To all the people who want to ban guns.

page: 34
224
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TimBrummer
 



The bottom line is one of attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue, though armed, do not experience sensational massacres or high crime rates. Indeed, armed citizens deter crime. Switzerland fits this mold. Similarly, America's lawful "gun culture" is peaceful. Sadly, some of its subcultures are not.


Attitude is a good word to use here.

It would be interesting to compare unemplyment rates between the US and Switzerland, or poverty rates in general. What about drug abuse stats? My sense is that the Swiss take care their population; wheras in the US it is every man for himself. We know that the underclass in the US is huge and growing.

Attitude says a lot.




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mtnshredder

Originally posted by wayno
Since Americans feel the need and responsibility to defend themselves I am wondering what the limit is, or should be?

Should individuals be able to own anti-aircraft missiles? tanks? armoured cars fitted with machine guns?

Where's the limit and what would the rationale be??

Weapons are regulated by federal law, it's very specific on what civillians can and cannot have. You sure seem to know a lot about what you don't know.


There is a lot I don't know. You didn't answer my question tho about the rationale. What is the thinking behind setting limits where they are vs allowing anything?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayno

Originally posted by mtnshredder

Originally posted by wayno
Since Americans feel the need and responsibility to defend themselves I am wondering what the limit is, or should be?

Should individuals be able to own anti-aircraft missiles? tanks? armoured cars fitted with machine guns?

Where's the limit and what would the rationale be??

Weapons are regulated by federal law, it's very specific on what civilians can and cannot have. You sure seem to know a lot about what you don't know.


There is a lot I don't know. You didn't answer my question tho about the rationale. What is the thinking behind setting limits where they are vs allowing anything?

Your question has been answered already and your trolling. I'm not doing your homework and if you can't recognize common sense, well.... cant help ya. Define rational for yourself your not stupid. Can your neighbor have a nuclear warhead disguised as a yard gnome? Probably not.
edit on 16-1-2011 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocky Black
 

I think that the owning of a firearm could only lead to one thing and that being that the person who owns it, will some day use it.Guns are that means to an end.I say ban all weapons. Respectfully.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by lioevilo
I think that the owning of a firearm could only lead to one thing and that being that the person who owns it, will some day use it.Guns are that means to an end.I say ban all weapons. Respectfully.


1. 80 million Americans legally own firearms. These Americans DO use them, mostly for target practice and hunting, occassionally they use them for self defense. Almost never do they use them to wantonly kill someone else.

2. What weapons did people use to kill before guns? Arrows, spears, swords. How about before those weapons? Clubs. And earlier still rocks. Many people are still killed today with rocks, are we going to ban rocks? After all they are weapons.

3. Cars are the most deadliest weapon in the USA, they kill more people than all the other weapons combined. Do you want to ban cars also?

Just because you don't have the courage to responsibly own a firearm, don't take that right away from those who do.

Lastly, Chairman Mao probably gave the biggest reason for us to own firearms when he correctly stated: "Political power blows out the barrel of a gun". That is how he kept his power, by taking guns away from Chinese civilians. As a result 50 million of them died in his "Great leap forward" and "Cultural Revolution".



edit on 16-1-2011 by TimBrummer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
Attitude is a good word to use here.

It would be interesting to compare unemplyment rates between the US and Switzerland, or poverty rates in general. What about drug abuse stats? My sense is that the Swiss take care their population; wheras in the US it is every man for himself. We know that the underclass in the US is huge and growing.

Attitude says a lot.


What about drug gangs? Mexico, WHERE GUNS ARE ILLEGAL, has a higher homicide death rate at 9.88 vs. 7.07 for the United States. (from ije.oxfordjournals.org...). Most of those deaths are due to wars between the drug cartels. Most US firearm homicides are for the same reason, drug gang turf wars, especially since the majority of those drug gang members are Mexican illegal aliens or their US born children. Illegal immigration is also the biggest reason the US "underclass is huge and growing".

You are correct about attitude, if the US did like Switzerland and enforced immigration laws, deported illegal aliens, and treated drug abuse as a medical condition rather than criminal violation, we would have a much lower firearm homicide rate of around .58 like Switzerland does. You could blame both parties for increasing the gun death rate by not doing the above. I think Ron Paul is about the only US politician who wants to do all of the above, rather than just part or none of it.







edit on 16-1-2011 by TimBrummer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TimBrummer

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Well your not really giving me any respect if your irresponsible enough to mention its ok to give adolescent kids a gun so they can learn how to shoot. A gun is not a golf club or a tennis racket to swing away and HOPE no one gets injured.


Me and everyone else in my Boy Scout Troop learned to shoot guns at age 10. None of them has ever shot anyone, it's much better to learn firearms respect and discipline at a young age than wait until you are a cocky teenager who thinks they know everything. By the way you are much more likely to get killed driving a car than owning a gun, cars are much more dangerous, do you support banning them?


Where did I say I support banning guns? Can you please point that out for me? I am for gun CONTROL not bans....big, big difference friend! And you learned to shoot at the age of 10? Must have been a BB gun...I cant imagine giving a 10 year old kid LIVE AMMUNITION!

Even at basic training when you join the army they take guns very, very, very seriously because people CAN get hurt you know.....
Also please tell me if you give a kid a gun and he accidently points it at his head and accidently pulls the trigger before you can stop him...guess who will go to jail? Not the dead kid...the person supposedly "supervising" will!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Rocky Black
 


Hello from the UK.

We banned guns and guess what, the gun crime went up. I don't know why people find that confusing either. If guns are banned then you need to break the law to have one, the only people who break laws are criminals and criminals don't usually have good intentions. Therefore only criminals then have guns and the innocent can't defend themselves.

This is so simply it's shocking any society allows guns to be banned, but sadly large groups of people tend to react without thinking.


Obviously the whole idea is to prevent organised crime syndicates, crazies and kids from owning and/or using guns. Everyone else SHOULD be able to own a gun either for hunting, target practice and self-defense if need be.

The real issue is the PTB would rather BAN guns than control them, as evidenced in the UK. Air pistols don't really count as guns imo! They are going to let the dumb sheeple beg for bans when crime starts getting out of hand with the economic downturn. The problems will arise in the cities but as you can see in this thread alone NO ONE CARES, so as a result EVERYONE will end up paying the piper.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

And you learned to shoot at the age of 10? Must have been a BB gun...I cant imagine giving a 10 year old kid LIVE AMMUNITION!


.22 long rifle, same for all the Boy Scout Troop. At age 12 graduated to Shot Gun, then deer rifle.



Even at basic training when you join the army they take guns very, very, very seriously because people CAN get hurt you know.....
Also please tell me if you give a kid a gun and he accidently points it at his head and accidently pulls the trigger before you can stop him...guess who will go to jail? Not the dead kid...the person supposedly "supervising" will!


Do you really think 10 year olds, or the adults instructing them, are that stupid? The first think you learn in gun class is never ever point the gun, loaded or not, at something you don't intend to kill. There are a lot more safety lessons after that, regarding ammo, loading, safety switch, on and on. Anybody who violates any of these rules is immdediately kicked out.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TimBrummer



The Wall Street Journal Europe
June 4, 1999 Stephen P. Halbrook

In 1994, when the U.S. Congress debated whether to ban "assault weapons," a talk show host asked then-Senator Bill Bradley (New Jersey), a sponsor of the ban, whether guns cause crime. The host noted that, in Switzerland, all males are issued assault rifles for militia service and keep them at home, yet little crime exists there. Sen. Bradley responded that the Swiss "are pretty dull."



No what's crazy is, you have to have a DEBATE as to should Joe Public be allowed to have a ASSAULT weapon.
What possible use for an ASSAULT Riffle could there be for anything other than Killing people.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al

No what's crazy is, you have to have a DEBATE as to should Joe Public be allowed to have a ASSAULT weapon.
What possible use for an ASSAULT Riffle could there be for anything other than Killing people.


This is gun grabber BS, Joe Public has not been able to buy assault weapons since 1934 because they are FULLY AUTOMATIC, ie. fire continuously. What Congress tried to ban are semi-automatic rifles that kind of LOOK like assault weapons but fire no faster than an 1873 Winchester repeating rifle like those seen on "The Rifleman" TV show. The slow firing semi-replicas are good for hunting, target practice, and home defense. Also the real full-auto assault weapons cost $15,000 and up, how many Joe six packs have that kind of money laying around?



edit on 17-1-2011 by TimBrummer because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-1-2011 by TimBrummer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   


No what's crazy is, you have to have a DEBATE as to should Joe Public be allowed to have a ASSAULT weapon.
What possible use for an ASSAULT Riffle could there be for anything other than Killing people.


I posted some figures in this thread somewhere, but in the states the homicides decreased after the assault band was lifted. They are not much different from any other semi, they just look scary because people automatically associate them with war and death. I had a friend call last night and they had been hunting coyote's with an AR-15. I guarantee anyone shot is not going to notice if the bullet came out of a hunting rifle or an assault rifle.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
No what's crazy is, you have to have a DEBATE as to should Joe Public be allowed to have a ASSAULT weapon.
What possible use for an ASSAULT Riffle could there be for anything other than Killing people.


You need to stop listening to the crap the media and the politicians are shoveling. Less than 5% of all firearm-related homicides occur where the perpetrator uses a rifle of any kind, let alone scary 'assault rifles.' The total is about 400 per year, but that number includes lever action, bolt actions, single-shots, etc, as well as 'assault rifles'.

Remember... almost 80% of all homicides occur where the perpetrator used a handgun. Not a shotgun, not a rifle, not an assault rifle. A handgun. The reason? Junk, pot metal handguns are cheap and plentiful, but most importantly for criminals, they're far easier to conceal than any long gun ever thought about being.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
And you learned to shoot at the age of 10? Must have been a BB gun...I cant imagine giving a 10 year old kid LIVE AMMUNITION!


I think you'd be stunned to learn the age at which many American men learned how to shoot firearms. There are millions of us who learned how to shoot around age 10. I certainly did. Hell, I was freezing my butt off, essentially alone, in a deer stand with a 20 gauge by the time I was 12. Come down here to the rural south and you'll find that my experience was hardly unique.

At the ripe old age of 32, I probably wouldn't let my kids do that if I actually had any, but that's mainly because the world and its attitude toward such things has changed so much in the last 20 years.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
In light of the tragic events of last week in Arizona, and the stringent cries from gun-control advocates for tougher laws, I felt this essay, written by an anonymous marine and circulated through email during the early part of 2010, to be a timely piece that needed revisiting. Leaving citizens unarmed is not the answer to tragic incidents like the one that killed several innocent bystanders and critically wounded a sitting congresswoman. You cannot have a civilized society when the only people armed are the predators and law-breakers that prey on the weak and defenseless.


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 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.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
By the way... My 9 year old son can shoot. And shoot well. He even enjoys shooting my 1911 .45
If you teach youngsters about guns, let them handle them, and shoot them (with supervision) show them how they work, show them the damage that they can do, how to disassemble and clean them. You take away the curiosity factor. My son knows to leave our guns alone except in an emergency. His curiosity has been satisfied. He respects firearms as tools to be respected. He is safer for his knowledge...



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
It is time to speak plainly for the good citizens and patriots of this nation who believe unendingly in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Though foreign governments may disarm their subjects, we will not go down that road. We will not disarm and see our freedoms stripped away. The lessons of history are numerous, clear, and bloody.

A disarmed population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to-and dependence upon - the organs of a parental state. A disarmed population will lose-either piecemeal or in one sweeping act - those basic rights for which the citizens of America risked their lives and fortunes over 200 years ago.

We Will Not Disarm.

The right to self-protection, the internal directive of every living creature be it mouse or man is the most fundamental right of all. It is a right that must be exercised against the predators of the streets, against the predators hidden within agencies of law enforcement, and against the most dangerous predators of all, those to be found in government, whose insidious grasping for power is relentless and never-ending.

We Will Not Disarm.

Not in the face of robbers, rapists and murderers who prey upon our families and friends. Nor in the face of police and bureau agents who would turn a blind eye to the Constitution, who would betray the birthright of their countrymen; nor in the face of politicians of the lowest order-those who pander to the ignorant, the weak, the fearful, the naive; those indebted to a virulent strain of the rich who insulate themselves from the dangers imposed upon other Americans and then preach disarmament.

* We will not surrender our handguns.
* We will not surrender our hunting arms.
* And we will not surrender our firearms of military pattern or military utility, nor their proper furnishings, nor the right to buy, to sell, or to manufacture such items.

Firearms of military utility, which serve well and nobly in times of social disturbance as tools of defense for the law-abiding, serve also in the quiet role of prevention, against both the criminal and the tyrannical. An armed citizenry the well-regulated militia of the Second Amendment, properly armed with military firearms - is a powerful deterrent, on both conscious and subconscious levels, to those inclined toward governmental usurpation's.

An armed citizenry stands as a constant reminder to those in power that, though they may violate our rights temporarily, they will not do so endlessly and without consequence. And should Americans again be confronted with the necessity of - may God forbid it - throwing off the chains of a tyrannical and suffocating regime, firearms designed to answer the particular demands of warfare will provide the swiftest and most decisive means to this end.

Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen's possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, provides an open window through which a corrupt government will crawl to steal away the remainder of our firearms and our liberties. Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen's possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, being directly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment, is inimical to the Constitution, to the United States of America, and to its citizens.

Now-today-we are witnessing the perilous times foreseen by the architects of the Constitution. These are times when our government is demanding - in the guise of measures for the common good - the relinquishment of several rights guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution, foremost among which is the right to keep and bear arms for our own defense. These are times when our government has abdicated its primary responsibility-to provide for the security of its citizens. Swift and sure punishment of outlaws is absent, and in its place is offered the false remedy of disarming the law-abiding. Where this unconstitutional action has been given the force of law, it has failed to provide relief and has produced greater social discord. This discord in turn now serves as the false basis for the demand that we give up other rights, and for the demand for more police, more agents of bureaucratic control to enforce the revocation of these rights.

Legislators, justices and law officers must bear in mind that the foundation of their duties is to uphold the fundamental law of the land-the Constitution. They must bear in mind that the unconstitutional act of disarming one's fellow citizens will also disarm one's parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, children and children's children. They must bear in mind that there are good citizens who - taking heed of George Washington's belief that arms are the liberty teeth of the people-will not passively allow these teeth to be torn out. There are good citizens who-taking heed of Benjamin Franklin's admonition that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety-will surrender not one of their rights. Those who eat away at our right to own and use firearms are feeding on the roots of a plant over two centuries old, a plant whose blossom is the most free, most powerful nation ever to exist on the face of this planet.

The right to keep and bear arms is the tap root of this plant. All other rights were won at the point of a gun and will endure only at the point of a gun. Could they speak, millions upon millions of this world's dead souls would testify to this truth. Millions upon millions of the living can so testify today. Now, today, is a critical moment in our history.

Will we Americans passively lie down before a government grown disdainful of its best citizens? Or will we again declare:

WE are the government, government functions at our behest, and it may not rescind our sacred rights? Will we place our faith in public servants who behave like our masters? Or will we place our faith in the words and deeds of the daring, far-seeing men and women whose blood, sweat and tears brought forth this great nation?

Will we believe those who assure us that the police officer will shield us from the criminal? Or will we believe our eyes and ears, presented every day with news of our unarmed neighbors falling prey in their homes, on our streets, in our places of work and play?

Will we bow our heads to cowards and fools who will not learn and do not understand the lessons of human history? Or will we stand straight and assume the daily tasks and risks that liberty entails? Will we ignore even the lessons of this present era-which has seen the cruel oppression of millions on the continents of Europe, Asia, Africa and South America-and believe that the continent of North America is immune to such political disease? Or will we wisely accept the realities of this world wisely listen to and make use of the precautions provided by our ancestors?

Will we be deceived by shameless liars who say that disarmament equals safety, helplessness equals strength, patriotism equals criminality? Or will we mark the words of our forefathers, who wrote in plain language: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Let us make known: We will choose the latter option in every case.

Legislators: Do your duty to your country. Uphold the Constitution as you swore to do. Do not shame yourselves by knocking loose the mighty keystone of this great republic - the right to bear arms.

Justices: Do your duty to your country. Examine the origins of our right to weaponry and uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Lawmen: Do your duty to your country. Do not be misguided and misused. Your task is to serve and to protect-not to oppress, to disarm and to make helpless your countrymen. To the blind, the ignorant, the apathetic, the safe and sheltered, these may seem to be concerns of another age. They are not. They are as vital as they ever have been through history. For times may change but human nature does not. And it is to protect forever against the evil in human nature that the Founding Fathers set aside certain rights as inviolable.

For these reasons we must now make known:

We will not passively take the path that leads to tyranny. We will not go down that road. We Will Not Disarm.

Author Unknown



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
The Constitutional Right and Social Obligation to Carry a Gun

Robert H. Boatman

Carrying A Gun Is An Absolute Right

The framers of the Constitution were under no pressure from the NRA when they wrote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In the same spare sentence, they reaffirmed their historical preference for a "militia" over a standing army, and indicated that this militia should be composed of armed citizens -- citizens of a "free state" whose right to keep and bear arms must never be infringed.

Anti-freedom zealots, including academic invalids and the hypocrites of the mis-named American Civil Liberties Union, have stood on their pointy heads in tortured attempts to misinterpret this sentence ever since. Those of us who know how to read the English language have no trouble at all.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. The right of the people TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall NOT be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What part of NOT do the illiterates out to subvert the Constitution NOT understand?

The Constitution of the state of Pennsylvania (adopted September 28, 1776) allocated more words to make the point even more unmistakable: "XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Indeed, the individual right to keep and bear arms for personal defense is based on exactly the same principle as civilian control of the military. One wonders if the ACLU would argue with that.

The Second Amendment, like most other articles in the Bill of Rights, was adopted from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which, in turn, was based on centuries of English Common Law. English jurist Sir William Blackstone observed that the English Bill of Rights clearly meant that Englishmen possessed "the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense" and that "having arms suitable for their defense" was one of the five auxiliary rights people possessed "to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights," the first of which is "personal security."

Unfortunately for the English people, they have been persuaded by their own far-left government and insidious anti-gun activists to allow the English Bill of Rights to be, as they might say, **** upon. Today, the English do not have the right to keep and bear arms for self-preservation and defense. As a direct result, they live in a crime-ridden society that grows worse with each passing day.

The recent 2000 International Crime Victims Survey published by the Dutch Ministry of Justice, a highly respected and accurate measurement of the percentage of people by nation who are victims of violent crimes, ranked England far ahead of the United States (which ranked 8th), and second only to Australia (where English-style anti-gun laws are also in effect) as the most violent nation. A recently disarmed England now has twice as much violent crime as the United States.

The English Home Office, which cooperated in the survey, has refused to publish these findings in England. It's better not to remind the gullible subjects how empty were the promises of safety and security for which they so eagerly traded away their very real and priceless freedoms and responsibilities. The great Roman philosopher and senator, Cicero, immortalized armed self-defense as an "inalienable right" more than 2,000 years before the U.S. Constitution did so.

Cicero said: There exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.

Even people to whom armed self-defense is but a remote abstraction often endorse, without even realizing it, the unquestionable principles underlying the right to carry a gun. Jaron Lanier, writing in Discover Magazine (Feb. 2001) said in reference to new copyright-protection technology -- "In a democracy, citizens are supposed to act as partners in enforcing laws. Those forced to follow rules without being trusted even for a moment are, in fact, slaves."

It is perfectly obvious that we have a natural right to arm ourselves and to kill any criminal or other force that threatens us just as surely as an elephant has a right to kill an attacking lion and a mother bear has a right to kill a wolf grinning suspiciously at her cubs. Animal-rights extremists extend the animals' right to the killing of humans under such circumstances.

Even the Dalai Lama, Nobel Peace Prize and all, said in May of 2001 during a speech about "nonviolent resolutions to conflict" to 7,600 Oregon and Washington high-school students -- "But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." So said the Dalai Lama.
There are criminals among us who are both homicidal and incorrigible. Their parents took a shot at civilizing them and failed. Their school teachers took a shot at them and failed. The odds are overwhelming that government welfare programs and penal institutions took a shot at them and failed. If it ever becomes your turn to take a shot at them, don't fail.

Carrying a Gun Has Always Been Both a Right And a Duty

There have been many societies in which not carrying a weapon was a serious and severely punishable crime. This was true in Greece, Rome, Europe, Britain and, though seldom enforced, is still true in certain places in America today. This is as it should be. A citizen who shirks his duty to contribute to the security of his community is little better than the criminal who threatens it, and is better off living in a society that places lesser demands on his capacity to accept responsibility.

If a lot more people carried guns, what kind of a society would we have? Certainly not the kind predicted by anti-gun fanatics. Those hysterical doomsayers have been proven absolutely wrong one hundred percent of the time. Would we have a crime-free society? Certainly not. Criminals are as natural and immune to total eradication as fruit flies. But a better-armed society would severely limit the violent damage criminals wreak before they are stopped. Criminals are naturally self-destructive. The reasons they are so doesn't matter. To assist them in their self-destructiveness is the polite and civilized thing to do. Thus another ageless axiom: An Armed Society Is A Polite Society.

These are some of the reasons why police, who fight crime for a living and are well aware of the realities of street criminals, support right-to-carry laws for private citizens by an overwhelming three-to-one margin. This is an even higher margin of support for right-to-carry than the strong support voiced by the civilian population.
Policemen are nobody's personal bodyguards. Their jobs are to find and arrest people who have committed crimes, not to prevent such potential crimes from happening in the first place. Clearly, the responsibility for victim-prevention lies with the victim-to-be.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Bowers v. DeVito, 1982) did not mince words when it ruled, "There is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

What It Means To Carry A Gun

That loaded pistol in your holster is a powerful expression of your constitutionally guaranteed liberty as an American citizen, your recognition of the solemn duty you have to your fellow man, and your willingness to accept the full weight of a life-and-death responsibility.

When you are prepared to defend yourself, you are equally prepared to defend all of society and all of its guiding principles. Your responsibilities are therefore many -- moral, legal and tactical. That is why most people, including lifelong gun owners, experienced hunters and competitive shooters even in states that freely issue concealed carry permits, do not choose to carry a gun.

Your moral responsibilities are to fire your gun into another human being only when the line of necessity has clearly been reached, and then to fire without hesitation and to full effect. Remember the words of Cicero.
Your legal responsibilities are to justify your actions to those who would call you a criminal at the drop of a hat, and quite possibly to a jury of your peers, most of whom have neither the competence nor the courage to carry a gun in their own defense. Read the findings of the Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2001.

Your tactical responsibilities are to carry your gun with confidence, to be well trained in your ability to operate it effectively, and to have instilled in yourself an iron will to use deadly force to prevent or end violence committed against yourself or others. Most of this book is dedicated to your tactical responsibilities, because that's what will save your life.

Violence happens either at random, or directed toward the obviously vulnerable or toward someone in particular for a reason. You can rest assured it will not happen at the shooting range when you are all suited up in your speed rig with a plan of action worked out for the coming run-and-gun stage. It will happen when you are home sleeping in your bed, shopping at the grocery store, walking out to get the mail, mowing the grass, at dinner, at church, at the theater.

The most dangerous places in the world are those called "gun-free safety zones" by their ignorant political creators and known by criminals and psychopaths as "safe-to-kill zones." Even an adolescent school kid can figure out that an advertised killing field where no one is allowed to shoot back is the safest location in the world to carry out a mass shooting. Don't even consider going to a place like that unarmed, whether it's your kid's school or a national park. If you can't handle breaking the law, don't go.

The assistant principal of a high school in Pearl, Mississippi, broke the law. He kept a .45 in his car parked on the school grounds. When a deranged student opened fire, Joel Myrick ran for his gun. Two students were killed because Myrick had to retrieve his gun from his car instead of his holster. But the .45 eventually prevailed, and Myrick stopped the massacre long before police arrived on the scene. God only knows how many lives he saved. But assistant principal Joel Myrick wasn't awarded any medals. Of the several hundred newspaper and television stories about the incident, only a few even mentioned his name. Almost none revealed the fact that he used a gun to stop the killings.

When you bodyguard someone for a while, or when you just live a normal life with your eyes wide open, you realize how vulnerable we all are to becoming another tidbit-of-opportunity in the relentless food chain that sustains the life of this unpredictable world. It's a realization not of paranoia but of reality. That's the way it is, always has been, always will be. You can ignore it out of faint-heartedness, deny it out of lunacy, submit to it out of a fatalistic contempt for your own life and the lives of others, or you can face it with courage and intelligence and prepare yourself to deal with capricious reality's predisposition toward danger.

Most of those dangers can be met with nothing more than a strong I'm-not-a-victim mindset and body language. Many others may shrivel with the demonstration of superior verbal skills. Still others may require a fundamental knowledge of martial arts, a container of pepper spray, a makeshift club, the presence of a well-wielded knife or the sight of a firearm. A few, perhaps one in a lifetime, will not be affected by any kind of less-than-lethal response and will not end until you churn your attacker's dreams and determination into a chunky red stew and spew it all over the street with a couple of big-bore hollow points. The trouble is, you never know when or where that last one is coming.

If you ever find yourself under attack by an armed criminal, you will be on the defensive and he will be on the offensive. In other words, he will have a strong advantage going in. And, though he will not have trained himself to shoot nearly as well as you have trained, he will be far more experienced in the art of killing. The odds are, any criminal who is intent on killing you has probably killed men before, knows how to do it, knows how it feels and likes it. You're not going to talk him out of it, scare him out of it, or wound him out of it. You're going to have to kill him.

Studies show that simply brandishing a weapon saves many lives, but I am personally against the idea of waving a gun around while your adversary thinks. The way to overcome his offensive advantage is to strike without warning. Once you make the decision to free your Glock from its holster the entire situation should be over and done with in a second or two. The most important component in practicing your draw is firing the instant you have a sight picture on your target, and continuing to fire until your assailant no longer exists
.
More than a century of military and police research tells us that most people, including up to 85 percent of trained soldiers and cops, are psychologically unable to use deadly force in a life-or-death situation no matter how compelling the circumstances may be. If you can't kill, there is no reason for you to carry a lethal weapon.
Carrying a loaded gun with the ability and will to use it is not a casual fling meant to bring some excitement into your boring life. It is an all-embracing lifestyle and must take precedence over your respect for law, your fear of social criticism, your love of humanity, your wardrobe and your drinking habits. You can never be unaware of the weight you carry on your hip or under your arm. You can never forget your responsibilities. You must wear your Glock with the same allegiance as your wedding ring. If you're not married, your Glock is your wedding ring. Wear it for life. Don't even think about leaving home without it. Be prepared to use it at a moment's notice. Carry it all the time. And shoot to kill.

"Liberty or death," the meaning of which is clear and absolute, is but a trivial phrase if you do not carry a gun. For freedom-loving Americans, the five most important words in the English language are, and always have been -- from my cold dead hands.


edit on 17-1-2011 by mwc273 because: spacing



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
There will be no gun ban. The plan is to use technology to determine who has the 'right' to own a gun. Those declared 'mentally ill' will NOT be allowed to own a gun. Who might they determine to be 'mentally ill'? How about those who post conspiracy 'theories' on any conspiracy websites? After all, they're 'paranoid' right!



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Obviously, and in a purely logical sense, you are correct: As the NRA states repeated: Guns don't kill people kill. There is no way to argue against the logic of this since statement because it is factually correct. The problem is that it conveniently ignores the problem and that is people continue to die in mass shootings. The question really is: How can we reduce the number of mass killings and murders...is this even possible? Inversely, I think it is just as logical to ask, would the elimination of guns halt mass killings? Obviously, the response would be us.

Comparing what happens in NY vs Texas is essentially meaningless and I suspect that if one considered the full range of statistics involving guns from state to state, we'd discover that gun deaths occur at comparable rates in places with comparable populations. You don't provide specific facts to back up your assertions and since in arguments relating to gun control people often make up facts to suit their point of view, my inclination is to view your statements as opinion. You are of course entitled to your opinion!

I am neither anti-gun nor a socialist; yet, I support strong gun control and the elimination of the sale of semi-automatic weapons. When not at school, I live and work on a ranch, and, when working most of the time I wear a sidearm or have a rifle close to me. In other words, I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I am however in favor of background checks, waiting periods, gun registration, and ban of sale of semi-automatic weapons. Your suggestion that gun control is the agenda of socialist demonstrates a certain irrationality regards the subject and an obvious personal bias...fascists are just as likely as socialists to support gun confiscation but then I don't have any statistics to support such a contention. In the United States gun control has nothing to do with socialism accept in the minds of the right because simply put there is no viable socialist movement in the country and there hasn't been since before World War I. That by the way is a fact.

Let me offer a few opinions. First, if guns were not so prevalent in our society there would obviously be fewer gun related murders. If semi-automatic weapons had been banned years ago, it is likely we would have fewer mass murders. Guns don't kill people but when guns, especially semi-automatic weapons, are put into the hands of mentally imbalanced individuals or people who feel intense anger or hatred, guns can be and often are used to kill. So, although it is technical correct that guns don't kill, we seem to have an inability to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't possess them and so guns are often used inappropriately. It is this reality that leads to the rash belief that we can and should eliminate guns from the general population. That however is not merely impossible as predicting who will become mentally unstable and angry but it is illegal according to SCOTUS. The fact is guns exist and there are tens of thousands of guns in the general population. That fact isn't' going change. At this point, all that we can hope to do as a society is strive as hard as we can to keep guns out of the possession of those who would use them to harm others. We need to encourage gun safety and training. We must require background checks on all gun sales. Gun sale should be registered. I support a total ban on semi-automatic weapons since there is no rational purpose for such implements among civilians, especially among civilians with no weapons training.

People who are sick of mass killings have just as much right to be angry as those who oppose gun control. The fact is, if I lived in central Texas miles from the nearest city and had concerns about coyotes killing my dogs, cats, and livestock you damn well better believe I would own a rifle and pistol. Yet people who live rural situations must understand that roughly 90% of Americans live in urban settings and cannot comprehend the need for guns for protection against predators. In urban settings, more people die or get hurt by gun accidents then from crime. I recognize that although I live in a rural area, it is the urban setting that drives gun control and because these areas are part and parcel to my society and culture, I have a responsibility to understand how urban people live (just like they need to try and understand how rural folks live). Calling each other names doesn't help the situation.

The fact is guns in America exist and they aren't likely to disappear anytime soon. Guns in the hands of unstable people or children usually result in injury or death. The best chance we have as a society to mitigate gun killings is to not whine about the presence of guns, since we cannot eliminate them, but to work hard to keep them out of the hands of mentally unstable people using background checks and waiting periods. I also think we need to encourage gun training and halt the sale of semi-automatic weapons so that over several generations these guns will eventually cease being a factor in civilian life--if we don't start the process of their elimination it won't ever happen.

If we carefully examine the reasons why America is such a dangerous place, I think we might find that the causes have to do with fear and anger. Our government and the mass media work to keep citizens in a state of agitation and fear, and, they prefer to keep us divided and angry with one another. Extreme fear and anger are two emotions that, when mixed with guns often result in death. In my opinion, the real conspiracy here is not that government seeks to suppress gun possession; rather, it is that government actively works to keep citizens fearful and divided.





top topics
 
224
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join