home alarm systems are for sissys

this is because you live under the belief that the police will always be there to protect you, and you wont understand that need until its to late to do anything for you. one of the founding fathers of this country (thomas jefferson) stated that it is your responsibility as an american to be "at all times armed". that does not just mean when youre at home. "at all times" leaves little room for interpretation.

i legally carry a concealed handgun _everywhere_ i go. if i cannot legally carry a gun there, i simply do not go there. it is not because i am afraid or paranoid, it is not some perceived "need" for having it. i carry a gun simply to eliminate vulnerability. an unarmed man can be attacked with confidence every time. id like to quote an internet post from another user:

---------- Why The Gun In Civilization By The Munchkin Wrangler

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat-it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation.and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

----------

i would also encourage you to read my thoughts on personal security found at

i know there is a lot of anti-brinks sentiment within this forum that i dont wish to become involved in for various reasons, but c'mon...to suggest their monitoring doesnt work is less than truthful.

you would be wrong sir.

THAT quote is priceless! I've never heard that before, but it sure puts personal firearm ownership in the true perspective. What a piece of work Franklin was. He just HAD to be an alien visitor to this planet.

I'm not sure where you got your information about the decrease in personal firearm ownership but I've read articles that say that since the firearm confiscation that happened during Katrina, that national firearm ownership has increased and that some states have instituted laws that ban confiscation during an emergency. I don't know what the source was tho.

Great post!!!!!!

It's true it would be difficult for anyone here to claim to have done an independent objective study comparing one monitoring service to another. There are many reasons folks here have to be suspicious of the abilities of companies like Brinks. That suspicion would spill over into their monitoring services as well. Generally competitors to Brinks don't get called in to see happy well served Brinks customers. Only the customers that want to put the boot to Brinks. So our perspective may seem to have gotten too jaded if you're still satisfied with your service with Brinks.

They don't have to be "big". :-)

Excellent Quote!

And that is contradicted by this site: And that is in turn contradicted by this site: I am not certain what the General Social Survey is or if they are credible. The topics they pick to survey and the organizations they gather data for makes them a little suspect in my opinion.

"Nathan W. Collier" wrote in news:nbOdnYY4xPxc27banZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@bresnan.com:

I agree with his ideas in theory..BUT, if you are going to carry a weapon (gun,knife, big damn stick) YOU have to:

1. Know how to use it.
2. Know when to use it.
3. Know when not to use it
5. BE WILLING TO USE IT.

#5 being the the top priority, because if you have a gun and pull it on a mugger, carjacker, etc. and are not willing to pull the trigger, then you have raised the level of violence for the mugger by an order of magnitude. this may get you killed.

There is no 1 answer to the problem, either no guns or unrestricted access. I don't know the answer either, but I do know that feel safer with the option to defend my home from any threat to my family, because though i will feel bad for having to take a life, i am willing.

"Nathan W. Collier" wrote in news:IaqdnTSHQ60X2rbanZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@bresnan.com:

It's not their monitoring... per se. Most of us here know how Binkis puts in systems. They tend to the lick and stick 3 doors and a motion, that would not be enough protection for most homes. if you paid extra and had more put in then that's a good thing. if not well.....

message

octogenarian

Sounds like Asimov doesn't it. Not precisely, but close enough.

well said.

brinks offers a service for a price. if you choose to pay more you can certainly get more. if you choose not to however, its awful tough to fault brinks for that.

are you suggesting that his opinion is without merit?

"Nathan W. Collier" wrote in news:WuOdnWfSVeMiTLbanZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@bresnan.com:

It's not what they offer that stick's in every one's craw. It's how they offer it. They try to sell it as a total security solution and give people a false sense of security. Sure, it may be better than nothing but make sure that the customer knows that going in and not find out later. The people here sell security, Brinks sells monitoring.

I look at it this way: 98% of the people in this country ARE sheep. 1% are wolves, and 1% are sheep dogs. If you diasarm the people, the wolves win.

All you liberals, starry-eyed Sara Brady types, and dumbass DemocRATS say Baaaaaaaa.

I've been there. It...well, it just ain't natural.