2nd Amendment

[OstrichSaK]

I don't feel like segmenting each specific point of yours so I'll just reply. A couple of things, the first is I am not claiming that anyone that is "pro 2nd amendment" is a "whackjob", I said I have NO PROBLEM with my neighbor owning a gun as long as he's not some "YEE-HAW" (meaning he has NO respect for a firearm, which lets face it there are people that get a hold of a firearm that have NO BUSINESS owning one and that's on BOTH sides i.e. that guy doing gun-safety training that shot himself in the foot).

The guy who shot himself in the foot is a moron. Period. You can't compare all pro-gun people to him because it's not fair. Your previous statement smacked of comparing ALL people who support gun rights to this guy and to anyone reading your post it perpetuates the redneck stereotype. Come see what I and those around me do in a weekend for competition and training with firearms and I promise you'll change your outlook. I avoid the unsafe gun owner you speak of at all costs and fortunately they're not as prolific as you seem to think. The problem is that the 99.9% of gun owners don't make the news it's the 0.1% that make headlines so most don't realize they're the extreme exception. The fact that nearly half of the population seems to think we need to eliminate firearms because of that 0.1% is silly.

Yes, there are many people that should not have firearms and I think reasonable safeguards are prudent.

This is where I disagree with both of you because to say we need some sort of qualification system to decide who should own firearms is creating more problems than it's solving. Driving requires a permit and that doesn't mean there are people who shouldn't be driving that are legal permitted to do so. Want to save lives? Take a look at how many people are killed every year in car accidents. Hell, hammers can be just as dangerous in the hands of someone determined. Just a few months ago a teenager killed both of his parents with a hammer. Not a gun, a hammer. Point is there are LOTs of things in the world that can be used to kill if you're determined enough. It happens weekly across the nation and daily across the world.

I don't think having all the handguns/rifles in the world is going to do you a lick of good if the government decides it wants to wipe you off the map thus I think it's like arguing that you want to use a BIG knife at a gun fight.

The founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in because they were under English oppression. The amendment was intended to dissuade a tyrannical government from forming after the U.S. was free from English rule. Like I said, the amendment has lost it's intended bite due to the technological advances in weapons and warfare.

Actually, this is not true. Study history and you will see that the 2nd amendment was created SPECIFICALLY for controlling our own government. There is verbiage specifically to this throughout the US Constitution. The government was founded for the people and our founding fathers were intelligent enough to know that that government could become too powerful. The ONLY way to regulate this is through the threat of force. Think I'm full of it? Study history. Those who don't are destined to repeat it and the sad part is our Republic is already on track for the exact same fall that all the great dynasties prior to us suffered. It can happen and it does happen. Once weapons are regulated they will eventually become illegal and at that point the government can do ANYTHING it wants w/o the threat of physical harm. There are examples of this within the last several decades if you don't feel like digging back through the archives but I urge you to do some research before you take such a strong stand against something that is possible the ONLY thing standing between your freedom and tyranny from a dictator.

As far as having faith in my government, wrong again but I understand how this topic tends to invoke passion in people. I mean those in power know that the best way to divide people is to introduce a topic that they're emotional about. It's much easier to bend a person's rational thinking by trying to stir them emotionally.

The only reason we're discussing this is because of the threat it's under. If it wasn't under threat and it wasn't heading quickly towards the need to use it I wouldn't be in this conversation at all because I wouldn't feel the need to stand up for a right that's not under immediate scrutiny.

To summarize, my opinion is not that we need to get rid of everything that kills or maims and replace it with teddy bears, stuffed unicorns, and stuff that glitters (I actually would like to introduce more pointy things that maim and kill if anything as a means of population control), my opinion is that the original intention of this amendment has been mostly neutered and the actual argument now is just a ploy used by politicians to garner votes so they can get down to the business of selling our interests to the highest bidders. "Well, I'm going to introduce a bill that allows the U.S. government to listen to your phone calls, enter your house without a warrant, and hold you indefinitely if we suspect you of something, but don't worry, we're going to let you keep that relatively harmless assault rifle, Oh and the new bill that I'm introducing, you'll like its name. It's going to be called the "Patriot Act"."[/QUOTE]

You keep saying that the general intention of the amendment has been neutered yet you have yet to quantify this crude statement with some sort of validation. You seem to be operating on an incorrect assumption because there are plenty of statements opposing what you seem to think the amendment was written for so I'm not sure where you get your 'facts' in this case.

Now, I wanted to start a new paragraph because I feel this last portion of your statement is important to clarify. Just because I'm pro-2nd amendment I am not, I repeat NOT a supporter of the Patriot Act. I feel that this is one of the single worst bills in terms of our freedom passed in our lifetimes. The fact that they claim they will make us safer by giving up our liberties and so many people bought it blows me away. Obama made no qualms about his stance on it when he was running for president. When it sunsetted he would see to it that it would not come back and would go away. How did that work out Obama? You get the office and my how quickly you turned on your promises. This Patriot Act is a direct affront to our rights as free men and women of this nation. Period. I don't care how they try to sugar coat it and scare the sheeple into thinking their very lives are at stake it's unconstitutional and gives the government WAY too much power. All that being said, what do you suppose we do against such challenges to our freedoms when they get more frequent and more egregious if we aren't allowed to possess firearms? That's a rhetorical answer because I already know the answer since this has played out dozens of times already in recent history and it ends the same way each and every time.

Do you realize what the 8th largest army in the world is? Based on license registrations in only 6 U.S. states it is the American hunters!

Larger than that and it's not the hunters I would worry about if I was our federal government with plans to slowly take our nation's wealth. The total number of US residents in the US military is WELL under 1% whereas the total number of US residents who legally own firearms is between 35-48% depending on what number you go with. Which one isn't important since even on the low end we're talking 35x more armed civilians than military folk. It's also estimated that if counted illegally owned firearms could push that number to well over half of the population. Still think it's a lost cause if we wanted to defend ourselves? When you look at it from the full perspective the US civilians are EASILY the largest army/militia in the world.

Take away our second amendment and watch how fast the remainder of our rights are taken away and our free nation is forced into poverty & servitude.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

This is where I disagree with both of you because to say we need some sort of qualification system to decide who should own firearms is creating more problems than it's solving. Driving requires a permit and that doesn't mean there are people who shouldn't be driving that are legal permitted to do so. Want to save lives? Take a look at how many people are killed every year in car accidents. Hell, hammers can be just as dangerous in the hands of someone determined. Just a few months ago a teenager killed both of his parents with a hammer. Not a gun, a hammer. Point is there are LOTs of things in the world that can be used to kill if you're determined enough. It happens weekly across the nation and daily across the world.

This is a slippery slope, but if it could be done correctly I would not be opposed to a little more due diligence in obtaining a weapon.

Larger than that and it's not the hunters I would worry about if I was our federal government with plans to slowly take our nation's wealth. The total number of US residents in the US military is WELL under 1% whereas the total number of US residents who legally own firearms is between 35-48% depending on what number you go with. Which one isn't important since even on the low end we're talking 35x more armed civilians than military folk. It's also estimated that if counted illegally owned firearms could push that number to well over half of the population. Still think it's a lost cause if we wanted to defend ourselves? When you look at it from the full perspective the US civilians are EASILY the largest army/militia in the world.

I would guess well over 50%, my example was a "shock tactic" to illustrate that only six states had more licensed hunters than the 9th largest army in the world has soldiers, kind of impressive actually!

Take away our second amendment and watch how fast the remainder of our rights are taken away and our free nation is forced into poverty & servitude.

I agree and have said the same thing many times.

 

[OstrichSaK]

This is a slippery slope, but if it could be done correctly I would not be opposed to a little more due diligence in obtaining a weapon.

Sure thing. Next we'll just require that one obtain a permit in order to exercise free speech. After all, if properly done it will make everyone much safer, right? I'm not one who believes the federal government can make many situations better long-term. I don't think permits for anything protect anyone. The example I continually use is that in order to legally drive an automobile law stipulates that one must acquire a permit. Everyone is safe, right? Nobody breaks laws once they have a permit and surely nobody would dare drive an automobile without the proper permit, right? The DMV is widely known as a smoothly operation facility that does a great job of saving lives. Let's add a DMV type Department to every constitutional right we are born with and everyone will be able to skip down the streets holding hands in complete safety without any worry of harm.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Sure thing. Next we'll just require that one obtain a permit in order to exercise free speech. After all, if properly done it will make everyone much safer, right? I'm not one who believes the federal government can make many situations better long-term. I don't think permits for anything protect anyone. The example I continually use is that in order to legally drive an automobile law stipulates that one must acquire a permit. Everyone is safe, right? Nobody breaks laws once they have a permit and surely nobody would dare drive an automobile without the proper permit, right? The DMV is widely known as a smoothly operation facility that does a great job of saving lives. Let's add a DMV type Department to every constitutional right we are born with and everyone will be able to skip down the streets holding hands in complete safety without any worry of harm.

You did notice I said IF it can be done correctly, which you are correct, nothing in government seems to be done right.

 

[OstrichSaK]

You did notice I said IF it can be done correctly, which you are correct, nothing in government seems to be done right.

Your statement insinuates that it can and not that you don't believe it will. Otherwise why would you even suggest something as an option if you know it can't be done? I just don't want the federal government having control of anything else. It already has FAR too much control and is FAR too large for this nation's good to even consider adding something else.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Your statement insinuates that it can and not that you don't believe it will. Otherwise why would you even suggest something as an option if you know it can't be done? I just don't want the federal government having control of anything else. It already has FAR too much control and is FAR too large for this nation's good to even consider adding something else.

Yes, it's just wishful thinking...or would that be living in fantasy land...

 

[Adauth]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Just thought i'd throw that in. lol

 

[Bob Maxey]

Forget guns, watch out for illegal limes:

Asda tell chef: You can't buy that lime... it could be classed as a weapon | Mail Online

"A chef was stunned to find she was almost banned from buying two limes from a supermarket - because they could be classed as a weapon. Marisa Zoccolan, 31, popped into the new Asda supermarket close to her home in Wallsend, North Tyneside, to pick up some groceries, including the citrus fruits.

But when she tried to pay for them at the self-service checkout, the message 'amount exceeded, authorisation required' flashed up.

Two limes? That's one too many: Marisa Zoccolan, pictured with the two limes she was almost forbidden from buying. An assistant then came over and told her that more than one lime was deemed a weapon - because the citric acid could be squirted in someone's eye. Marisa, a self-employed caterer said: 'I thought they were taking the pip, but the assistant told me the same applied to lemons."

Interestingly enough, lime ownership and possession is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Forget guns, watch out for illegal limes:

Asda tell chef: You can't buy that lime... it could be classed as a weapon | Mail Online

"A chef was stunned to find she was almost banned from buying two limes from a supermarket - because they could be classed as a weapon. Marisa Zoccolan, 31, popped into the new Asda supermarket close to her home in Wallsend, North Tyneside, to pick up some groceries, including the citrus fruits.

But when she tried to pay for them at the self-service checkout, the message 'amount exceeded, authorisation required' flashed up.

Two limes? That's one too many: Marisa Zoccolan, pictured with the two limes she was almost forbidden from buying. An assistant then came over and told her that more than one lime was deemed a weapon - because the citric acid could be squirted in someone's eye. Marisa, a self-employed caterer said: 'I thought they were taking the pip, but the assistant told me the same applied to lemons."

Interestingly enough, lime ownership and possession is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

Look out, Bloomberg is going to start M.A.I.L. now...Mayors Against Illlegal Limes!

 

[JnEricsonx]

Well, as Bill Maher said, paraphrasing, the 2nd Amendment might need looking at, because when it was written, it was all flintlocks. Within less than a century, we went from flintlocks to the Colt PeaceMaker, Winchester rifles, bolt-action rifles, and the freaking Gatling gun. Can you IMAGINE if our original American army had gone to war with ONE TENTH of its members outfitted with Wild-West era guns? Would have been a hell of a thing.

 

[IOWA]

My take on gun control? Take classes and use two hands.

 

[copestag]

Well, as Bill Maher said, paraphrasing, the 2nd Amendment might need looking at, because when it was written, it was all flintlocks. Within less than a century, we went from flintlocks to the Colt PeaceMaker, Winchester rifles, bolt-action rifles, and the freaking Gatling gun. Can you IMAGINE if our original American army had gone to war with ONE TENTH of its members outfitted with Wild-West era guns? Would have been a hell of a thing.

In this case lets take a look at freedom of speech as well........... considering we went from the most advanced communication tool being a quill pen to telegraph, to radio, to tv, to internet. Can you imagine if George Washington had PornHub? Would have been a hell of a thing.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Well, as Bill Maher said, paraphrasing, the 2nd Amendment might need looking at, because when it was written, it was all flintlocks. Within less than a century, we went from flintlocks to the Colt PeaceMaker, Winchester rifles, bolt-action rifles, and the freaking Gatling gun. Can you IMAGINE if our original American army had gone to war with ONE TENTH of its members outfitted with Wild-West era guns? Would have been a hell of a thing.

So you are saying since guns have improved we somehow no longer deserve to own them? A computer can be just as powerful as a gun in the right hands so I guess we need to give those up too.

I rank Maher right up there with the other talking heads, a continuous flow of excrement coming from his mouth.

 

[nawilliams82]

more federal foot stomping on states rights. not needed.

........or a fix to states stomping on a Constitutional amendment.

 

[nawilliams82]

My take on gun control? Take classes and use two hands.

It's the argument that a 110lb woman should have to fist fight a 200lb rapist.

 

[IOWA]

It's the argument that a 110lb woman should have to fist fight a 200lb rapist.

Or the argument a 200lb man has with a 100lb woman. Makes no difference. You never know what the other person is capable of, and sex/size/weight doesn't make anyone less/more deadly/dangerous than another. To think otherwise is simply chauvinistic and quite shortsighted at bare minimum.

EDIT:

And man or woman, you should always use two hands while operating a firearm. Period.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Iowa is right, I know a woman 5' 2" who can go toe to toe with me in a sparring match and can hold her own!

And yes, you never know what the other person is capable of or what they may be carrying, legally or illegally.

 

[batgeek]

And man or woman, you should always use two hands while operating a firearm. Period.

unless you're in the Olympics....of course.

 

[OstrichSaK]

Iowa is right, I know a woman 5' 2" who can go toe to toe with me in a sparring match and can hold her own!

And yes, you never know what the other person is capable of or what they may be carrying, legally or illegally.

I disagree with the path you two seem to be going down as it relates to this conversation. I go about 290lbs and the thought that a 110lb woman being able to fight me off bare hands if I was determined is comical at best (it also assumes the larger person has zero training). Even my wife who is a pretty strong 140lb woman (give or take, not going to get specific or she will kill me... lol) comments on how much stronger I am than her when she will come at me jokingly and I can shrug her off with one arm and about 50% strength and not even fully focused on the task at hand. It's not chauvinistic it's scientific fact. Testosterone is a MoFo when it comes to the most important things in a fight for your life -strength & resistance to pain- and men have it coursing through their veins on demand. I can't stand when people perpetuate the thought that if you take tai boe <sp?> you will be able to thwart a larger criminal... no firearm needed. C'mon people. It's simple physics and if you're out in the world some animals are larger, stronger and more ferocious. You're just banking on the fact they don't want your belongings or body. Ignoring facts to remain politically correct is dangerous. Hiding behind political correctness will NOT save you in real life.

Now, what if it's two guys? Three guys? Four guys? Still think your 'I am woman hear me roar' will save you?

Bottom line is carry a gun and learn how to use it and none of this will matter. I'm a large and well trained human and even I'm smart enough to know situations may present itself that I can't handle w/o one.

Pride comes before the fall.

 

[IOWA]

I disagree with the path you two seem to be going down as it relates to this conversation. I go about 290lbs and the thought that a 110lb woman being able to fight me off bare hands if I was determined is comical at best (it also assumes the larger person has zero training). Even my wife who is a pretty strong 140lb woman (give or take, not going to get specific or she will kill me... lol) comments on how much stronger I am than her when she will come at me jokingly and I can shrug her off with one arm and about 50% strength and not even fully focused on the task at hand. It's not chauvinistic it's scientific fact. Testosterone is a MoFo when it comes to the most important things in a fight for your life -strength &amp; resistance to pain- and men have it coursing through their veins on demand. I can't stand when people perpetuate the thought that if you take tai boe &lt;sp?&gt; you will be able to thwart a larger criminal... no firearm needed. C'mon people. It's simple physics and if you're out in the world some animals are larger, stronger and more ferocious. You're just banking on the fact they don't want your belongings or body. Ignoring facts to remain politically correct is dangerous. Hiding behind political correctness will NOT save you in real life.

Now, what if it's two guys? Three guys? Four guys? Still think your 'I am woman hear me roar' will save you?

Bottom line is carry a gun and learn how to use it and none of this will matter. I'm a large and well trained human and even I'm smart enough to know situations may present itself that I can't handle w/o one.

Pride comes before the fall.

No, it is chauvanistic. I know women that can take pretty much any male here with ease.

 

[OstrichSaK]

No, it is chauvanistic. I know women that can take pretty much any male here with ease.

Sure thing bud.

 

[dmdroid]

When the Government fears the People, there is Liberty.

When the People fear the Government, there is tyranny.

If guns are banned people will become subjects.

Any man who will give up a little liberty, for a little safety will have neither.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

I disagree with the path you two seem to be going down as it relates to this conversation. I go about 290lbs and the thought that a 110lb woman being able to fight me off bare hands if I was determined is comical at best (it also assumes the larger person has zero training). Even my wife who is a pretty strong 140lb woman (give or take, not going to get specific or she will kill me... lol) comments on how much stronger I am than her when she will come at me jokingly and I can shrug her off with one arm and about 50% strength and not even fully focused on the task at hand. It's not chauvinistic it's scientific fact. Testosterone is a MoFo when it comes to the most important things in a fight for your life -strength & resistance to pain- and men have it coursing through their veins on demand. I can't stand when people perpetuate the thought that if you take tai boe <sp?> you will be able to thwart a larger criminal... no firearm needed. C'mon people. It's simple physics and if you're out in the world some animals are larger, stronger and more ferocious. You're just banking on the fact they don't want your belongings or body. Ignoring facts to remain politically correct is dangerous. Hiding behind political correctness will NOT save you in real life.

Now, what if it's two guys? Three guys? Four guys? Still think your 'I am woman hear me roar' will save you?

Bottom line is carry a gun and learn how to use it and none of this will matter. I'm a large and well trained human and even I'm smart enough to know situations may present itself that I can't handle w/o one.

Pride comes before the fall.

You are dismissing what proper training can accomplish, and I do not put Tae Bo in that category. Yes there are a lot of scams and jokes in the martial arts world but a properly trained individual can accomplish some pretty amazing things.

The 5' 2" woman I refer to was my superior in class, able to kick me in the head at 6' 5", and at my then lean fighting weight of 245lbs could take most of what I dished out. Could she beat me if it were a real life struggle, no. Could she beat someone my size who had no training, without a doubt. Multiple assailants, depends on the persons involved. Does the average woman have a chance, no. But as was said before it is about not knowing who is capable of what.

There are many myths and misconceptions when it comes to martial arts and you are guilty of one of the biggest, that it makes no difference. As you said it is simple physics and if you study any of the serious martial arts you will learn physics and how to use it to your advantage. You learn how to strike and deliver a considerably larger impact force than you could using sheer muscle force alone. For example, I knocked a 40lb bag ten feet across a garage with a double fisted punch and that wasn't anywhere near my full potential. I have experienced in training and seen in real life a 125lb woman incapacitating someone my size using Ju-Jitsu. Is this inescapable, no as long as you have the training or sheer will of force to overcome the pain you are in and make no mistake it is excruciatingly painful. Add to that the fact we are trained if we are unable to avoid a fight "block to break, strike to kill", you will find no flowery air punches and kicks in an attempt to intimidate. Our goal in blocking an attack is to break the bone of the offending limb, if we have to strike someone it is real combat and the final outcome of that is intended to be death of the opponent. Most will not accomplish death in one strike, but rest assured the recipient of that strike will likely think twice about continuing to attack if they are still capable. This isn't the "feel good, increase your confidence" training you get at the local McDojo.

As for the myths, there is no flying around, spinning in the air, catching a sword between the palms of your hands, Ninja don't disappear into the shadows or any of the other Hollywood nonsense. And my personal favorite, "urban legend" status, I had a guy who was supposedly an ex Airborne Ranger try and convince me he knows Mossad agents who are experts at Krav Maga (a joke for another post) that can cross a twenty foot space and disarm you before you can pull the trigger.

To sum it up, proper training and preparation are key to surviving any bad situation, use all the tools at your disposal be they martial arts, mace, a gun, whatever, just be prepared.

Also, don't forget what this thread is about, if they take our guns and things continue to spiral out of control they will eventually ban martial arts training.

No, it is chauvanistic. I know women that can take pretty much any male here with ease.

You are generalizing and overestimating, what I did not say in my response to Ostrich will be said here, he is correct that size is a major determining factor. Whoever said "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" was an idiot, once again physics will dictate that "The bigger they are, the harder they hit", there is more muscle mass for any given frame size the taller the person is.

As I said before, my friend could not beat me in all out combat, nor could our Shidoin who is the 125lb woman I referred to and she is an expert in three different martial arts, as long as I get my hands on her first. With all her training she could not take me "with ease" nor could she a moderately capable person my size, that is once again elevating martial artists to "mystical" levels, it takes intense concentration and physical exertion to defeat a larger opponent. She may win but it won't be easy.

When the Government fears the People, there is Liberty.

When the People fear the Government, there is tyranny.

If guns are banned people will become subjects.

Any man who will give up a little liberty, for a little safety will have neither.

All too true!

 

[OstrichSaK]

You are dismissing what proper training can accomplish, and I do not put Tae Bo in that category. Yes there are a lot of scams and jokes in the martial arts world but a properly trained individual can accomplish some pretty amazing things.

The 5' 2" woman I refer to was my superior in class, able to kick me in the head at 6' 5", and at my then lean fighting weight of 245lbs could take most of what I dished out. Could she beat me if it were a real life struggle, no. Could she beat someone my size who had no training, without a doubt. Multiple assailants, depends on the persons involved. Does the average woman have a chance, no. But as was said before it is about not knowing who is capable of what.

There are many myths and misconceptions when it comes to martial arts and you are guilty of one of the biggest, that it makes no difference. As you said it is simple physics and if you study any of the serious martial arts you will learn physics and how to use it to your advantage. You learn how to strike and deliver a considerably larger impact force than you could using sheer muscle force alone. For example, I knocked a 40lb bag ten feet across a garage with a double fisted punch and that wasn't anywhere near my full potential. I have experienced in training and seen in real life a 125lb woman incapacitating someone my size using Ju-Jitsu. Is this inescapable, no as long as you have the training or sheer will of force to overcome the pain you are in and make no mistake it is excruciatingly painful. Add to that the fact we are trained if we are unable to avoid a fight "block to break, strike to kill", you will find no flowery air punches and kicks in an attempt to intimidate. Our goal in blocking an attack is to break the bone of the offending limb, if we have to strike someone it is real combat and the final outcome of that is intended to be death of the opponent. Most will not accomplish death in one strike, but rest assured the recipient of that strike will likely think twice about continuing to attack if they are still capable. This isn't the "feel good, increase your confidence" training you get at the local McDojo.

As for the myths, there is no flying around, spinning in the air, catching a sword between the palms of your hands, Ninja don't disappear into the shadows or any of the other Hollywood nonsense. And my personal favorite, "urban legend" status, I had a guy who was supposedly an ex Airborne Ranger try and convince me he knows Mossad agents who are experts at Krav Maga (a joke for another post) that can cross a twenty foot space and disarm you before you can pull the trigger.

To sum it up, proper training and preparation are key to surviving any bad situation, use all the tools at your disposal be they martial arts, mace, a gun, whatever, just be prepared.

Also, don't forget what this thread is about, if they take our guns and things continue to spiral out of control they will eventually ban martial arts training.



You are generalizing and overestimating, what I did not say in my response to Ostrich will be said here, he is correct that size is a major determining factor. Whoever said "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" was an idiot, once again physics will dictate that "The bigger they are, the harder they hit", there is more muscle mass for any given frame size the taller the person is.

As I said before, my friend could not beat me in all out combat, nor could our Shidoin who is the 125lb woman I referred to and she is an expert in three different martial arts, as long as I get my hands on her first. With all her training she could not take me "with ease" nor could she a moderately capable person my size, that is once again elevating martial artists to "mystical" levels, it takes intense concentration and physical exertion to defeat a larger opponent. She may win but it won't be easy.



All too true!

I think you and I are basically saying the same thing here just in different ways. I'm not trying to dismiss proper training because I do LOTs of it in various forms. My point is that these generalizations that if you take some form of martial arts then you're good to go. Too much advertising making soccer moms think this is all they need is what I warn against. Sure it's good to have and I actually have lots of martial arts training of various backgrounds and disciplines but my statement is more that in addition to this hand to hand training you really should train with a firearm which you also carry. No matter how much you train in hand to hand combat and how big you are there are situations you can't contend with. This goes even more if you don't have size on your side and even more if you're untrained. That's my only point. Allow me to select an untrained male (I'm far too trained to fit this scenario) in the 250lb range to put up against your black belt Taekwondo 125lb female and she's going to have a tough time. That's all there is too it. Regardless of what some salesman tells you trying to get you to take martial arts size does matter. This also assumes that your attacker will have no training or even previous experience for that matter. It also assumes that there will be only one attacker. The point is there are just too many variables to NOT want to carry a firearm to protect yourself from them. Far too many times I find myself arguing with someone who takes Taekwondo and says they've been 'trained' and now they don't need a firearm which is idiocy. These statements generally come from small-in-stature women who I deal with is why I said the things I say. It's a lot like saying your 40lb domesticated dog could defend itself in a fight against a 80lb wolf because you've trained it to do so. There are some differences training can't overcome. Remember, I'm not someone who is discounting this training you talk about because I don't know it and don't believe it. I know it quite well and it's with this knowledge that I know it's not an end all solution for ANYONE let alone a smaller in stature female. In closing, I'm not saying training doesn't make a difference... it just doesn't make quite as big of a difference as some seem to think. After all, there's weight divisions & men and women fight separately in combat sports for a reason.

 

[Bob Maxey]

You are dismissing what proper training can accomplish, and I do not put Tae Bo in that category. Yes there are a lot of scams and jokes in the martial arts world but a properly trained individual can accomplish some pretty amazing things.

I blame the movies. You would be surprised at how many guys walking out of the theater after seeing "Enter the Dragon" think they can break Oldsmobiles and take on a bar filled with ruffians. They can't, they usually get hurt. Learn martial arts and you can defeat anyone in any situation because your skill will be vast, grasshopper. Or so the perception goes.

I am a Segal fan for some God only knows reason and I know when he enters a room filled with bad guys, all it takes is one bad guy with a gun and Mr. Segal could be history. Every martial art has limits and they cannot outrun a load of double-aught. I am not so sure any martial arts expert/master could defeat a large group of bad guys as is often what we see played out in the movies.

I say take a self-defense course and stay out of iffy situations. Your brain, your inner little guy saying "not so fast" and a little common sense will likely keep you safe.

If you are hell bent on carrying a gun, take a course from qualified experts and learn why life with a gun ain't like in the movies or the wild west or the dime novels Albert Aikin wrote.