permits are issued at the option of local police and can be almost impossible to obtain in certain (typically urban) jurisdictions.  Open carry is permitted in wilderness areas where shooting is legal.

Of course, some of my information might be out of date - laws can change at any time.

Generally, non-residents are unable to obtain concealed carry permits.  I believe some states issue short-term temporary permits, and I know many recognize each other's permits.  Utah recognizes the permit of any other state.  California does not.

Anywhere in the country, to buy a gun which fires cartridge ammunition, a person must pass a federal background check, which is conducted at the time of purchase and takes a few minutes to a half hour.  Anyone convicted of a felony, with a history of domestic violence, or with a history of mental illness will be denied.  Some states impose additional restrictions, such as waiting periods for handgun purchases.  Only a resident of the state or someone with a federal firearms license (a licensed dealer) can buy a gun.  Old-style guns which fire loose bullets or balls with black powder are not subject to these restrictions at the federal level, but some states may regulate them.  There is a loophole, however - private person-to-person sales are not regulated in most states.

Sue, in your particular case, as a non-resident of the U.S., you would not be able to purchase a gun here and you would not be able to obtain a concealed carry permit.  I am uncertain as to what the law would be if you borrowed a gun from someone.  But, provided that you followed all of the laws, if you killed someone in legitimate self-defense with any sort of weapon, you would not likely be subject to prosecution.  (I have heard that the urbanized states in the Northeast occasionally unfairly prosecute people in these cases, however.  These states also are the most hostile towards gun ownership.  They also seem to have the worst crime problems.  I am glad I don't live in one of those states.)  As with any situation related to the law in this country, it depends on the location.

In my experience, Stevie is right about guns being used for self-defense being a gender-neutral thing.  Many women around here have become interested in guns for that reason.  But I also know many genetic women who enjoy target shooting and hunting.  It is simply a part of the culture in the western U.S., and it is open to both genders.  Still, target shooting and hunting seem to attract more men than women.

Heather H.

I fear the Bush administration, and I feared the Clinton administration.  In fact, I have feared every administration since I was old enough to understand such things.  Both sides have so many bad ideas that the only way to prevent great damage is to play them off against each other so that little can get done.  In the present situation, I hope the Democrats in the Senate are as obstructionist as they can be.

Heather H.

Ladies:

"I MAY NOT AGREE WITH WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY, BUT I WILL DEFEND TO MY DEATH YOUR RIGHT TO WEAR IT ON A T-SHIRT"
    --Ashleigh Brilliant


Part of me agrees with you.

But the part of me that got mugged in the summer of '86--at gunpoint--still maintains that there needs to be something done, preferably intelligent. (I also understand that government and intelligence are opposite ends of the spectrum...;D)

Heather H: I have little trust of any government. I see your point: "The United States government has proven on countless occasions that it cannot be trusted.  I am sure that most, if not all, other governments in the world share this characteristic."

However...I also maintain that even a idiotic law can be better than no law at all. Case in point: I think it is asinine that we allow teens to drive at 16, but can't drink or smoke until 21. You are in effect saying that "We can trust you with 2,000 lbs. or more of screaming engine and chrome, but you can't defile yourself until you're an adult." I know adults who are less mature at 40 than some kids at 17. End point.

Stevie: How's this for a training idea, if you don't want the feds involved: Make a statewide thing, and teach it in the schools. That way, when the little b@st@rds start shooting at each other, they'll hit their target, and not some poor slob who was unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sorry, hon. I must insist there be some sort of training as part of ownership. Think of it like driver's ed.

Phyliss: I agree totally. If you remember Peter, Paul and Mary, their song, "Blowin' in the Wind" (or at least their arrangement of it) speaks to the futility of war. War, however, is a topic I am not gonna start. Oh, by the way...at least you are getting some vet benfits. I've been f*cked out of most of mine....I still qualify for a VA loan, I think, and perhaps some money for my burial, if I die. (I may not just to annoy the cr@p out of everyone...;)) Geez, I DID read that right (Time to put on my glasses): You really ought not to arm bears--at least in the spring and during hunting season. There are enough shots being fired out there.... 

The largest part of the problem is that there is just too d@mn much testosterone ruining running the planet...

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

HI GIRLS,IT WON'T BE LONG TILL UNCLE SAM SENDS MORE SCHOOLBOYS TO FOREIGN LANDS TO DIE... I WAS JUST 18 WHEN I WENT TO VIETNAM, I WAS A PROGRAMDED TO MURDER IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM,BUT TODAY I'M AN OLD QUEEN WITH NO FREEDOM  TO EVEN BE WHO I AM...IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF THEY LINED UP 58,000 BOYS RIGHT HERE,AND JUST KILLED US HERE ,IT WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED SO MUCH SUFFERING... GEE!!!I'M SO SORRY ABOUT BEING ON THE SOAPBOX,BUT THIS IS ALL TOUCHY STUFF FOR ME,AGAIN MY APOLOGIES       PHYLISS    P.S VIETNAM VETS. HAVE THE HIGEST SUICIDE RATE PER CAPITA THAN ANY OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP IN THE USA. 26,000 VETS HAVE KILLED THEMSELVES SINCE THE DAMN WAR ENDED....P

Suekie got in before me as I was writing this off-line.

'A note from our side of the pond.'

USA Ladies - you might have to cover your eyes lest you fall off your computer chairs.

Whereas your Constitution includes the 'Right to Bear Arms' (I believe due to the over-enthusiasm of our King George) UK Trannies have no chance whatsoever of defending themselves with firearms. (Tenuous link to thread)
Our gun laws have always been very strict - handgun licences were never easy to get and only then if one was a member of a recognised gun club where they would only be used for target shooting. Carrying was totally
prohibited and if I recall correctly the gun could only be transported (boxed) between home and club. The police
administered the system and had the final say but I think that two character references were required as well.
Then:-
In March 1996 a Thomas Hamilton (legal gun owner) entered a class of five-year-olds in Dunblane (Scotland)
Primary School carrying four handguns and over seven hundred rounds.
In three minutes he fired one hundred and five times killing sixteen children and a teacher. Fourteen other
children and three teachers were wounded, two seriously. Only two youngsters escaped injury. There followed a
massive public howl for a total handgun ban supported by all political parties.
In a knee-jerk reaction a law was passed doing just that - now nobody can get a handgun licence for any purpose.
This even means that our international standard pistol shooters have to go abroad to practice. One of them (a
gold medallist) keeps his guns in Switzerland and goes over there.

Problem Solved!

Of course not - it turned out that Hamilton was unstable and it is alleged that the police should never have
allowed him a licence in the first place but the law was so worded that they had no grounds not to do so.

Still, there are no handguns and that's good, right?

Of course not - the use of handguns in crime - thought to be mainly in connection with drug dealing and the
habit of illegal carrying leading to what would have been a bit of a punch-up for showing 'disrespect' turning into
a shooting - is increasing markedly. Illegal guns are getting into the country and can easily be bought for about
$300.
More cheaply, legal replica guns can be drilled out and there is a certain gas-powered air pistol (also legal) which
can be easily converted to fire .22 ammo.

Although it's probably more dangerous to be on the sending end of these.

As I speak this subject is again att the top of our newscasts. Yesterday, in Birmingham, two innocent bystanding teenage girls were killed and two more injured when caught in the crossfire from what are thought to be two
rival gangs. Thirty shots were fired.

To sum up:
Good People - no guns even for innocent target shooting.
Bad People - lots and lots and lots of guns.

I told you before- problem solved.



Annie's pitiful CV
Age 8: Daisy .177 air rifle in back garden (yard)
Age 9 -12: Junior School - .177 BSA on school 30 yard indoor range.
Age 12-18 - Big School -Training on Mossberg .22 cartridge rifle, real windage sights.
                                       Training on .303 Lee-Enfield sleeved to .22
                                       Full-bore Lee-Enfield, up to 400yd, even shooting for school (once) at Bisley.
Age 18-20 - National Service - add Brens and Stens.

...I favor a hybrid approach, taking a liberal or conservative position based on each issue's ramifications.
Sarah, you do make a good point about nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. In my opinion, there is a big difference between conventional arms and weapons of mass destruction, and we do classify small arms, artillery, explosives, WMDs, etc. differently. Neither civilians nor civilian government agencies (police forces, intelligence agencies, etc.) have any legitimate use for WMDs; they are strictly for use by the military. Of course, there's plenty of room for debate on military use of those weapons, and we have to carefully monitor the use of those weapons by our military (which is part of the government). The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and we can never afford to ignore what our governments are doing.

To bring this all to a relevant point, my being a tranny reinforces my beliefs and positions. I think I should have the right to dress (publicly and privately) as I please, but even if our laws recognize that right, many of my fellow citizens still have problems with trannies.

"Ultra Goddess" Stevie--

First of all, the title fits you well. Way to go.

Second of all, circle your calendars, ladies, because this is a red letter day: Stevie and I actually agree on something! ;D

I also take a hybrid approach; I think both sides have gone too far to the extremes. Can we Puh-LEEZE have a return to a middle, more common ground? With a little common sense thrown in?

I agree that there are no sane, rational uses for WMD's, period. 'Nuff said.

And I think that I should have the right to dress any way I choose. (well, okay...maybe at the point in life where I am at, attempting to look like Britney Spears is asking a bit too much...)

Does the general public have problems with us trannies? Duh. Will it take an enlightened society to overcome that? Mmmhmmmm....will that society (hopefully) have the sense to put down the weaponry and get along with each other?

Goddess, I hope to shout!

That's the kind of society I want to work toward.

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

Here is my response to my question.

I believe strongly in the right to bear arms.  As a member of the NRA (National Rifle Association) and the NMLRA (National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association) I donate to organizations which fight to preserve this right.

While I do not carry a gun at all times, I like to carry one in certain situations.  At present, I do not have a concealed carry permit (but I plan to get one soon).  One reason I do not carry a concealed weapon yet is that I do not feel that I have had enough practice.  It is important to be very familiar with the weapon before carrying it.  I do, however, wear a revolver on my hip (perfectly legal in my state) when I am hiking in remote areas.  Wild animals (especially the two-legged kind) can be dangerous in the wilderness.  A gun in that situation is also a good survival tool - it is a means of obtaining food.

Since I started going out in public as a female, I have become a little more concerned.  While I have not had any problems (yet) I have been in one or two places where I felt nervous and I might have wanted a weapon.  Sometimes these situations come up unexpectedly.  I am considering carrying pepper spray (which can delay an attacker long enough to escape) but it has its problems; it is not the most effective weapon.  A pistol would make me feel safer.

I have one other thought on the subject.  Whatever weapons we may choose to carry, we must be mindful of safety.  A weapon in the hands of someone who is inexperienced is likely to be more of a liability than an asset.  I cannot stress too strongly that it is VERY important to be familiar with the weapon and to be prepared to use it.

I hope that I never have to use a weapon against anyone, but I also do not want to be murdered.

Heather H.

The topic of guns has been brought up in a few other threads, generally causing those threads to stray off topic.  I thought I should start a thread for this topic.

In most countries, the general public is rather hostile towards transgendered people, and the result is often violence, including murder.  In November, I attended a memorial service honoring transgendered people who have been murdered.  It was a sobering experience.

Here is the big question:  do we go out in public totally unarmed, or do we wish to carry some sort of weapon (a gun, a knife, pepper spray, etc.) or learn self-defense skills?  When some nut attacks, the police are likely to be far away, so our lives are in our own hands.

I am interested to hear the responses of others.

Heather H.

Given the hard-line stance of my posts, it may be surprising that I agree in principle with many of Jayne's ideas.  Training and background checks are definitely good ideas; I don't like the idea of people trying to use guns without knowing what they are doing.  I could even be persuaded to support a federal database with gun serial numbers.

However, putting these principles into law assumes that we can trust the government, and we can't.  Other governments around the world have used measures like these as a step towards banning guns entirely.  They could certainly use the databases to find gun owners if the guns are banned, and they could change the training requirements so that no one could pass them.

Therefore, I would only support these ideas if some strong check could be put on government powers, such as a new constitutional amendment that would strengthen and clarify the poorly-worded 2nd amendment.

For those overseas who may not be familiar with it, here is the complete text:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If this statement confuses you, you are not alone.  People tend to interpret it the way they want; it has therefore been rendered rather ineffective.  If a statement could be added considering the right to own guns to be an individual right which cannot be infringed without good reason, then I would accept more federal controls and oversight.

Getting back to the original topic, I do not plan on carrying a gun everywhere - pepper spray may work fine in many situations.  I certainly do not want to kill anyone.  But there are some situations in which I might prefer to carry a gun.

Heather H.

The reason that I would demand another constitutional amendment before agreeing to government-mandated record keeping and training is that I do not trust the government.  Even with such an amendment, I am still a little uneasy; I share Stevie's concerns.  If training and record-keeping kept guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, but allowed others to have them, I could live with it.  But I am afraid that the government would abuse the privilege - that is why a strong check on the government would be needed.  Without  that, the government should keep out of such things - I would rather risk a few idiots obtaining guns than risk the government finding a sneaky way to ban them.

The United States government has proven on countless occasions that it cannot be trusted.  I am sure that most, if not all, other governments in the world share this characteristic.

Heather H.

AMEN ,PRINCESS CARRYING A FIREARM MULTIPLIES ANY PROBLEM BY ANOTHER 1 MILLION VARIABLES,I BELIEVE IN EVERYONE'S RIGHT TO ARM BEARS,BUT NOT FOR ME...PHYLISS

"I MAY NOT AGREE WITH WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY,BUT I WILL DEFEND TO MY DEATH YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT "BEN FRANKLIN (I BELIEVE,BUT I COULD BE WRONG)I HAVE NO GREAT LOVE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE USA,EVERYTIME YOU TURN AROUND THEY CUT MY VETERANS BENEFITS ,BUT GIVE AWAY MILLIONS TO OTHERS FOR RESEARCH ON "DO CLAMS HAVE TESTICLES"?  A FORMER PATRIOT AND VETERAN  PHYLISS      BRONZE STAR-PURPLE HEART W/ CLUSTERS-PRESIDENTIAL UNIT CITATION,PINNED ON BY GEN.WESTMORELAND,6 OTHER BATTLE RIBBONS,RIVER RAT SNIPER ELIMINATION TEAM....SURVIVOR OF TET 1968....BUT OUR GOVERNMENT DON'T GIVE ME THE RIGHT TIME OF DAY      PHYL

I have to agree with Stevie about the "other" reason we value our firearms in the U.S.  Our system is based on numerous checks and balances:  the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government are all independent and to some degree work against each other.  Add state and local governments, and there are additional checks.  The final check on the power of the government is an armed public.  If the day comes that we need to rise up against a tyrant, we will have the means.

Heather H.

Just my 2 cents:

I've always found the constitutional amendment, so oft-quoted, poorly written and almost contradictory. It states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


This can be looked at 2 ways. Pro gun side takes the second half of the statement, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". But what does the first half of the statement mean? "A well regulated Militia"? What "well regulated Militia" are you a member of if you are "the people"? This has to be one of the most poorly written amendments and is not even proper English.

Personally I have never owned a gun and probably never will. Have I shot a gun? Yes. everthing from a NYC police off-duty snub nosed 38, to a H&K semi-automatic to a pistol grip 12 gauge shotgun. (About the 3 shot you hand really begins to feel it). Want to sit in the frezing cold and shoot Bambi? Be my guest, just slide me some of the venison. I have no problem if you want to own and carry a gun but the responsibility that goes with it you have to own also.

Most of the gun owners I know are very responsible and I trust them with their weapons. It's the criminal use of weapons and the use of them in self defense that have been the problem. Personally, you use a gun in a criminal act, the punishment should be very severe.The ACLU has been doing a great job defending people and their rights but I think they lose sight of the big picture. You trespass, a.k.a. climb over a six foot fence in the middle of night and break into my house, should I have the right to blow your brains, though small, out? Who is the victim? The dead robber or the person with the gun defending themselves their family and their property? The ACLU defends the dead robber, and you are arrested. This is where owning a gun, you are fooked.

You have the right to own and bear arms but, does this give you the right to fire it? I don't know.  :-/

</rant>

Hi all!

Goddess! Miss a day, you miss a lot! ;D

Okay, now it's my turn to take aim at the topic...

I am a Navy vet. I have had pistol training, and in fact was stopped short of accomplishing a marksmanship medal for Pistol (which is a long story and I won't get into it here).

Yes, I could very easily shoot some poor idiot with a pistol if I chose to carry one on my person. I have never killed anyone, and hope I never do. I don't think I could live with myself if I did.

However, I could just as easily shoot out the street lamp, shoot someone else by mistake, or blow my foot off... because, if it isn't a very small calibre pistol, I no longer have the upper body strength to keep it on target. Period.

This is why I keep a pepper spray in my purse.

Now, as I mentioned in the other post, I do support the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. However, I also feel that with that right, there needs to be responsibilities. To wit:

1. A national FBI criminal background check, and a waiting period of not more than 48 hours.

2. Federal ID of all firearms, similar to the VIN for cars. Notice: this is not like a national database; the gun has a number attached to it by the factory and is used solely for ID purposes of the weapon.

3. Mandatory training for every waepon you purchase, regardless of where you buy it. (Look at it this way...if you are going to have a gun, then you'd better d@mn well know how to use it.) In addition, regardless of how many you own, every two years you must take a refresher course.

4. There needs to be a minimum age for owning, federally mandated to be at least 16. If we do not allow young people (by law, at least) to smoke or gamble until 21 or drive until they are 16, or vote until they are 18...well, you get the picture.

5. I also support "Use a gun, double your jail time" type laws.

Finally, I still maintain that firearms are safe; I want ammo outlawed. I have seen few cases of people dying of gun wounds...but I see cases nightly on the news of people dead from bullet wounds, or bullets through the head, heart, lungs, etc.

As for hunting: you eat what you kill, and kill only what you'll eat. Want to hunt for sport? Then put down your AK-47 and get a bow and a quiver of arrows. Make it sporting for you...and your prey.

Should Trannies carry guns? (Sounds like a Jerry Springer episode!) That is up to you. I'd rather not; I have too much crap in my purse to start with. (Purse? More like  carry-on luggage! ;D) But then, I also try to avoid seedy places as much as possible. I am comfortable enough as Jayne to venture out to better lit venues...and also in broad daylight.

I'll grant you that doesn't mean I'm any safer. But I cannot live my life the way I choose to do, and be worried about the worst case scenario.

Otherwise--why bother to live at all?

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

HI GALS, I'M RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT THE NEXT GO-AROUND...I'M USING THE HOMELESS/HUNGRY PLATFORM.THAT'S WHERE WE'LL FEED THE HOMELESS TO THE HUNGRY  :o  :o  :o  :o  :o  SHADES OF SOYLENT GREEN     NO MORE FOR ME,THANKS, I'M FULL,PHYLISS

Okay, so I've fallen asleep and can't shut up:

Stevie--you buy the first round of lunch.

I don't trust the current administration, and I didn't trust the last batch, either. Fear is a bit strong for me. Like Heather, I haven't trusted them since...never mind how long it's been. Let's just say it was before Reagan and drop it. ::)

Heather--I'll let them play off each other...but only if they play nice. To date, they haven't. If they continue to not play nice, I think we should erect a big fence around the beltway...and lock them all inside until they behave. ;D

Phyliss: Shakespeare said that we "Should kill all the lawyers" in one of his plays. Since most politicians have a law background...

Everyone: Nobody, but NOBODY sees me in anything too revealing for the next few weeks, until I'm back down closer to 165 lbs. or less. Jaynie was a little piglet over her vacation  :-pop tart pop diva, Ms. Spears.

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

Even with a few minor missteps, this has to be one of the most civilized discussions about guns in which I have ever been involved.  This topic often gets people rather angry.

Even in the U.S., opinions on this subject run the full range, and discussion can get heated and nasty.  It is as bad as debating abortion or evolution.

Judging from the civilized nature of this thread, trannies must be better than the general public at engaging in reasonable debates about subjects in which opinions are strongly-held.  Perhaps we should be in politics.

Heather H.

HI GALS, HAVING READ ALL OF THIS ,I HAVE TO PUT MY 2 CENTS IN.AFTER SERVING 22 MONTHS AS A RIVER RAT IN VIETNAM,I NEVER WANTED TO SEE A WEAPON AGAIN.I'VE MURDERED 19 HUMAN BEINGS DURING MY TOURS,SEVERAL CLOSE ENOUGH TO SPIT THIER LAST BREATH ON ME,ONE I CUT HIS HEAD OFF WITH AN ENTRENCHING TOOL...I SUFFER FROM EXTREME PTSD AND HAVE BEEN TREATED AT THE VETERANS HOSPITAL FOR MANY YEARS..GOD FORBID THAT ANY OF YOU E- V- E- R HAVE TO TAKE A HUMAN LIFE ,DO YOU THINK YOU'LL EVER GET OVER IT???NOT!! IT WILL HAUNT YOU TILL THE DAY YOU DIE!!!I KNOW THERE IS ONLY ONE USE FOR A FIREARM THAT IS TO K- I- L- L PERIOD!!! TOO MANY PEOPLE WILL REACH FOR ONE TO SOLVE THIER DIFFERENCES...IF YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING TO BE ATTACKED,TURN AND RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN ,IF YOU CONFRONT YOUR ATTACKERTHEY MAY TAKE THE WEAPON AWAY FROM YOU AND USE IT AGAINST YOU....BUT,I ALSO BELIEVE IN A CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS,IT'S JUST NOT FOR ME....  HAPPY NEW YEAR     PHYLISS

Regarding Sarah's response, I would want to own a gun - no matter where I live.  Crime is a worldwide problem; I see crime stories frequently on the BBC website.  I also look at other international news sources, and it is the same story everywhere.  No gun laws can prevent violent crime.  As far as carrying it, I would want the right to do so, but I would not always carry it.  Pepper spray is probably fine in many situations, and many places are safe enough that I might not carry anything.  In fact, at present, I seldom carry either a gun or pepper spray.  Typically, I only carry such things in the wilderness.

Heather H.

THAT'S WHY THE ROMANS MURDERED THIER SENATORS  :o  PHYLISS

This has got to be the friendliest political discussion I've ever had! http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Laugh01.gif

So, it's inappropriate to mention arms within the context of a self-defense discussion? I thought tolerance was a two-way street, but I stand corrected.

Well, from now on, whenever I see the Union Jack, I'll be sure to mind my own business.

Perhaps the wording was a little strong,but it cannot have escaped anyones notice that whenever the subject of self defense is raised,in your replies you invariably mention the fact that you go about armed and ready.
In this instance,I felt it was particularly inappropriate,as the girl asking the question is in the UK.
Though I rsspect your rights and beliefs,and readily admit if I had been brought up within the gun culture as you were my views would probably be similar to yours,I wasn't,and they aren't.
I have never seen a gun on the streets here,and don't wish to.When visting Europe,just the sight of armed police scared the **** out of me.I was certanly very well behaved!
On this subject,I think we must agree to differ.
Love,Sue.X

In order to alleviate some of my natural bias due in a large part by the reporting of instances involving weapons that we hear about through our press,can someone answer some questions for me.I am referring to places where the carrying of firearms is commonplace.
In visiting,would I see whilst going about my daily business,(work,shopping etc.) most citizens,male and female,walking about with some form of gun displayed?
Can anyone walk in and buy a gun?
If not,on what grounds could they be refused? Has everyone the right to bear arms?
If,as a UK citizen,I stayed in said town,how would I be permitted to defend myself? May I have a gun,or would I need to hire a bodyguard every time I went out?
Can you carry guns anywhere? Or are there restrictions?
What is the difference in carrying a 'concealed' weapon?

There are more,but that will keep me thinking for a while.

Sue.X

"Hunt"?  http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Laugh01.gif  Those poor men don't stand a chance! http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Wink01.gif

...and regarding our titles, only at Trannyweb do we get rewarded for failing to shut up! http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Laugh01.gif

Suekie's comment from another topic (How to Avoid Trouble):

Stevie, much as the idea of pulling your gun and blowing a few heads off seems to appeal to you (you brought it up), we don't carry guns over here. At least, law-abiding citizens don't (can't).


Suekie, why do you assume "blowing a few heads off" would appeal to me?

My CV: Ex services,trained in use of small arms,also some unarmed combat.Therefore not unfamiliar with firearms etc.
Scenario: Outside 24/7.Street lights on,but spaced out, leaving darker patches.It's a real place,I use it often.
Big guy,worse for drink,approaches,something in hand, speaking to me,but I can't understand him.I am scared,and back up,asking him what he wants.Reply is still unintelligble.His hand came forward,pointing something.
Also true to here.He staggers forward again,to about 5m away.
1. I am really scared,don't know his intentions,so assume the worst,take out gun and shoot him.Dead.
2. I take closer look,realise object pointed at me is cigarette,and he wants a light.Oblige,he mumbles again and shambles off.
The second one was of course the real ending,but how easily it could have been different.One guy dead,two families ruined,I'm going to the chair.All a mistake, but...
One up for the gun lobby?
Sue.X

Strictly tongue in cheekLone female? Round here,they hunt in packs,and heaven help any lone male who cosses them...:)
Sue.X

Jayne, if you and I were both in Congress, we'd spend all morning debating issues, but we'd still have lunch together. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Laugh01.gif

You fear the Bush administration, I feared the Clinton administration, but neither of us trusts the government! http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Cheers.gif

Yes, it would be nice if we could put down the weapons and get along, but I'll wait until people get along first, then I'll put down my weapons. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Wink01.gif  When and where I grew up, most people didn't lock the doors to their houses when they left in the mornings. Maybe that was unwise, but they really didn't think it was necessary. I can't imagine doing that today, in my current environment, but it would be nice to live in that type of situation again (on a much larger scale, with much broader social advancements). Until then, I'll prepare for the worst (within reason) and hope and work for the best.

Oh, I think we all want to see you in your best "Spears" outfit!  http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Laugh01.gif

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Smile01.gif

Well, from my previous posts, you know where I stand. I do carry all the time, and I'm also an NRA member. My position on owning and carrying weapons for self-defense (including deadly weapons, such as firearms), applies to both trannies and non-trannies, but trannies need to be more aware of potential violence against them. Depending on the times and places we live, trannies, homosexuals, foreigners, and anyone else who's in a minority should be aware of the social environment and be ready for trouble. Things are much better in the USA than they used to be, but we trannies are still some of the favorite targets of hate.

I don't support the new trend toward "hate crime" legislation in the USA, because crime is crime, regardless of the identities of the victims. However, I do think convicted violent criminals should receive heavy sentences (more so than they now face), assuming they aren't killed by their intended victims.

Heather, I've never attended a service like the one you mentioned, but I agree that it's sobering to think that there are fellow human beings out there who hate us enough to kill us, just because of our sexual identity, the way we dress and carry ourselves, etc. I know some people hate weapons, and if they want to remain unarmed, that's their choice. However, I would rather be a survivor than a dead victim, and it bothers me when others attempt to take away my means of defending myself. As trannies, we often speak of our desire for tolerance. I would hope that desire for tolerance runs both ways.

Again, we live in different places, but around here, it's not a male thing. Many females I know own firearms because they don't like being helpless when they are alone. I do think men enjoy guns more, as far as target shooting, collecting, and hunting are concerned, but that's different. Self-defense seems to be a sex-neutral issue.

I respect anyone's right to defend themselves.A recent case saw a man convicted,but later released early,after he had defended himself and his property against two thugs,killing one and wounding the other,and most of the country supported him.Myself included.
I have no qualms about taking a human life.I have almost done so on two occasions,but prefer to leave that buried. I just know that if the right button is pushed,I can lose it.I am also not big or strong,and will therefore use the first thing that comes to hand to defend myself.If that were to be a gun,I would use it,and to kill.As has been said,the purpose is to stop them,and make sure they aren't going to do it again.The same applies if there are more than one.Maybe two guns to be on the safe side, though hopefully after you have taken one out,the rest may lose interest.
Perhaps if I had been brought up in a culture where it is thought nescessary to carry weapons,my views would be different,and I too would be 'packing heat',as it was so quaintly put.
Just an afterthought-does the carrying of a gun,or the principle anyway,transcend both genders,or is it still more male orientated? Or do women prefer non-lethal defence?
Sue.

This could run and run.It's certainly interesting to get first-hand views on the subject.I'm a little surprised that more people from this side of the pond haven't come in.
It was implied on the other board,before we came here, that the carrying of arms reduced crime.Can't see it myelf,but as I said,we only hear about the worst cases,as is probably the case for reporting the other way.I really don't think that arming everyone would make any difference.If anything,I think it would make things worse.
A lot of the weapons in this country are in fact illegally held.Witness the latest shootings in Birmingham-shotguns and some form of machine gun.Being armed certainly would not have helped those innocent victims.
My other point is the mention of being not being eligible if you have any form of mental illness.Isn't being TG in some form regarded as such in some places? Being homosexual certainly was-can't speak for the present.They did try to cure that,once upon a time.Has anyone put that on their application? If so,what was the result?
Someone elses turn again.
Sue.

Yes, Sarah, we have been a bit serious, lately, but I think that's a good thing. There's a lot to be said for being silly, too. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Wink01.gif

So, I'm an anarchist who favors the rule of law, am I? http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Laugh01.gif  Actually, that might be a good definition of a Libertarian (which I am).

Yes, I do favor "the rule of law," in that I believe we should respect our social contract with each other. If we each consider ourselves individual members of a nation, we are, in effect, agreeing to live by the guidelines that we, as a group (by majority rule), have established. Laws and rules can't be optional and still be laws and rules.

No, I'm not an anarchist (see the topic "Politics - Social Issues" for my definition), but I do favor limited government. An anarchist would favor no government at all. I agree with our nation's (USA) founders in that government should be limited in scope and play a limited role in our lives. We gave our federal government very specific rights and powers in order to perform only those functions necessary to any society. Our government wasn't created to rule the people, but rather to give the people a mechanism for self-rule. I don't want the government expanding beyond it's necessary functions.

I don't want the government to attempt to protect us from ourselves (motorcycle and bicycle helmet laws, gambling laws, prostitution laws, drug laws). I don't want the government trying to provide for us (Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid). I certainly don't want the government to deny us the ability to defend ourselves against criminals, foreign invasion, and the government itself by banning or controlling the ownership of firearms (infringing on our right to keep and bear arms).

Government does serve important functions. We should have police forces, courts, public roads and traffic laws, regulation of industry, etc., but we shouldn't rely on government to live our lives for us. Economically, I'm a capitalist, but socially, I'm neither liberal nor conservative all the time. I favor a hybrid approach, taking a liberal or conservative position based on each issue's ramifications. Regarding arms, I take a liberal position, favoring the freedom of the individual to defend himself. Those who favor banning or controlling arms are taking a conservative position, restricting the individual's freedom in the interest of promoting and/or maintaining social order.

Regarding what I said about responsibility, yes we individual citizens do have to want our societies to work. If the majority of us don't want civilization, it can't be forced on us. Most of us have to be voluntarily law-abiding or the system breaks down. Law itself isn't enough to control us if we all decide to violate the social contract. Modern Western democratic republics exist because the peoples of those nations (for the most part) want to live in civilized societies. We each have different views of Utopia, we often have heated debates in our legislatures, and sometimes things can even get a little ugly (strikes, riots, etc.) but we manage to run our nations relatively peacefully because most of us want it that way. That doesn't mean that I want anarchy or that I think government and laws are unnecessary.

I agree with your comment that "death is so final." That's why I don't want to murdered for lack of a way to defend myself. Those tragedies you mentioned are terrible, but I can reference equally tragic deaths that could've been prevented by firearms. If you pass a law that bans firearms, and I get murdered by a criminal because you removed my means of self-defense, would you feel responsible? Should I be sacrificed for feel-good legislation?

In the USA, some claim that they want to control or ban firearms to save lives, and that they would never carry firearms themselves because they could never take other human lives, not even in self-defense. However, many of those same people turn right around and support the death penalty and/or legalized abortion, which tells me that they aren't really interested in preserving life. They just want the government to be in control (I don't want to start debates on those two issues here, I'm just making a point about motives). Those who really value life would better serve society by supporting the rights of the good guys (law-abiding citizens) to arm themselves.

Sarah, you do make a good point about nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. In my opinion, there is a big difference between conventional arms and weapons of mass destruction, and we do classify small arms, artillery, explosives, WMDs, etc. differently. Neither civilians nor civilian government agencies (police forces, intelligence agencies, etc.) have any legitimate use for WMDs; they are strictly for use by the military. Of course, there's plenty of room for debate on military use of those weapons, and we have to carefully monitor the use of those weapons by our military (which is part of the government). The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and we can never afford to ignore what our governments are doing.

To bring this all to a relevant point, my being a tranny reinforces my beliefs and positions. I think I should have the right to dress (publicly and privately) as I please, but even if our laws recognize that right, many of my fellow citizens still have problems with trannies. I don't live my life in fear, but I am aware of my environment, and whatever course I decide to take as a tranny, I have to be cautious in many ways. One thing I do have to accept is that there are those who wish to do harm to trannies because we don't live by the approved male script (some trannies don't even consider themselves males). In the event that I am confronted by one or several of those individuals, I don't want to be in a position to have to rely on their mercy. I want to have a say in the matter of my life. Therefore, I choose to arm myself. That doesn't guarantee my safety, but it does increase my odds of getting home alive and uninjured. I have no desire to be a sacrificial lamb for any political trend.

Yes, Nancy, firearms are definitely designed to kill, so those who aren't ready to do so really shouldn't have them. That's a decision one has to make before going armed.

As our technology advances, perhaps stun guns will become more reliable. If I thought I could trust them, and if they could be used repeatedly between charges, I might consider them a good non-lethal option.

Jayne, say no more. New Orleans is an automatic excuse for avoiding revealing outfits. I've been there only once, but it was great. I want to go back, but I'll have to get down to about 110 pounds first, so I can eat without worrying! http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Wink01.gif

Kristina, why would the TG community look bad if we killed or injured bad guys in legitimate self-defense situations? Would a non-tranny look any better or worse than one of us? Killing in self-defense is not murder. No rational person wants to kill, be it self-defense, war, or otherwise, but sometimes good guys do have to use force, and that means that sometimes bad guys will get themselves killed. It's not a pleasant occasion when that happens, but it's nothing to be ashamed of, either. Besides, I've carried a pistol for years, and I've never even had to draw on anyone. I try to avoid trouble, but when that's no longer an option, I know that I have a fighting chance of making it home alive and well. If that makes me look bad, so be it. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Smile01.gif

I agree that, in some cases, the bad guys won't have firearms (or any other weapons) themselves, but they often do (even where firearms are outlawed). However, even if a bad guy is unarmed, what if he's bigger, stronger, and/or a better fighter than I? What if I'm alone against two, three, or more thugs?

I'm glad you have a way to defend yourself, and if you choose a non-lethal option, I certainly hope it works out for you. I'm not very strong, and I'm not skilled at fighting or using other weapons. I agree with you that we should all know a little bit about those things, but I'll admit I'm deficient in those areas. However, when using a firearm in self-defense, the goal is not to kill, nor is it to wound. The goal is to stop the aggressor. Whether he lives or dies is of no concern when you pull the trigger - all you want to do is stop him in his tracks so that he can't continue his attack. The firearm is the best weapon we have for achieving that result, and handguns are very easy to carry and operate.

I know many of you are repulsed by the idea of taking a human life, and I can sympathize with that. I would never want to murder anyone, and I don't even want to legally and justifiably kill someone in self-defense. However, if a criminal forces me to choose between my life and his, I'll do everything in my power to save my life, regardless of what happens to him. I'll also defend another person who is clearly being attacked. We should feel sorry for the victims and would-be victims, not the criminals who attacked in the first place. If I ever have to shoot someone and he dies as a result, I won't have killed him, he'll have gotten himself killed.

Stevie
Heather H

Picking up on something that was posted on the other thread. Heather said that she reads UK news sites and would certainly want to carry a gun over here. (Sorry Stevie I can't remember whether you expressed similar sentiments).

I have to say that I'm astonished by that. It would never cross my mind that I would feel safer carrying a gun. It never crosses my mind that other people would be carrying guns. After all our police still don't really carry guns, although there will be an Armed Response Vehicle on the streets of most cities.

Sorry Heather, I'm gobsmacked by your observation. I wonder what other Brits feel about it?

Phyliss

My heart goes out to you and your experiences. Whatever one might think about the rights and wrongs of any particular war we should always remember the debt we owe to the people who have to fight it.

Bless you.

Hugs

Sarah

Hi Stevie
Heather

Gosh, this morning's been very serious, so this is the last serious one I'll answer today.

Stevie,
1  we can never have too much insight, even though we find it disturbing.

2  you seem to be entirely in favour of laws and the rule of law. Given that laws are society's ways of regulating itself for the benefit of all its diverse (not just gender) members then there are always going to be restrictions that each of us will disagree with but that is the price we pay for a "civilised" society.

You also seem to be advocating an anarchic approach. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense since, philosophically speaking, if I look ahead to what might be considered the perfect human society then it would be largely anarchic but, as you say, relying on individual responsibility at all times.

We aren't there yet, we may never get there, it is certain to be millenia away. In the meantime how do we regulate ourselves? In my view, recognising human frailty we should seek to mitigate the worst excesses. Annie cited the Dunblane school example and tragically you have similar such examples, however we had another example, sorry can't remember where, when a bloke ran amok in a school with a machete and far fewer people actually died. Death is so final.

How far would you go? Do you consider it legitimate to held e.g. nerve agents, nuclear weapons, etc.. OK, I exaggerate, but do I. What about anthrax? (spectacularly ineffective as it was). In these days is it beyond the bounds of possibility that Ross Perot, say, acquired a personal nuclear weapon? What price are you prepared to pay for the "right to bear arms"? bearing in mind that even the most balanced and responsible of us can become unbalanced, present company excepted of course.

I like your analogy with motor vehicles. You may be aware that recently in the UK we've had a number of rail "disasters", typically one a year, 15-20 dead, much beating of breasts and "this must never happen again"ing. Yet we continue to kill about 2000-3000 people a year on our roads with barely a murmer. I think this, like guns, represents a more primal, baser part of human nature. That we are prepared to tolerate, or rather ignore, the effects of our desires. If humanity is ever to make progress then we must surely move away from this. So, how? and when?

On this I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Hugs

Sarah

I've read some really great comments from both sides (even from those of you who are wrong http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Laugh01.gif ).

Jayne,
I hate to hear that you were mugged at gunpoint, but would laws restricting the ownership of firearms have helped? After all, criminals break laws. They laugh at gun restrictions. If I have to choose between an idiotic law or no law at all (on a given issue), I'll take no law at all. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Wink01.gif

It's funny you should mention schools. When I was in junior high, we had to take the hunter's safety course, which included studying written material, watching films, and actually learning how to use shotguns by shooting clay pigeons (all on school grounds). The instructors constantly drilled us on safety. Of course, that was back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. These days, such a course would shock parents. It wasn't a year-round class, just a short course over a week or two, but I really enjoyed it.

Regarding governments mandating such training, even at the state level, I still don't like the idea. We do make drivers prove they can handle vehicles before issuing licenses to drive on public roads, but, unlike owning arms, driving isn't a Constitutional right in the USA. The phrase "shall not be infringed" means that we can't place conditions on ownership or the freedom to go armed (well, not legally, anyway - governments violate constitutions at all levels).

I do love your idea of a firearms responsibility (or general weapons responsibility) course, similar to driver's education or civics (perhaps it could be part of civics). I think it should be an elective, at least, but if the local residents want, it could be mandatory in any government school (I say "government" rather than "public" to avoid confusing non-Yanks). Private schools could do the same.

I strongly agree with you that our culture has a screwed-up set of priorities where legal ages are concerned. If you're old enough to vote and serve in the military, you should be able to drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, and hold public office. As you implied, maturity is relative.

Phyliss (and all other veterans),
I've known veterans who are very well adjusted after having been in combat, and I've also known those who've had some serious problems dealing with it. As far as I'm concerned, the people and the government owe a debt to all veterans, and they should get whatever help they need for having served, especially during times of war. Individuals like you have made this country much safer for people like me, and some of us do appreciate it.  http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Smile01.gif

Annie,
So, I take it you're more of Churchill than a Chamberlain? http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Laugh01.gif

Suekie,
If you're interested, here's a short interview with John R. Lott, Jr., author of More Guns, Less Crime. Click here.

Suekie, here are my answers to your questions, in order. Someone else might answer differently, though.  http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Smile01.gif

No, most of us who carry do conceal our weapons, but that is not required where I live. It's mainly common sense, just as it makes sense to conceal your cash. We all know that we carry money, but there's no need to have it out in the open. The same applies to weapons.

Yes, any legally sane adult who is not a felon and who does not have outstanding warrants can purchase a firearm in my state, as far as I know. The federal legislature has been considering a national "right to carry" law for a while, now, but I'm still waiting. Also, some states (Kentucky) have laws concerning the carrying of "weapons," whereas other states (Tennessee) have carry laws that specify "firearms" only. Usually, the types of firearms carried are limited to handguns.

We the people do have the right to keep and bear arms, according to our Constitution. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped the fascists and communists among us from enacting unconstitutional weapons laws and rules at the federal, state, and local levels. In our country, until an unconstitutional law is overturned in court, it is still valid law. Generally, children, convicted criminals, and mentally unfit adults (those three categories include most politicians on both sides - LOL) don't share the same freedoms as the rest of us.

Regarding foreign visitors carrying weapons, it depends on where you are. If you visit a truly free state, such as Vermont, then yes, you probably can take care of your own business as long as you don't start any trouble (the way it should be everywhere). I'm fairly certain about Vermont, but check that state's laws. In Tennessee, we're only semi-free, so you have to have a permit to carry (just like having a driver's license), and I don't know whether visitors can obtain a temporary permit.

In Tennessee, those of us who have obtained carry permits (a relatively easy task for law-abiding citizens), can go just about anywhere, but there are some restrictions on government-owned property and places that serve alcohol. Fortunately, those restrictions are loosening up, in light of the success of the carry laws. Some aspects of the laws have already been changed in that regard.

In Tennessee, the law doesn't require weapons to be carried either open or concealed, but in other states, the law specifies one or the other (I think Missouri is an open carry state). As I mentioned above, concealing a weapon so that it is not blatantly visible makes more sense than carrying a weapon openly, where it is constantly visible to everyone.

I do appreciate all of the different opinions expressed in this topic. As you can tell, I'm pretty set in my beliefs, but I still enjoy exchanging opinions. I think civil debate is always healthy, because if my beliefs and positions can't hold up to the scrutiny of those who disagree with me, then what good are they? Issues such as this one are very important to many of us, and sometimes it's easy for those of us who are passionate to get emotional about our beliefs. I certainly hope I haven't been too confrontational in expressing my views.

Anyway, I'm glad that this is just plain Trannyweb and not Left-wing Trannyweb or Right-wing Trannyweb. We're bound to disagree on many issues, but we always have our love of femininity in common.  http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Stevie01.gif

Sarah,

Here's the short version of my response:

If guns are so evil that citizens shouldn't have them, then why do governments need them? It's all about power and control.

Here's the long version:

My answer is almost the same as Heather's, with the exception that I carry constantly. Three things I always take with me when I leave home (no matter how I'm dressed) are my keys, a wallet, and a firearm. It's an automatic behavior with me. I'm responsible and safe in the way I handle firearms, but the fact that I have one on me isn't something on which I dwell. It's not that I'm so scared or nervous around people that I've been driven to some extreme measure or anything like that, it's simply a fact of life and part of my daily routine.

There's a whole different psychological approach involved with those of us who consider an armed public a good thing, and I don't know if I can properly explain it. Regardless of which country you're in, I suppose it's just different for someone who didn't grow up around firearms or who has rarely been exposed to them. I wasn't born with a holster, so I do remember how it felt when I first started carrying a pistol with me, but I had firearms in my home long before that, so it still wasn't a drastic thing for me to get used to.

As adults, we have an amazing degree of freedom (at least in most Western societies), and with that goes a great amount of responsibility. We control large automobiles on public streets, we use lawnmowers with sharp blades and keep gasoline in our garages, we clean our homes with all sorts of poisonous chemicals, we have sharp utensils in our kitchens, and electrical appliances all over the place. The world is a dangerous place for those who act irresponsibly, but I don't think we should try to avoid danger by eliminating those items from our lives or by limiting our freedoms.

Of course, there are those who are very familiar with firearms and still don't like being around them. Carrying a weapon isn't right for everyone. Weapons (firearms, knives, swords, clubs, pepper spray, etc.) are different from those other items in that they were designed to inflict injury and/or death to humans, but the obligation to handle them responsibly is the same. I don't take my firearms lightly, but I am comfortable with them. As with anything else, if you handle them correctly and use them only for their intended purposes (defense), accidents are extremely unlikely. I've always driven large cars and trucks, and I know that I'm capable of doing a lot of damage when I'm behind the wheel. Every day, I have the opportunity to kill myself and/or someone else with my vehicle. That being the case, why am I allowed to own and operate a 100 MPH, 6000+ lb. instrument of death? If we're going to live together in a free society, we have to expect a certain standard of responsibility from ourselves and each other. When we prove ourselves irresponsible, then we lose rights and freedoms. That's as it should be. However, those of us who do behave responsibly should not have to pay for the irresponsible acts of others.

That's the one thing that really concerns me about the whole issue of weapons laws. It's one thing not to want weapons as an individual. I can respect that. It's another thing, though, to want to take weapons away from the rest of us, by supporting and enacting restrictive laws. From what I can tell, all of us involved in this conversation  are peaceful, responsible, law-abiding individuals, and we don't have anything to fear from each other. Unfortunately, all humans are not like us, and those are the ones who concern me. I never know where or when I'll run into a criminal, but I've chosen to be prepared for that event, in the interest of preserving my own life.

So, Sarah, taking the long way 'round to answer your primary question, yes, I would certainly want to go armed in the UK or anywhere else I visit (where possible). I don't think British criminals are any better or worse than American criminals, but as criminals, they all have something in common. They have no respect for my rights or my life. If my rights and life aren't worth fighting for, why live?

There's something else that might be unique to the USA (maybe we'll hear from some other countries on this), and that is our desire to keep the government in check. I carry a pistol every day so I can defend myself against random street crime, but let's say that's not an issue. I would still want the American people to have the right to keep and bear arms, because it's very difficult for a tyrannical government to seize power if the entire countryside is well armed. Today, some might joke about that being possible in the USA, but the reason it's so unthinkable is because we currently enjoy so many freedoms. However, once we give up our right to arms, we'll see the other rights disappear. Free speech, freedom of religion, etc. mean nothing unless we the people are in control, and the right to arms is a major factor in our ability to control our government.

Like it or not, brute force is the only legitimate source of authority in this world. The USA and the UK are still sovereign nations today ONLY because we defeated the Germans and the Japanese in WWII. Our national and local laws carry weight ONLY because the police forces have physical force at their disposal (probably why they're called police forces). As I mentioned before, a free society won't survive unless most of us choose to act responsibly and within the law. Still, for those who choose not to obey the laws, we must have physical force to bring them to justice. There's not a single law, regulation, right, freedom, concept, or document that has any meaning at all without brute force behind it. We are not operating on the honor system.

In my opinion (and in our founder's opinions), we Americans, as a group, should have and do have power over our own governments, at all levels. The government should have enough power to deal with criminals, but it should never have the power to enslave the people. As Americans, we place more trust in ourselves than we place in any government, and we consider ourselves (as a nation, not as individuals) as the ultimate source of civil authority. We did not receive our rights from the government. We already had those rights, and we created the government. We gave the government its rights. If we can't have arms, then who else should have that right?

Sarah, I'm sure these opinions of mine I don't represent the opinions of all Americans, but at least I've given you an insight into my attitude toward the whole issue (probably much more than you wanted http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Laugh01.gif ).

Same scenario:
3. He grabs you, overpowers you (possibly beating you in the process), and rapes you. Maybe he kills you to keep you quiet, maybe he leaves you alive, but with physical and/or emotional scars.
4. He grabs you, overpowers you, realizes you're a tranny, and beats you to death (maybe he rapes you first, anyway).
5. He really intends to harm you, but you shoot or stab him and either run to safety or call the authorities to haul off the carcass and complete the report (assuming you've done nothing illegal).

The fifth one would be my choice, but if unarmed, any of us could easily wind up in the third or fourth ending. A vibrant, peaceful tranny is left dead, crippled, or at least psychologically scarred for life, just for being herself. Odds are that the family probably didn't know about her lifestyle, and now is hit with everything all at once, or maybe the tranny, if still alive, is alone in the world and now more frightened, confused, and depressed than ever (possibly suicidal). The criminal is free to prey on others.
One up for the anti-gun lobby?

We can create as many scenarios as we want. Anyone who carries a weapon for self-defense, especially a weapon capable of inflicting lethal injuries, must act responsibly. You can't just fire at someone and hope you were right. Also, adults should know better than to approach strangers at night like the guy in your scenario. You have to be aware of your circumstances, and being drunk is no excuse. That's why we hold drunk drivers responsible for the deaths they cause.

Suekie, I understand why you wouldn't want to carry a weapon yourself, but would you want to deny me the right to arm myself if we lived under the same set of laws?

In my opinion, there's no such thing as a good gun law. Whether I have firearms on my person or in my home is absolutely none of the government's business, nor is it anyone else's business. I don't want the government keeping track of my firearms purchases any more than I want it tracking my clothing and makeup purchases.

I don't consider INSTANT background checks an infringement upon my rights, as long as they can be done in a matter of seconds (multiple-day waiting periods are out of the question). Wanted criminals should not be allowed to legally obtain weapons of any kind, and there's nothing wrong in screening them out, as long as the government does not keep any records of clean background checks. The government should not be allowed to keep records of the firearms themselves, nor should it keep records of those citizens who purchase them.

Owning and carrying (keeping and bearing) arms is not a privilege in the USA, it is a right (I disagree with the notion that the Second Amendment is poorly worded). There's no room for bargaining when it comes to my rights. I'm not willing to give up my rights to free speech, practice of religion, etc., and my right to defend myself is no exception. Besides, the main reason we have that right is to defend ourselves against government tyranny, so the government is the last entity we want to trust with our rights. A healthy distrust of government is what made the USA a great nation. Unfortunately, over the course of the twentieth century, our society took several steps backward toward government dependence. I hope it's not too late to reverse that trend.

Training is always a good idea, but government-mandated training is, in my opinion, going too far.

As far as the claim that "carrying a firearm multiplies any problem by another 1 million variables" is concerned, I don't think it's fair to suggest that one person can't handle the responsibility just because another person can't or won't. No, I'm not without fear. Yes, I'm a tranny. Yes, I'm a feminine male. Yes, I'm a peaceful person who doesn't go around starting trouble. However, I'm not incompetent, nor am I helpless. I will not allow criminals to dictate the course of my life, or my death. I do go armed, and I will fight back if walking away is not an option. Of course, if a criminal sees that I'm armed, he'll probably go across the street and attack someone who's not armed (criminals love easy targets).

Again, as long as I have the right to own and carry firearms (and ammunition), it's perfectly fine with me if others choose not to take advantage of the same right. If you want to voluntarily tell the government everything you do, that's fine, but please don't ask me to do the same.

By the way, I do have an AK, as well as an SKS, but I don't hunt with either of them. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Wink01.gif

Don't care if you want it or not,Jayne for world pres.I agree on all your points,especially the first and last!
Sue.X

Two counties seperated by a common language was how the UK/US has been described.I think that has been proved once again.It was not my intention to critisise in the way it was taken.

I apologise unreservedly for the unintended offense.

My thoughts ran along the lines of 'why bring up the subject of arms?',when the original topic was 'how to AVOID trouble'.My reply was intended to make that point, but I obviously made an error in my wording,and then took things too far by putting words into someone else's mouth.Sorry.
Sue.X