Will You Own Fire Arm Or A Melee Weapon?

[Sinner]

"Happiness is a warm gun...... bang, bang; shoot, shoot."
--The Beatles

(Not Hitler, Not Pol Pot)

In Texas most folks give their kids guns instead of rattles...... that's why our kids always say "Yes Mam" and "No Sir".

[Socrates]

Hitler, Stalin, et al, were all pro-gun control!

Only tyrants fear an armed citizenry!

[geetarplayer]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Aug 18 2004, 09:11 AM'] The same is applied to firearms. You have those who use it in an honorable way, and those who do not. Have you forgotten the duels between two gentlemen back in the colonial times (10 paces away, turn, and fire)? I am a fan of both melee and ranged weapons, both have their place, and both have the potential of being used in an honorable fashion. [/quote]
I hardly think there is ever such thing as killing someone in an "honorable" fashion.

-Mark

[White Knight]

People, just dont get it sometimes, deadly weapons are anything you can get your hands on, and theres more Melee weapons than there are ranged weapons in the world, and nethier one of them are more honorable than the other, and there is no honorable fashion to kill someone ethier, if you have to fight, fight and win.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

White Knight, I just gotta know.... are you a gamer? Just curious. All this talk of ranged and melee weaponry....

[White Knight]

Yes, I am a gamer. I play sports, all though Americans and other Countries band my type of sports, they say there too volient and wrong, when really these sports will teach you the skill to save your own life in battle.

Yes, anyway I like gaming alot. its cool.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

I should have been more specific... like RPG's?

[White Knight]

Yes, Ive played RPG's before. there fun!

[White Knight]

Up with the THREAD!

[MorphRC]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Aug 18 2004, 10:41 PM'] [b]Morph[/b], it's pretty illogical to say that swords are honorable and firearms aren't. Weren't there theives back in medieval age who carried swords, axes, and alike? Or barbarians? Or even soldiers? The sword itself is not honorable, it's the one who uses it.

The same is applied to firearms. You have those who use it in an honorable way, and those who do not. Have you forgotten the duels between two gentlemen back in the colonial times (10 paces away, turn, and fire)? I am a fan of both melee and ranged weapons, both have their place, and both have the potential of being used in an honorable fashion.

Another thought Morph, sure it may take months to properly cut someone with a sword (supposely). But I can take a sword and stab someone in the back, who had no idea what was going to happen. While with a gun, I can just walk up to someones back, and pull the trigger. Both are pretty easy to use in that aspect.

But to [b]master[/b] the art of a sword (or most other melee weapons), it takes months or even years to accomplish such a task. The same is said for ranged weapons. Heard of the Delta Force? Army Special Forces? Army Rangers? To use the US Army [b]elite[/b] as an example, these elite groups spend weeks upon weeks training in harsh conditions (Artic, Desert, Forest, etc). They learn how to use weaponry and tactics together to accomplish their goals, the same can be said with swordsmanship. A knight will train and learn tactics with his weapon, same with an elite soldier (or a non-elite at that, but the elite are a better example). Not only that, these soldiers continue on training even when they pass the test.

With swordsmenship, one must have quick reflexes, strength, speed, caculation, and sound judgement (in determining when to strike), and probally other factors that I haven't mentioned... all these elements can be applied to markmenship as well. The only difference? One is ranged, one of melee. Just because you're face-to-face with your opponent, mean that somehow your match is honorable? If so, then this would apply with firearms, face-to-face? [/quote]
Gun doesnt require you to face to face with your enemy, at all. A Sword does. Of course people will misuse it, but still guns are a cowardly weapon imo.

[Noel's angel]

Of course we are all going to end up owning a melle weapon, im going to own a chair and a table and pens and pencils.... so no one here can actually say no unless theyre never going to own one of those

[White Knight]

Weapon Control is only used for a Government that is scared of losing power.

We have the Second Admendment so we wont be opressed by any enemy or even our own Government. All weapons are needed, but you sould have proper training with whatever weapon you have.

Believe me, if the Government controls the peoples Guns, they can go all the way to the point of telling us what we can and can't eat, if Government controls weapons/takes them away from its own people, then they have us in their grip. Only time A Government would do that is if they were planning something against the people.

[White Knight]

[quote]Gun doesnt require you to face to face with your enemy, at all. A Sword does. Of course people will misuse it, but still guns are a cowardly weapon imo.[/quote]



Morph, Dude, you just insulted 600 years worth of Warriors & Soldiers, You just insulted the entire WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam, GWI & GWII Veterans Generation...... Why?


Guns are not cowardly weapons, they can be used[b]"as"[/b] cowardly weapons, but generally there not, a Sword can be used wrongly as well and in a cowardly sense too. To Kill an un armed person is considered dishonorable and cowardly, and Paladin made a correct statement earlier on this thread, [b]"The Honor is not in the Weapon, but its in the Man."[/b]

Edited August 24, 2004 by White Knight

[White Knight]

Very close on the Yes option lol 13-11 so far.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 21 2004, 03:11 AM'] Gun doesnt require you to face to face with your enemy, at all. A Sword does. Of course people will misuse it, but still guns are a cowardly weapon imo. [/quote]
Tell that to the thousands who've died in the invasion of Normandy.