Do you see it as fighting off an invasion from outside or an internal issue?

Could be one or the other. Doesn't matter. If you read the boards here long enough it would be conceivable that the U.S. power whon't be around forever. The economy could really go south our military could loose most of it strength opening us up for an invasion.

The government could REALLY overstep its bounds in ways that we have not seen yet, and in the process piss of many people. If the few 10's of thousands of "insurgents" are giving the U.S. military a fair run for thier money imagine what a few 100 thousand or million pissed off and armed Americans could accomplish.

Another reason would be for self defense. You don't really think the police are there to protect us do you. Its not their job to protect me. their job is to arrest people who break the law.

But overall it does not matter since it is my right to keep and bear arms.
If the government wants to limit my rights they should at least try to do it correctly and amend the Constitution.


Edit.....

"You have voted para for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month."

[edit on 11/4/05 by Skibum]

Can anyone name the last murder in America committed with a so called "assault weapon"? How about before the Clinton ban of '94?
Does ANYONE have any statistics that would support law abiding citizens being banned from owning these rifles (and some pistols)?

I didn't think so.

I really wish Feinstein, Schumer and Kennedy would name the next bill the " Scary looking gun ban".
Or maybe the "I have nothing left but show and tell legislation" bill.


Legal gun owners are not the problem! You liberal "give them a chance" types are the problem. People who commit crimes with guns don't deserve another chance! Plain and simple.
Why do you think that disarming us will help?

[edit on 11-4-2005 by Fry2]

Forget assault weapon stastics. Did gun crime go up or down, in general?

Dear all,

Here is an idea, anyone who asks for a gun should automatically be deemed to stupid to own one.

Watch the crime stats drop.

Then what you can do is anyone found with a gun is thrown in jail.

Further drop in crime stats plus the added benefit of no more rap music.

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by Fry2

Legal gun owners are not the problem! You liberal "give them a chance" types are the problem. People who commit crimes with guns don't deserve another chance! Plain and simple.
Why do you think that disarming us will help?

[edit on 11-4-2005 by Fry2]

I understand that someone with your kind of avatar is going to have a harder time understanding the very simple logic here;
If there are less guns, there are less guns to end up in the illegal circuit to begin with.

As I said before, if more guns would make a country safer, than america would have to bt the safest country in the world, which it is surely not.

Jakko,

The point you make is one I made earlier.

It is a logic that seems to escape those who are pro-gun.

Just like the correlation between gun related deaths and gun ownership in the US and the similar correlation in countries like the UK, Sweden, France, Germany etc.

Cheers

BHR

Well seing as 19 pages has pretty much recycled the same arguments several times from both sides, all i gotta say to the anti gun people is this,



Try and take it.

Cole,

Nice to see you injecting a bit of humour into the thread.

Cheers

BHR

The banning of only automaic weapons will not cure the problem the USA has with firearm related crime..and not only in the USA.
Firearm related crime is on the increase thanks to the ever increasing availaility of firearms from the former eastern block countries.

A crazy with a knife can kill as many if not more than a person with a gun...i live in spain and 1 year ago a nurse went crazy and killed 8 people in her hospital with a carving knife....what do we do now...BAN CARVING KNIVES...

PEOPLE and NOT weapons KILL.

Maybe the dark powers that be in the good ole USA are frightend that come the days of the new world order and marcial law that the people with the fully auto rifles will prove a problem when the new order tell them...your days of liberty are finished..the less people on the streets with firearms the better...and for them when only the government have guns all the better...bit by bit your libertys are fading away until you´ll have nothing left..and you cant fight it...why....BECAUSE YOU AINT GOT A GUN.....

Andy,

Originally posted by andy1972
The banning of only automaic weapons will not cure the problem the USA has with firearm related crime..and not only in the USA.
Firearm related crime is on the increase thanks to the ever increasing availaility of firearms from the former eastern block countries.

A crazy with a knife can kill as many if not more than a person with a gun...i live in spain and 1 year ago a nurse went crazy and killed 8 people in her hospital with a carving knife....what do we do now...BAN CARVING KNIVES...

PEOPLE and NOT weapons KILL.

Maybe the dark powers that be in the good ole USA are frightend that come the days of the new world order and marcial law that the people with the fully auto rifles will prove a problem when the new order tell them...your days of liberty are finished..the less people on the streets with firearms the better...and for them when only the government have guns all the better...bit by bit your libertys are fading away until you´ll have nothing left..and you cant fight it...why....BECAUSE YOU AINT GOT A GUN.....

Are you saying you need a gun for the day the MIBs come to get you?

As for your liberties. The government is not going to take them from you by force rather they will do it by stealth, for example the Patriot Act.

I did not see the people rise up on that one.

What about Patriot II? Still no uprising.

Which liberty will get you all out? Gun Ownership.

So they take all your other liberties and leave you that one to keep the masses docile.

Cheers

BHR

What amazes me is that the select few on the Pro-Gun side of things cant -or wont - acknowledge some basic fundamental truths.

ie; More guns in circulation = more guns in the hands of criminals.

Another irony is that the some of the more fervent pro-gun crowd dont see that they are driven by fear. Driven by fear and under the illusion that a gun will protect them.

I still fail to see why most of you anti-gun people try so hard to ban something that will most likely never affect you, banning guns WILL affect the gun owners, it wont affect you, dont punish us because of the actions of the few.

Another irony is that the some of the more fervent pro-gun crowd dont see that they are driven by fear. Driven by fear and under the illusion that a gun will protect them.

Another irony is that the some of the more fervent anti-gun crowd dont see that they are driven by fear. Driven by fear and under the illusion that no guns will protect them.


[edit on 15-4-2005 by C0le]

[edit on 15-4-2005 by C0le]

Originally posted by C0le
I still fail to see why most of you anti-gun people try so hard to ban something that will most likely never affect you, banning guns WILL affect the gun owners, it wont affect you, dont punish us because of the actions of the few.

It is rather funny how you claim we are the ones in fear and thats why we have guns, seems like you anti-gun people are the ones in fear.

Not all guns, just assault weapons.

In other words - weapon in which the only useful purpose for is to "assault" other people.

Originally posted by Black Flag
What amazes me is that the select few on the Pro-Gun side of things cant -or wont - acknowledge some basic fundamental truths.

ie; More guns in circulation = more guns in the hands of criminals.

I don't see anyone failing to acknowledge that. The problem is that fewer guns in the hands of criminals means absolutely nothing if, proportionally speaking, even fewer guns are in the hands of law-abiding decent people.

The good people are going to obey the law, while the bad guys are going to try to break it with varying levels of success. That is an inescapable fact.

from Hajduk
Not all guns, just assault weapons.

In other words - weapon in which the only useful purpose for is to "assault" other people.

Any weapon worth having could be considered an "assault" weapon. The term is redundant.

Beefotron,

You might want to Googlesearch the stats on gun use in defending the home or person.

Cheers

BHR

You guys also might want to google the stats for

"assault-weapons" used in crimes.

[edit on 15-4-2005 by C0le]

You might want to Googlesearch the stats on gun use in defending the home or person.

Why where are you trying to go with this? I know what the stats are.

Skibum,

So you agree then that the argument for gun ownership for self-defence is a false one.

At least we agree on that.

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Skibum,

So you agree then that the argument for gun ownership for self-defence is a false one.

At least we agree on that.

Cheers

BHR

I don't know where you got that from. What made up stats are you looking at.