Every possible reason for gun ownership addressed and countered

page: 18
29
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
You'd be surprised how many people actually do hunt with guns.

And, let me be frank: I'm a rather small woman. A gun is literally the only thing that exists that can provide a reasonable defense for me. You might mention mace or tasers, but those don't hold water. Mace depends on accuracy, something that's going to be iffy in a situation like that. Tasers depend on you either being close enough for them to kill you or can misfire.

A gun, though, used right in self-defense, is about intimidation. That's the bottom line. A gun used for self defense doesn't even have to be loaded a lot of the time; just knowing that you have one is enough to scare a lot of people off.

As far as I'm concerned, anybody who wants to ban guns completely is advocating leaving me as a sitting duck for any mugger, rapist, or burglar that happens to pop by. You're also advocating leaving me completely defenseless against cougars and bears when I go hiking.


Use a gun for hunting, no worries

How are you any different or special compared to the millions of women who walk around without guns the world over everyday?

Its a security blanket and a pretty useless one, you think a rapist is going to come up and announce from 20 feet away that he intends to rape you?
Rape is a disgusting crime that in most people generates a primal emotional response and how could anyone be against anything that could prevent rape right?
The truth is most rape victims know the Attacker and have (or should have) no reason to fear them.
If a stranger decides to commit this crime its highly unlikely you will be given a chance to access your gun unless you carry it in your hand fully locked and loaded.

I wonder how many of the guns that are now being used by criminals were purchased by women like yourself who never had reason to use them and are now potentially being used by rapists themselves




posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Many more women are carrying guns in the last decade or so in order to protect themselves from thieves and muggers and rapists in the big cities. Why do you want society to leave women more defenseless as they walk the cities just doing their jobs and living their lives? Why do you want to leave women more exposed to criminals and rapists, leaving them vulnerable to becoming pregnant by their rapist and then aborting the baby?



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TomServo
 





Websters definition of 'militia' actually uses the words 'of citizens'.


Yes it does but lets look at the entire definition not just 1 word

a body of citizens organized for military service

Not a citizen with a gun in their wardrobe!!!!!!




And being from another country, I suppose you have first hand knowledge of this? Keep in mind, back in the days you claim to be irrelevant, the government wasnt nearly as intrusive on citizens as theu are today. As a gov starts to tell citizens what they cant do, they get irritated. However, when they start telling citizens To Do something against their will, there is outright defiance. Martial law or not, I feel I should be responsible for my families well being, not inefficient gov. Disarmarment is the final step leading up to tyranny.


Your right and I must be wrong.... but hang on if your government is so good why do you need the guns to protect yourself from them? My knowledge of what your gov is like mainly comes from this forum, and usually from the same people who advocate guns!!!!

If the government was by,for and of the people telling them what to do (or as I would put it doing whats in their best interests) shouldnt be an issue.

So the gov shouldnt tell people what to do or look after their interests, what exactly in your mind should a gov do?

I would say disarmament is the final stepleading up to a society that finally feels safe and at peace with itself, if you feel your gov is heading towards tyranny which many of you obviously do, why not do something now?
It almost seems like some of you a looking forward to the opportunity to actually use your guns against this evil regime




You must only keep up with US news... All I can figure on that.



So your saying theres another country where regular citizens go round shooting dozens of people at a time a few times a year?
Sorry I must of it missed that, can you tell me these countries?




Logic tells me, put higher restrictions on the buying, possessing, and abuse of guns (on owners) rather than om the guns themselves. Every gun should stay locked up and hidden, and only accessed by or under truatworthy control of the owner. I.e keep you friggin safe locked, and dont tell anyone the combo. Tougher penalties on waterhead parents who dont go to every measure to make sure their troubled teen cant access them unsupervised.


Logic tells me that since 90% of illegal guns out there were purchased legally guns shouldnt be legal but yes I agree with the rest of your point. I think make the legal buyer and even supplier responsible for what happens with the gun and you may find a significant drop in guns being stolen/sold




Go ask a young college girl, who has been raped and beaten within an inch of her life, how she feels about that.

Or we could ask the parents of the 20 killed how they feel




Alright, thats the last time I can read that withou mentioning it.. That is an absolute crock. The frimge case nutjobs who premeditate offing a bunch of innocent people, then offing themselves, are also going to premeditate getting their hands on a gun, whether its legal or not.


90% of guns that are illegal were purchased legally!!!!!!
Thats a fact given to me by gun advocates, impossible no, harder yes and I would say almost impossible for a highschool student to get their hands on




Still doesnt sound like anything was accomplished or that the situation improved

Yeah but there wasnt 12,000 gun deaths a year so realistically there wasnt as much room for improvement there as there is in the US.




Btw, I dont own any guns




What!!!!!!

Why not?

edit on 19/12/2012 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)
edit on 19/12/2012 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
And once again quotes from 200+ years ago that were made in a time of war by leaders of a country with no standing army are just not relevant in todays world



Is our standard for the validity of laws to be how old or new they were? The internet didn't exist when the 1st amendment was signed so should it not apply to internet forums like this? The prohibition against murder is thousands of years old. Ditto for habeas corpus too? Al Cia-Duh didn't exist when due process was written into law and now hypothetically some grand schemer might have like a billion nukes ready to go off so we need to torture him. We were stupid enough to sign on to the patriot act and allow an abomination like guantonomo bay to exist because "everything changed after 9-11" and we needed new laws to combat a new vaguely defined threat. Our old laws just weren't up to the task.

This is just an observation, but you seem to ignore reams of evidence that contradicts nearly all of your positions. The most you are willing to do is admit something once existed, was true, or happened, but disregard everything if it didn't immediately smack you in the face 5 seconds ago.

You are asking americans to ignore the laws we were founded on when you have yet to demonstrate a single example of when a gun law ever reduced crime in my country

We gave up on the old rule that congress had to declare war and we have our current mess.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 





The 2nd Amendment I just found out (much to my surprise) consists of only 2 sentences


The constitution was made to be amended and has very specific rules on how to do so. This would be a better argument for you since the supreme court ruled that militia meant American populous.



Your military consists of American citizens, how many of your troops would be willing to fire on fellow citizens?


The American civil war
The National Guard firing on Kent state students


The American civil war both sides were organised into armies, not relevant.

Kent state, unbelievably relevant. How do you think that would have gone if the students had fired back?



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mykingdomforthetruth
With regards to the "we need it to defend ourselves against the government remark"

Yes you do need weapons to defend against the government

when the time comes for a genocide most of the soldiers will be back in civvys because governments will only want the most brutal and evil minions to carry out the executions. how are the people going to defend against that without weapons?

and dont say it wont happen because it will and its probably going to, They succeeded in dividing the country once they can do it again. Accept without weapons the side thats pro UN will destroy the Liberty camp in a heartbeat.


So you see this as a likelyhood.

What is exactly are you doing to prevent it?
It seems like none of you who believe this want to stop and are just itching for a chnace to go out and pop off a few rounds in the name of liberty



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jaynkeel
 





He can voice his opinion all he wants, but until he becomes a United States citizen it doesn't mean diddly. He cannot expect his opinion to "count" , again I will use a reference from earlier, it would be like me demanding to the people of England that I want the queen removed because she is no longer necessary due to the modern times we live in etc...... I know it confusing because us Americans have a constitution that secures our freedoms and it's all spelled out clearly for anyone to read. So to your comment nice try......


As you stated its an opinion, no one is DEMANDING anything



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Ban the drugs that were used to cause the depression, not the guns. They are not mentioning the fact that the kid was placed on medications. The theater shooter was the same case. The smoking gun is the drugs that are used as a crutch for bad parenting and a broken home. If the father had stayed with his family, the son would likely not have needed medications to cope with the stress. In nearly every case you find where a gun was used to harm another person, there are drugs and alcohol present in the situation. We have multiple problems in this country and guns are not it. Selfishness is the problem. Who promotes objectivism in this country? The media and greedy corporations.

edit on 18-12-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)


We can blmae the drugs, we can the blame the parents, we can blame the condom that broke and led to the kid being born, we can blame the lack of sex education or the lack of morals that led to the parents having sex in the first place, we can blame the grandparents for not teaching the parents better when they were teenagers etc etc.
We can blame anything we like but the fact is these kids are no longer alive due to the fact someone shot them with a legally purchased gun



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


I like this statement in #2 the best.

Your military consists of American citizens, how many of your troops would be willing to fire on fellow citizens?

Our history is repleat with incidents of government turning on citizens and vice versa using guns. George Washington, the Whiskey Rebellion, The Second American Civil War, read - The Civil War 1861-1865, When Gen. McArthur had troops route the WW1 protesters (WW1 Vetereans denied benefits from the government) from their tent cities in Washington DC, Kent State, I remember this one because I watched it on the nightly news.

Some of them will turn their guns on us and it will be a difficult day for all involved.

I'm of English and Scottish heritage and my family has been here from the 1630's because of some pretty serious disagreements with the crown. Some of my ancestors where forcibly removed so you will get very little sympathy or support from me and some of my fellow countrymen when it comes to critisizing us about our personal habits with regard to protecting ourselves. Some of us trust our current government to protect us as much as my ancestors trusted your crown to protect them.
edit on 19-12-2012 by sharkman because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-12-2012 by sharkman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by acacko
The writing is somewhat ambiguous but I take it to mean an armed militia exclusively, not an armed citizenry.

...that's why you're an unarmed British subject.
200 years of legal doctrine disagree with you. Please keep your opinions to yourself


Im a happily unarmed Australian citizen in a country of 22.8 out of 23 million happily unarmed civilians.
The parents of kids in this country send their kids to school everyday without having to worry if they will come home because some nutjob got hold of a gun and blasted their kids school.

You have nothing to add to the discussion dont bother posting, you just make your side look pathetic when you tell someone not to have an opinion



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riposte

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
whining and crying


Cool. When you start advocating for governments and militaries to give up their guns, then you can start advocating for disarming civilians.

Until then, go F yourself.


As stated bad guys will always get guns, I have no issue with the police or military having weapons as most of the time I see them as the good guys (well at least good enough not to shoot me).
In my country we dont fear them and if we did we would do something about it not sit there stroking our guns.

Go give your gun a cuddle, as long as you have it everything will be fine



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowcast
Well thought out post but you underestimate point #5. If you have a computer and money you can get a gun period. TOR and the hidden wiki is all you need to find anything you want. If you don't belive me look for yourself at how simple it can be. Illegal does not mean inaccessible. Criminals are opportunists they don't play by the same rules as the rest of us, why should we give them an uneven advantage on the playing field?


Most guns that are now considered illegal were sold legally, this is a fact.

No one is denying criminals will get guns if they want them but to highschool kids have the same contacts and resources these crims do?
All the guns used in these shootings over the past 12 years have been legally owned firearms that in most cases were taken from parents



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by spock51
 


Quite a distinguished lineage you have there my friend




1)The Constitution is our contract with our posterity. The document itself may be old and worn, but its content is valid and vibrant even today. Far too many try to "interpret" it and spin it to meet their agenda or to rationalize an assault upon the freedoms it guarantees. They attack punctuation, terminology, syntax or whatever else may provide a wedge to tear the original meaning down or modify it to their ends. (Can we all agree that when the bad guy gets his foot in your door, its tougher to stop him from getting in your home?) My pledge, my oath and my duty is to defend it and keep it safe AS IT IS, not how some feel it should be.


Blindly defending something is just as bad as blindly condemning it in my opinion.
What about countries whos Constitutions once contained permission to keep slaves or keep women as prizes of war, because it was part of a countries history and founding should they have remained the same?




2)Satellites, drones and computerized weapons systems are horrifying. Of course they would be hard to contend with, but they can be overcome. If an armed revolution began in America, it would not JUST be construction workers (I am one so feel no "regret" at using that as an example here) running around in pick up trucks with shotguns and handguns flipping off D.C. Again, the subjectivity of your espousal precludes you from believing that there are those who would, and could, dare to oppose simply because YOU find the odds daunting. Remember Vietnam. Rag tag, dumb ass bunch of peasants with outdated AK-47s and RPG's? Hardly. I personally saw a functiong field radio cobbled together with French, Dutch, Chicom and American parts inside a "number 10" tin can. One may discount the human spirit at his own peril. Humans have a habit of doing the impossible against all odds. The US Marines have an informal motto, to wit: "The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little planning" Guns ARE a part of our determination to stand against tyranny including domestic, but they are not THE only weapon. Taking them away would merely be a speed bump, but by no means an obstacle.


You seem to be saying even without guns you would find a way to prevail. I respect your spirit.

So with that in mind wouldnt it be better to get rid of guns and for a certainty make it almost impossible for school children to access them as opposed to keeping them on the possibility you may need them against your gov who you say you could defeat even without guns?




3) Point well taken. However, I disagree with the reason for this unholy state of affairs. I contend that this is more an issue here because of the "sensational" that the "mob" craves. When we learn to marginalise these creeps with a one line news blurb which does NOT give them the attention and notoriety they crave, we may then begin to mitigate this problem and eventually stop it. Again, human nature, not guns, is the problem. More to follow:


I just dont see it, these people are dead and most of them do it knowing they will die, but regardless, if they didnt have easy access to the weapons whatever their motive it most likely could have been prevented



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Originally posted by acacko
The writing is somewhat ambiguous but I take it to mean an armed militia exclusively, not an armed citizenry.

...that's why you're an unarmed British subject.
200 years of legal doctrine disagree with you. Please keep your opinions to yourself


Im a happily unarmed Australian citizen in a country of 22.8 out of 23 million happily unarmed civilians.
The parents of kids in this country send their kids to school everyday without having to worry if they will come home because some nutjob got hold of a gun and blasted their kids school.

You have nothing to add to the discussion dont bother posting, you just make your side look pathetic when you tell someone not to have an opinion


I don't think you can speak for the rest of the Australian population. When I was in Australia in 2003, many people I spoke to were very vocal about their disdain for not having easy access to guns. Citing the "Bikies" and other criminals having guns.

And there's certainly a large portion of the Aussie population which hate not having guns; The Aboriginals. After all, the whole reason for gun control in Australia was so they could disarm the natives, slaughter them or move them into Ghettos. Twisted BS.

You're still spouting your delusional lies, I am still posting facts here: www.abovetopsecret.com... refuting everything you have said. Give it up, you're an epic failure.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


So you've made some absolutions then negated the most of the viable counter arguments that would of easily created opportunity for a more productive and constructive debate. Quite the cowardly act I must say.

It all boils down to this: All you care about is banning 'guns'. The lives that save themselves (2.5 million annually according to the statistics gathered by the ANTI GUN Clinton Administration) are irrelevant to you.

Not only have you 'pre-dismissed' any discussion regarding the reasons why someone might possible CHANGED THEIR POINT VIEW SUCH AS MYSELF but you have pre-established such things to be irrelevant to the subject matter according to the terms you've established for the debate.

This isn't even about the subject matter anymore. Your only here to say "I told you so", and to feed your ego. Thats as sickening as your opinion of the subject matter.

If your here for an open and constructive debate, please re-evaluate approach and consider starting the topic from a much more unbiased position. I'm seriously having a hard time finding a good reason to respect you as a person as of now.

So much for you signature: "Theres no good or bad in life just learning experiences and how we percieve them" What a Fake. (p.s. I copied and pasted your sentence and left the typo just for the sake of authenticity.)
edit on 19-12-2012 by GambitVII because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightCraft

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Originally posted by acacko
The writing is somewhat ambiguous but I take it to mean an armed militia exclusively, not an armed citizenry.

...that's why you're an unarmed British subject.
200 years of legal doctrine disagree with you. Please keep your opinions to yourself


Im a happily unarmed Australian citizen in a country of 22.8 out of 23 million happily unarmed civilians.
The parents of kids in this country send their kids to school everyday without having to worry if they will come home because some nutjob got hold of a gun and blasted their kids school.

You have nothing to add to the discussion dont bother posting, you just make your side look pathetic when you tell someone not to have an opinion


I don't think you can speak for the rest of the Australian population. When I was in Australia in 2003, many people I spoke to were very vocal about their disdain for not having easy access to guns. Citing the "Bikies" and other criminals having guns.

And there's certainly a large portion of the Aussie population which hate not having guns; The Aboriginals. After all, the whole reason for gun control in Australia was so they could disarm the natives, slaughter them or move them into Ghettos. Twisted BS.

You're still spouting your delusional lies, I am still posting facts here: www.abovetopsecret.com... refuting everything you have said. Give it up, you're an epic failure.



LMFAO

They took our guns away to kill the aborigines


Oh...sorry. Ive actually got tears in my eyes Im laughing so much..... hang on



You obviously know nothing about Australia or Australian history.
The gun ban came into effect in recent history and the killing of aborigines had been over for quite awhile, You obviously didnt get that info from any reliable source, I think someone was trolling you so you would repeat it and look foolish.

You are talking absolute rubbish, a tiny tiny portion of people want guns and certainly not for fear of any "bikies". Stay away from criminals like bikies and drug dealers and they will stay away from you purely because hurting civilians is bad for business.
The criminals who hurt people are usually drug addicts looking to rob you for a fix and all of us thank the gun ban that these idiots dont have guns. Trust me you know absolutely bugger all about Australia, its people or its history. By all means keep talking about it as it makes you look foolish but just be aware you do look foolish.

So your quoting facts, Id love to see even some circumstantial evidence for your above claims.
Hell Ill even take some morons blog as acceptable, find me anything except the verbal diarrhea your spouting that says we banned guns to disarm, kill and relocate the natives of Australia and Ill concede the argument that gun bans are evil and we should all be allowed to have guns.

Until you come back with that proof or even blog stay out this thread like you told me to stay out of yours

Au revoir

P.s I assumed it before but now I know your trolling. Gun ban to kill aborigines



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GambitVII
 





So you've made some absolutions then negated the most of the viable counter arguments that would of easily created opportunity for a more productive and constructive debate. Quite the cowardly act I must say.


I have no idea what your talking about

care to clarify?




It all boils down to this: All you care about is banning 'guns'. The lives that save themselves (2.5 million annually according to the statistics gathered by the ANTI GUN Clinton Administration) are irrelevant to you.


Yawn extrapolated from phone survey whos sample size is no bigger than 5000.
Phone surveys are useless for any practical purpose and are only good for telling you what the people who took part said and thats very rarely the truth. Went over this on about page 13 of this thread




Not only have you 'pre-dismissed' any discussion regarding the reasons why someone might possible CHANGED THEIR POINT VIEW SUCH AS MYSELF but you have pre-established them irrelevant to the subject matter according to the terms you've established for the debate.


being loquacious and using hyperbole doesnt help your argument or make you look clever.
Once again this is a blanket statement without foundation, care to offer an example of what your on about?




This isn't even about the subject matter anymor./ Your only here to say "I told you so", and to feed your ego. Thats as sickening as your opinion of the subject matter.


Ill be able to say I told you so when every American is dead after being shot with a legally purchased gun (before you jump on this what Im saying is I told you so is not an option till this happens and no I dont want this to happen), until then Im offering my point of view and responding to people who have taken the time to read it.
And I fail to see whats sickening about being sickened by children being killed with legally purchased weapons





If your here for an open and constructive debate, please re-evaluate approach and consider starting the topic from a much more unbiased position. I'm seriously having a hard time finding a good reason to respect you as a person as of now.


16 pages and counting of open debate with very little name calling or childishness. My approach is fine and very few people have had an issue with it.
I dont mean to be rude but your thoughts on me or your level of respect for me make about as much difference to my day as a flea farting in China (that means I couldnt care less what you think)

Please feel free to address any of the points I made in the OP otherwise take your trolling elsewhere.
I wont be responding to you if the post is in anyway a personal attack, I wont let you or your buddy derail the thread.

Good day



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by jaynkeel
 





He can voice his opinion all he wants, but until he becomes a United States citizen it doesn't mean diddly. He cannot expect his opinion to "count" , again I will use a reference from earlier, it would be like me demanding to the people of England that I want the queen removed because she is no longer necessary due to the modern times we live in etc...... I know it confusing because us Americans have a constitution that secures our freedoms and it's all spelled out clearly for anyone to read. So to your comment nice try......


As you stated its an opinion, no one is DEMANDING anything


No but your sure acting like you know better than the people that live here. But I will give you throughout all of this some credit where it's due, you have for the most part remained pretty civil in your replies even when attacked verbally from all sides. Which is refreshing to see in this day n age, something I myself would have a hard time doing because I am as hardheaded as they come.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
[


"ABORIGINAL police liaison officers who have been stripped of their guns fear
they could become targets for tribal payback attacks.

The liaison officers told the WA Industrial Relations Commission yesterday that
the ban prevented them from intervening in violent community disputes. This made
them highly visible, but defenceless, targets for payback attacks.

One officer said the ban was degrading. It made it seem that a white officer's
life was more important than that of an Aboriginal officer."

groups.yahoo.com...


Again, I have refuted everything you have said with facts. You're the troll. Grow up you little self absorbed sissy boy.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel


No but your sure acting like you know better than the people that live here. But I will give you throughout all of this some credit where it's due, you have for the most part remained pretty civil in your replies even when attacked verbally from all sides. Which is refreshing to see in this day n age, something I myself would have a hard time doing because I am as hardheaded as they come.


Sorry if I come across as smug or as a know it all, its not my intention and I realise it would get me nowhere except to turn the thread into a troll fest.

At the risk of raising your ire sometimes an outside viewpoint is needed (not saying this is one of those situations BTW). People who are too close to an issue sometimes fail to see the bigger picture.

I appreciate the compliment


I thank you for your input so far





top topics
 
29
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join