Every possible reason for gun ownership addressed and countered

page: 14
29
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


Your spot on but thats really a different conversation than this thread. Every thing that you pointed out is accurate in that we have let things go WAY to far. The OP uses this as an example of how our personal ownership of firearms cannot stop our government.
Government is by the consent of the goverened and we have inadvertantly consented to the nonsense that you spoke of. Ask yourself however, if they have gone this far while we own firearms how far are they going to go if they demand that we give them up?

I will tell you this. There are a whole lot of couch commandos who will willingly submit and give in to government demands to hand over guns. A lot will just bury them in the yard and hope that the thugs go away after awhile. There does exist however small numbers they may be a group of men and women who are more than willing to kill to protect what they believe in.
How much blood has to run in the streets to settle this question for good? For those of you that think the number of murders and killings is out of control NOW what do you think is going to happen if this fantasy is is put into motion?




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


For starers i Did not say you were a Troll I said you would PROLLY TROLL ME.

1. WHy did those people in those states not make a fuss? Because they did that stuff behind closed doors most prolly.

2. The same reason you guys get worked up over the queen. We get defensive when anyone tries to dictate our laws to Us.Guns are Tools they do not go out themselves and kill people.

Besides this is All MOOT since the Supreme court made it CLEAR that the people ARE the militia in the US,SO no matter what you aregue we will not change our minds. You are wasting your time better spent on your own country.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by brandiwine14
 





1. When the Constitution was written the Term Militia meant "Every able bodied person" so you got nothing there.


Yes I agree, but that was 200+ years ago, times have changed. How many of you gun owners are part of a militia necessary for the defence of your country? sorry but it just doesnt apply to today



You say you are entitled to your opinion and I agree but I wonder if you have any real understanding of what the Constitution is and why it was formed. It was set up to protect the people and the government from the government, so that the government can't abuse it's power against the people. When the government starts changing the Constitution it allows them power to destroy the protection that the Constitution granted up from the government.


I understand it and its purpose, so are you saying your guns will help you defeat the government should it come to that? would you not agree that 10% of the American population engaged in a grassroots civil disobedience campaign would fare better than 10% going up against tanks and drones?




WTF seriously, have you read the news currently there are more mass murders in Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Congo, North Korea. I mean seriously I could go on and on but you get the idea.


Im aware of whats happening in Mexico but not those other places? what recent massacres have there been? were they perpetrated by school children who got the guns from their parents who had them legally?




Tradition is defined as the passing down of elements of culture from generation to generation, wtf is wrong with having traditions? Besides not only is hunting a fun sport but it helps to keep the animals in check and curbs them from being so many that they come into our yards (in that case the gun is a definite necessity)


Well it depends on the tradition, do you agree with female circumcision? thats a tradition.
Did you read the points or just the headlines from each one?




Guns kill less people than bombs and Timothy Mcveigh found out how to make them easily enough. So even if the government could take EVERY single gun out of circulation murderers will still find a way to kill and I hate to say it but 20 is less than 340 and that's what a bomb could do or worse.


How many bomb deaths were there in the USA last year? if its more than the 10,000 odd gun deaths you have a point otherwise your doing what half your gun advocate friends have accused me of doing, speculating.
When guns were banned in DC gun deaths went down but no other form of homicide went up.
This refutes your arguments that people will always find another way




Alcohol kills on average 70,000-90,000 a year. Guns kill on average 13,000-17,000.


*sigh* you didnt read what I wrote at all did you.
Alcohol when it causes death is being abused, guns when they cause death are doing what they were made for.
Ever heard of a kid go into a school and make 30 fellow students drink themselves to death?




I never saw a trigger pull itself.


Yep, great argument that is




Have you ever been raped? Robbed? talk to me after and tell me you wouldnt want to feel safe


And there it is, Ive been accused of being fearful coz I dont like guns, its actually gun owners who live in fear.
Even if I had a gun,if someone tried to rob me with a gun or knife to my throat I wouldnt risk my life over a few bucks




Yes those crazy people do have access, they murder and rob others to get the guns. How dare someone allow themselves to murdered. What we need is more apathy, and yes they need help that they cant get, or are afraid to ask for because of the stigma that goes with it.


So the crazies usually get the guns from good law abiding citizens your saying? I totally agree with you, another reason guns should be banned, criminals can get them too easily




16,000 knife wielding psychos last time I statistically checked.


Better than 100 million gun weilding ones




But again look at the statistics


yes, no significant difference either way and most people owned guns before the law anyway, the law changed nothing!!!!




No I use it for protection too because i'm a women and not as strong as man and if an attacker comes into my home to hurt me or my loved ones I cant use physical force but I sure could put a bullet in between their eyes. Let me add though that I have never shot another human being I cherish life all human life but I will protect my family at all costs.


Once again the fear shows, the rest of the world worries about their families safety but gets along just fine without guns

Ok you didnt read my points just the headings
wasted enough time on this
edit on 18/12/2012 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by samerulesapply
reply to post by Dragoon01
 


You...you're right! I'm a free man, too...but it's a missile I want, not a gun.

As a free man, it is my god-given right to own a missile! I also want the moon...I am free. As a free man, I want other people to die...freedom isn't really freedom when someone else loses out, is it? I see...you mean YOUR freedom - f*** everyone elses...I get it.

Boy, is my face red.



Your face is not red but your ideology is.

You dont understand the concepts and are not equiped to have a discussion about them. Pay close attention to the part about "not infringing on the life liberty or property of another"
I dont have a problem with you owning a missle.
In fact if you had any concept of the technical aspects of missles you would understand that with regularity people launch missles out in the desert all the time. They dont have explosive warheads but they are missles.
It would not even matter if they did have explosive warheads provided they did not damage or destroy the life liberty or property of someone else.

Did that make sense to you or do you need more explination?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


At any distance, a sane and rational person makes a conscious choice to pull the trigger.

Mentally ill people should not have access any type of weapon. They should also be watched closely, if they are a possible threat.

A firearm owner should be held responsible for not securing their firearms adequately. If their firearms are easily taken, especially by a mentally ill family member, then they should also be charged with the crime.


I cant believe this hasnt been starred until now


What is wrong with gun advocates?
They star a posts saying "hurry up and respond to me" but not this!!!!!

It really shows what sort of people were dealing with


Why, because people find it illogical to blame someone for the criminal act of another? If someone steals your car and runs over someone with it, it is illogical to blame you for the act of the thief.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by brandiwine14
 





1. When the Constitution was written the Term Militia meant "Every able bodied person" so you got nothing there.


Yes I agree, but that was 200+ years ago, times have changed. How many of you gun owners are part of a militia necessary for the defence of your country? sorry but it just doesnt apply to today




You say you are entitled to your opinion and I agree but I wonder if you have any real understanding of what the Constitution is and why it was formed. It was set up to protect the people and the government from the government, so that the government can't abuse it's power against the people. When the government starts changing the Constitution it allows them power to destroy the protection that the Constitution granted up from the government.


I understand it and its purpose, so are you saying your guns will help you defeat the government should it come to that? would you not agree that 10% of the American population engaged in a grassroots civil disobedience campaign would fare better than 10% going up against tanks and drones?




WTF seriously, have you read the news currently there are more mass murders in Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Congo, North Korea. I mean seriously I could go on and on but you get the idea.


Im aware of whats happening in Mexico but not those other places? what recent massacres have there been? were they perpetrated by school children who got the guns from their parents who had them legally?


The point is, that those places have strict gun control--Mexico has the some of the strictest gun control laws in the Americas, and they still have an abhorrent murder and mass murder rate. The Czech Republic has very little gun control and allows concealed carry of pistols without justification needed yet has a murder rate almost the same as the UK. Given those tow examples, one cannot logically correlate gun control to lack of murder rate much less a causal relationship. There must, therefore, be other factors involved.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Yes...I'd like an "explination" it makes no sense to me...it makes no sense how someone who basically tries to state in a roundabout way that I'm too dumb to get it can't see that not everyone abides by the rules you outlined.

Basically, what you're saying, is that everyone plays by the rules...and nobody uses guns to harm others except in self defense...lol, ok.

If I got it wrong, please "explin" as I'm clearly too stupid...hurry, please - I wanna go to bed.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Your gonna have to be more specific. Canada when? And australia when? Because I'm not aware of any change except for the British coming in a saying it was theirs. Heh


Australia had a referendum in 1901 and declared they were an independant country, Britain wasnt happy but not much could be done

And Canada decided it didnt need British rule in the 1930's, it had something to do with mineral rights.
To be fair with Canada it only became official in the 1980's.

And just to clarify with India and Egypt there was violence but it wasnt an armed uprising that toppled the governments, in fact it could be said the succeeded despite the armed uprising


Yeah, I don't know If I would actually classify Canada as a real uprising or a REAL change in government. Considering just about everyone was in support including the bureaucrats. I dunno...

I agree with your statement about Egypt and India. However, there was ANOTHER point about the Anti-gunner argument I was also trying to argue. Which was that governments that are armed while the citizenry is not, will use those arms to massacre the people.

So yes, I agree that the people generally did not uprise violently and still got there governmental changes. However, It would suffice to argue that the tyranny wouldn't have become what is was, and massacres wouldn't have happend to such an extent had the citizenry been armed.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragoon01
 


Why should they demand we give them up? We don't use them now, cept on each other, so what's the point?

I believe an armed society is a polite society, and that if you're going to register for a gun, SOME kind of formalized gun training should be mandatory, as well as upkeep & proper storing/handling.

This whole gun argument is just SOP. More stirring up to keep the masses divided so we don't come together and agree on anything. Everything is built around that today, I firmly believe it. Race baiting, Democrats, Republicans, pro-life pro choice, it's all "reality tv shows".

The youtube clip where George Carlin talks about our "owners"? Yes, I firmly believe that. Think you own your home? Don't pay property taxes, see what happens. And even if you do, your house may be bought and seized under eminent domain for a private corporation! (Just asks those poor homeowners in CT)

People think they have a choice on how things go; they don't. There is no line in the sand that most ppl won't scratch out and remake a few feet behind them, period.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

You cant stop crims from getting guns by taking them away from the public I acknowledged that in my OP, you can however stop school children from getting them.
You do understand that guns are so easily accessible on the black market because they are easily accessible legally dont you?



So on one hand you admit that it's impossible stop criminals from getting firearms and then state the reason to disarm the law abiding public would be to stop mass shootings in schools. You do realize that even in gun saturated america we still have more people die from deer, alcohol, and drown in their pools than die in school shootings right?

We also still have a higher chance of dying from a bee sting than being killed by a terrorist, but the government duped us into creating the tsa administration and getting molested/raped just to get on a plane.

I'm not prepared to give the government another power grab. The thing is, you'll never get rid of all public shooting. Even if you could magically get rid of all semi-autos, eventually someone in our big country would get a revolver and shoot up a public place. Then even if you could magically disapear all revolvers, someone would get a pump shot gun and do the same thing. The bans will never end because its impossible to keep all the bad guys from getting access to weapons. Gun rights would be whittled down to bolt action hunting arms until someone got hunting rifle, gained high ground, and sniped people off. The end result is the United Kingdom where the populace has become so domesticated they can't even train for olympic pistol events in their own country or defend their homes.

You don't understand how the black market works. It isn't enabled by legal items but illegal ones. Illegal drugs in america has such a huge black market because it is illegal. A item needs to be illegal for the black market economy to work. You make something illegal a black market springs up to fill the demand. When something is illegal, the price generally goes up which gives criminal organizations enough money to enter the business.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Good lord you put a lot of effort into that...good points rarely take that much effort.

what are you going to take my guns away with?.....hmm?? OHHHH thats right.....GUNS!!!

yay for hypocrisy...



You however put no effort into that... people with a valid point or argument rarely do that especially if its something they care about, you obviously do seeing as your here.
And I see you ignore what I post, respond with a clever quip (not even that clever) and get starred for it
Shows the sort of intellect were dealing with in this discussion.

I personally think its impossible to disarm everyone, stop selling guns (seriously do you need more? 1 for every American should be enough) and have a volutary buy back scheme would be my suggestion.
Within a few generations guns would be eradictaed I think



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tehdouglas
Saying banning guns would prevent criminals from getting them isnt true. Just as with Drugs, there already is a black market for firearms, and it will become much larger and powerful if it is given a monopoly on selling guns while also dealing with mostly criminals. Gangs and Criminal Organizations exist everywhere in America. People didnt believe the Mafia was real way back, they still dont realize how common it is. They will manufacture their own guns, they have plenty of money to do so from all the illegal drugs they sell netting them billions. And they will feel much more powerful knowing they can invade a house without being shot at.
edit on 17-12-2012 by tehdouglas because: (no reason given)


Did you read my OP?
No you didnt or else you would have realised I never said you could stop criminals getting guns.
Since you didnt read the OP Ill stop here.
Feel free to go back actually read it and Ill respond



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
You know what, I don't have the time for you to "explin" this stupidity to me...the whole reason we're having this very discussion right now is because one too many people have infringed others personal liberties using guns, the fact that you made such a statement in such an insulting fashion proves you lack the mental capacity to "explin" anything to me.

As long as there are guns...I won't feel free, so batter on supporting and financing the arms dealers buying your precious guns...perhaps you can "explin" to your offspring why they live in such a s**t world...it's cos people like daddy wanna own weapons, son.

Nice one....nighty-night.
edit on 18-12-2012 by samerulesapply because: Jizz



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by renegadeloser
 


I appreciate you responded with civility but I dont think you read my point correctly.
I agree criminals will get guns if they want them, they have money and connections, school children dont!!!!

Saying crime will get worse after a gun ban is an assumption on your part and not based on any fact



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpecOpPres1
How about I AM AN AMERICAN....and Becuase I want to, hows about that?


Cant argue with that
At least your not deluding yourself in anyway or hiding behind nonsense excuses

1 of those stars is from me



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Top thread OP.

I have had many arguments with Americans about gun laws, they never like it when you pull out facts against them, in the end they always resort to saying things like "You're not American, so shut up" Or "I don't care, i have my guns and i will shoot anyone who tries to take it".

The funniest one is "Guns don't kill"
edit on 18-12-2012 by liverlad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 





REAL history has PROVED you wrong many times. As long as you are oblivious to past history you will always be completely out of touch with REALITY.


Can you back these statements up with something? a few examples of what exactly your refering to?




Mass murder by gun control has happened over and OVER throughout history.


So do you think the Australian, British and Japanese governments are planning to mass murder its citizens?




That reason ALONE is enough to make it obvious to anyone that surrendering our guns is total insanity.


I think wanting more guns after seeing how easily children can get them and shoot up schools is total insanity



The shootings in Norway, Finland and Germany make it clear that banning guns is completely ineffective.


so one shooting in each of those countries proves gun bans dont work, OK
What does a mass shooting every few weeks and about 80 gun deaths a day in the US prove about easy gun access?




A friend of mine once told me he could get a gun in any country in the world in under two hours and to prove it he bought one in london...


Is your friend a pimply faced bullied teen in school?
How lucky and proud you must be to have friends like that
edit on 18/12/2012 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jaxnmarko
 


I have no issue with guns in rural areas for food hunting or protection from wild animals, most of Americas 100 million gun owners do not fit into this catergory.

As for the giv acting paranoid, their not the only ones. A quick read through of this thread shows some great examples of paranoia



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 





To kill wild dogs, feral cats, rabbits and other genuine pests is to me genuine grounds for gun ownership.

So what do you propose? How do you determine who has the right to defend themselves? Have you ever lived in America if you had you would understand we have a lot of wildlife on the outskirts of developments which encroaches regularly. It depends on where you live but you can have a bear or a bobcat going through your trash just as easily as a raccoons and that can make for a bad morning.




If someone holds you up with a gun and demands your wallet are you really going to go for your gun and risk your life over some cash, a few credit cards and a drivers license?


Have you never heard of someone being killed for 10$ in there wallet? What universe do you live in and what is the color of the sky there.




Im sorry but having guns everywhere does not solve problems.

It has certainly saved my life more than once.




An Island that has never had an issue with guns has 1 shooting spree (not being callous and even 1 ids to many) and your solution is to arm everyone

One island how about the rest of the world or the country that is one instance but certainly not the only one.




This unfortunately is typical of the gun owners mentality, guns solve all problems, as long as we have guns were fine.

Typical anti gunner response, the world is safe carry a police officer in your pocket, pray, or just hope things will be OK.Sorry but I prefer to have some control over my life and take responsibility without depending on a hope or prayer that the police will get there in time.



This is blatantly not the case

You obviously are grasping at straws because your arguments have been destroyed more than once yet you cannot admit you are wrong.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


Thanks for being civil and actually reading and addressing what I wrote (How sad is it I have to say that
)




If MORE guns were out there in responsible hands there would be less criminals with guns because the criminal population would be shrunk drastically by criminals being killed. From your points it greatly appears you have no faith in your fellow citizens, only in your paid mercenarys.


Its not that I dont trust people (although most of the people who are for guns on this forum I wouldnt trust with a pair of plastic scissors) its that if guns are readily available to the average citizen they are then readily available to criminals or even just slightly disturbed people.
This most recent shooting the guy got the gun from his mother who was a legal firearm owner.

People there now want guns because everyone else has guns, can you not see the catch 22 of this argument?
Taking guns out of circulation takes them out of criminals hands as well

No, it does NOT take the guns out of the criminals hands. When Australia banned guns their violent crime went up 42%. Look at other countries through history when their dictators took their guns. Mass slaughter.





new topics
top topics
 
29
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join