The Pro-Gun argument.

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Okay, PTS has become a DUMPING ground for whining liberal theories and their useless solutions to problems they created themselves. First and foremost among these is the gun control problem.
Liberal whining established the first gun control laws. They figured that in the interests of peace and tranquility, it would be better if the death dealing weapons known as firearms were removed from the picture. A lofty and noble goal, but they forgot the HUMAN element. Humans as a race cannot be magically cured of violent intentions. For some reason, liberals think that taking the weapon away will stop the urge. There will ALWAYS be at least one guy out there who wants to impose his will on others. No amount of reeducation would cure this.
The only thing that banning guns will accomplish, is disarming potential victims. It just makes the job of the ambitious one easier. Guns, whether you like them or not, level the playing field, and can ultimately ensure our survival from each other.
Look at the school shootings. Guns are not allowed within a specified distance. What happens? A crazy nutjob with psychological issues has not competition. He can walk in and blast away with impunity, because it will be a long time before someone comes to stop him.
Banning guns won't keep guns out of their hands either. They don't get them through ordinary means. A crazy homicidal freak is not going to go into the sporting goods store and: "Hey, could i see that Glock over there? Yeah, i'm underage, but i want to go to school and shoot up my friends. Yes, that one, on the right."
No.
If you want to stop the killing, arm the targets. Even a psychotic murderer is greatly deterred by the thought and knowledge that his intended victim can fight back.
When you purchase a gun, you purchase security, defense, and safety for you and your entire family.




posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I've heard it said that an armed society is a polite society. I've also heard it said that when the Government no longer fears the people, there will be no more freedom. I also have first-hand experience with home intruders who would have dealth with me...differently...if I had not been armed.

I'd be interested to know, from those who propose gun control, how it would be possible to stay free without arms. Society might never be polite, and I can still be killed in my home by a younger faster person with a knife (or their bare hands).

Without arms, we fear our government. Where is the "right" in that?



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin_Case
 


i totally agree. I would love to hear some anti-gun arguments, just to blast them, but whether they like it or not, logic will always beat out the emotional hippie.



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
There is no argument. This is an inalienable right- given by God- not some liberal weanie.

When "they" come to my house to take my weapons, I will kill them. Not because I want to and not because it's my choice. I will kill "them" because it is my duty as a free man.



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I support firearm ownership, but I can't bring myself to be involved in a "discussion" that begins by blaming the "whining liberals" and "liberal weanies" and chomping at the bit to "blast" whomever disagrees. Can we really expect to have a good discussion or debate under those terms? I don't think so.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Can we really expect to have a good discussion or debate...


There is no discussion.

There is no debate.

There are only weanie libs that wish there was no God to give away the rights they think are theirs to grant and limit.



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Gatordone, u have succesfully summed up what has taken many people PARAGRAPHS to say.



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crusader of Truth
Okay, PTS has become a DUMPING ground for whining liberal theories and their useless solutions to problems they created themselves. First and foremost among these is the gun control problem.


I'm the biggest liberal you'll ever meet and I want more guns on the streets and in the hands of citizens.

I think you're building a straw man.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." ~LIBERAL, ILLUMINATI, FIRST PRESIDENT,FOUNDING FATHER George Washington

Don't even try to re-write history on me. Do I look like a Republican on AM radio? I'm from the real South, not Florida.



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gatordone
There is no argument. This is an inalienable right- given by God- not some liberal weanie.

When "they" come to my house to take my weapons, I will kill them. Not because I want to and not because it's my choice. I will kill "them" because it is my duty as a free man.


Who the hell is "They." Rudy Guilianni? You're a brainwashed turnip.

Correction: An armed brainwashed turnip, and God Bless you for that. Just read something sometime!



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gatordone
There are only weanie libs that wish there was no God to give away the rights they think are theirs to grant and limit.


Dude, I just want beer on Sundays. Is that weanie libs fault too, or yours?



posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Did I miss something in the OP?

Blue laws aren't protected by the constitution. Simple isn't it?

Communities passing laws that reflect local values may cramp your style but, in another thread, I would argue for more local power and kick the Feds out of everything.

And no, it's not my fault. In fact, while I lived in St Pete Beach, FL a group of locals was able to overturn exactly those laws.



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I think that on the issue in the OP, one must consider that one of the base platforms for the democrat Party and Liberals in general, is gun control.

Examples:


Curiously, all the Democratic presidential candidates made virtually identical statements about gun ownership being an individual right, but they all supported the same "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership: banning so-called semiautomatic assault weapons, regulating gun shows, opposing restrictions on lawsuits against gunmakers.

Outdoors best


The Republican-controlled committee rejected, 19-13, a move by the committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, to approve and send to the full House the Senate's gun control proposals, including the controversial "gun-show loophole" amendment.

CNN

Now of course intellectually, that is not to say that all Liberals support gun control, or that all conservatives oppose it; just party platforms as a general rule.

One thing that strikes me about gun control is the "sneaky" way that control is always attempted. Through the use of "checks", "waiting periods" and "outlawing" certain types of firearms, convincing the public that certain types are "not needed"; and my all time favorite, the Liberal medias constant use of incorrect terminology; calling semi auto handguns, automatics, assault weapons and so forth.

With our choices this year for the Whitehouse, I fear it will get even worse.

Semper



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Rant, I believe you are one liberal i can truthfully say I respect. It is nice to know that the stereotype may not be true. In the future, because of your statements, i will amend my accusations, in veiw of the fac that there ARE armed liberals out there. Currently, the greatest threats to our freedoms are not liberals, but rather, to be more specific, the harmful ones are Hippies, Neo-Nazis, and Communists.
Now, if a commie posts, and claims communism SUPPORTS gun rights, i am afraid i will not believe it. Communism has always made sure to disarm its citizens, so they are defenseless. They are sneaking into our government, and slowly changing our lives, and often we dont know it. We must always be vigilant



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Gatordone
 


When "they" come to my house to take my weapons, I will kill them. Not because I want to and not because it's my choice. I will kill "them" because it is my duty as a free man.


Act like that and as a FREE man you may not be for long. Say Hello Waco!

I have no particular opposition to the responsible ownership of firearms. OTOH, we have - so we’re told - 280 million guns in America owned by 80 million people. I forget the numbers but somewhere between 5,000 and 30,000 people die each year from injuries inflicted by firearms. They got shot!

Which brings me to one of my issues. Lethality. You can get this info off the CDC web site. 28-30% of people - it varies from year to year - die of wounds sufficiently serious to require medical attention. That is, other wounds for which no outside care is sought or received are not reported. Only visits to professional care givers. Of ALL other accidents where a person sought medical care, less than 1/10th of 1% of the victims DIE. Firearms are like 30,000 times more lethal than ALL other accidents.

Responsible gun ownership.
Every firearm should be registered and TITLED as is the case with a car or a boat. 1 gun, 1 title. Transfers of ownership would require buyer and seller to appear before a court clerk and sign a new title application, turning in the old one, and verification the firearm ID # agreed with the title and had not been altered. $25 new title fee.

Only adults
with no felony convictions - unless that penalty was partially remitted - could own, possess, use or have access to a firearm. Children from 14 to 18 could own .22 caliber rim fire rifles or . 410 shotguns of 1 or 2 shot capacity. Under 14, NO guns of any kind allowed.

Any person
owning more than a certain number of firearms - say 6 - would need a collector’s license. If he bought and sold more than a fixed number of firearms - say 3 - annually in which case he would need a dealers permit. $1,000 annual fee. And proof of liability insurance up to $1 million.

An annual property value tax
would be levied on each firearm. The typical property tax is around 1.5% to 2.5% per year. This would be based on the MSRP straight line depreciated over 25 or 50 years with 25% residual value. If the tax is not paid when due then a tax lien would be put on the firearm which must be paid before the next transfer. When unpaid taxes equal the MSRP, the gun BECOMES property of the State and failure to return it to the state would be a violation.

Any infraction
of these laws would be violations - not up to the level of a crime - punishable by a FINE up to $5,000 and confiscation of the firearm. After the 3rd offense, the fine would be doubled on each subsequent offense. The government could at any time levy on other property of the gun owner to satisfy unpaid fees or assessments.

Because
of the total chaos in the firearms availability matter, and a half century of unchecked proliferation, it would take 50 to 100 years for the US to get a HANDLE on guns. But it won’t happen until we start.

Any time a firearm
is involved in the commission of a crime or is in the possession of an ineligible person, every person in the chain of title would be required to offer all good assistance to law enforcement. This would tend to make sellers’ more particular who their buyer is. Giving false information to the Government is like any other perjury, a crime. That can give you more trouble that you really want.

Let’s get it started! Let’s have responsible gun ownership!

[edit on 4/12/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
One problem, donwhite.

Your plan has nothing to do with responsible gun ownership.

It's all about making gun ownership a liability for the law-abiding.

Liberals have been trying to shove this agenda down the throats of good people for too long and I think by now, good people can recognize that scam for what it is.

Where there are more guns, there are fewer crimes.

Washington, DC and Florida are perfect examples of that and I'm pretty sure that Washington, DC is going to be the case that finally gets the Supreme Court to make the ruling that will benefit the nation, that gun ownership is a Constitutionally-protected individual right.

archive.newsmax.com...

www.theinternetparty.org...

www.guncite.com...

www.guncite.com...

www.madisonbrigade.com...

apologiesdemanded.blogspot.com...

Google Search


"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

George Washington
First President of the United States

cap-n-ball.com...



[edit on 2008/4/12 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington First President of the United States


Sweet Jesus! What a quote! And oh so convenient and it from a distinctly partisan advocacy website to boot! It makes you shiver just to imagine when GW would have had occasion to deliver that “quote” and to whom it was addressed. Preaching to the choir? If you did not know better you might think GW said this at the very first NRA Convention? I am of the opinion there are many websites that can furnish you a quote to fit your needs, attributed to almost anyone you want or need. The internet is great, but it is estimated 80% of the “facts” on the ‘net are false. Caveat emptor!

For easy reference, here follows the FIRST 2nd Amendment.
“ . . but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.” Articles of Confederation, Article VI, Paragraph 4. 1775. I offer this easier to understand version than the discombobulated one used in the 1787 Constitution. My bold type.

Onward. Americans are a funny people for sure. Otherwise rational people are capable of totally ignoring the annual number of deaths due to firearms. Completely. It is as if A) they did not know, or B) they do know but do not care! As long as they are not the ones who die by firearms, they just shrug it off. “Hey, it’s part of the price for living!”

We the people have an almost unlimited ability to self-blind when one of our sacred cows is involved. I hold George Washington in great respect maybe even in awe. Like it or not, he more than anyone created the government we have today. I’m sure he had faults and he surely was no Napoleon but then, that turned out to be his greatest gift to America.

It seems to me to be unprofitable to offer the “sayings” of George Washington - old quotes are almost always taken out of context - for our application to problems in the 21st century which he could never have anticipated. That is as valueless as quoting St. Paul on slavery. It is hard to talk about addressing a serious problem - 5,000 to 30,000 preventable deaths annually - when the other side offer the sayings of the slave owning, whiskey making founder of the country. And continue to ignore the up to 30,000 dead as the “cost of living” in a free country. Hmm? We really can do better.

A lot of Americans get irrational when they learn that China is putting lead in their children’s toys. They know that a whole range on not good things happen to young children who have lead in their bodies. Well, even on that, Americans care more for some children than they do for other children. It is reliably estimated that 25% of children in poverty circumstances are exposed to lead containing paint that was “grand-fathered” in so that the R&F landlords would not be burdened with the expense of lead paint removal. Hey, we take care of our own!

For sure, all the new houses in gated communities do not have lead based paint, but then, if you want to live in a slum and raise your children in a dangerous environment, that ought to be an American’s right! Heaven forbid the Government would tell anyone where to live! Or protect poor children at the expense of the R&Fs.

Aside: Although the number of cars on America’s roads has tripled since the 1960s, the number of deaths in auto accidents is actually lower today than it was then. Auto deaths where alcohol was involved have been reduced over 50%. We are perfectly capable of dealing with important social issues when we want to.

OTOH, in these discussions we do learn where people stand. And the reasons offered for their position. And that has its own value. It means people like me must work harder to find better arguments that will persuade more people to my point of view. Jeez, what a job!

[edit on 4/13/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Whether you like that quote or not. Whether you believe it is an accurate quote from George Washington or not, you have only to access the links that I have provided to see what the founders meant by the Second Amendment.

For some, I guess, the Second Amendment is "an inconvenient amendment" and it must be perverted and separated from the logic of those who demanded it, composed it, and ratified it, so that they might enslave us and make us to live in fear of those who having no respect for the law, will always have arms by which they might oppress.



[edit on 2008/4/13 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

www.rootforamerica.com...
*I support the rights of citizens to bear arms. I believe in the Second Amendment- the part of our Bill of Rights that protects the individual right of all Americans to keep and bear arms. PERIOD. The first line of defense against terrorism is the armed American: let's start treating patriotic American gun owners with the respect they deserve for shouldering this great responsibility and taking the unrealistic pressure off of our National Guard (which cannot be everywhere at once). This makes infinitely more sense than putting gun owners in jail for owning guns that were perfectly legal in 1985, while we turn America into a vast arena of undefended potential terrorism targets. Gun laws are a failure- they fail to stop criminals from buying guns on the black market. Yet they leave lawabiding Americans defenseless at the hands of criminals.
-- Wayne Allyn Root


I hate to keep interjecting this guy in everyone's threads, but I look to his positions on topics around here, and I cannot argue with 99% of what he has to say. He's spot on most of the time.

that said... I posted this elsewhere, but it is very appropriate here as well...

kids shootin guns
www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Crusader of Truth
 




Liberal whining established the first gun control laws. They figured that in the interests of peace and tranquility, it would be better if the death dealing weapons known as firearms were removed from the picture. A lofty and noble goal, but they forgot the HUMAN element.


No actually whining liberals didn't forget the human element, rather they are concerned about the human element. We know there will always be some pissed off psycho out there. Therefore, by allowing people to walk around with killing devices, we know there will be shootings.

As for the 2nd Amendment... it was written in a time where militas could be formed to conceivable overthrow a rogue gov't. Today your weapons don't protect you from big brother your vote does.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


I can see by all of the fees, taxes and monetary penalties involved in your plan you're a big supporter of the "only rich people should have guns" philosophy that's so popular in NYC, D.C. and CA. Given the economic (not to mention the minority felon statistics) gap between many whites and non-whites in urban areas of the country your plan is not unlike the gun restrictions first proposed by the Klan to disarm the newly freed blacks. What fun is it to lynch when they can shoot back at you?

Only allowing rich white people to have guns has always been a pretty popular point of view for those touting "responsible" gun ownership. Responsible equates to wealthy and white? Whether that was the intention of your proposal or not that would be the reality.

Long before they could vote both blacks and women in America could carry firearms.





top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join