Every possible reason for gun ownership addressed and countered

page: 22
29
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


And what of this?
www.youtube.com...#!


What of it?

2000 fringe loonies does not mean anything in my opinion.

What about the 750 000 who signed the petition to the US asking for gun restrictions/bans?




posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Back at you,that small amount among millions makes no difference, If your simple logic is applied.They also sent a petition to disclose UFOs and it has been sooooo successful hasn't it?
Civil disobediance and standard litigation have been minimized,corruption,money and their survival of their scared parties takes precedent over something as pedantic as the "people".



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
My argument rests gently on my hip. End of argument.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Back at you,that small amount among millions makes no difference, If your simple logic is applied.They also sent a petition to disclose UFOs and it has been sooooo successful hasn't it?
Civil disobediance and standard litigation have been minimized,corruption,money and their survival of their scared parties takes precedent over something as pedantic as the "people".


LOL it was your logic not mine, why bring it up if its irrelevant?
If it is relevant then a way higher percentage of Yanks want to get rid of or at least restrict guns than Aussies who want them.

I love how you guys bring up a point or a statistic only to say its unimportant or irrelevant when the same point or different stat is thrown back at you



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by grownshow
 





That is flat out false. Please link to your proof. Acceptable proof would be stats compiled by someone with phd in statistics in a peer reviewed journal or a report from the fbi. The handgun ban in D.C. was struck down in 2008 and murder has fallen ever year since.


It has been falling since the late 90's after a peak in 91 which law enforcement agree was due to a crack epidemic.




I don't know how you're getting concecutive data all the way from 1975 to 1995 as fbi reports don't go that far back but homicides went up every year from 1986 to 1991. If you can't link to a legitimate data source i'm not inclined to believe your statement that crime went down in D.C. every year from 1975-1995


Figures on murder go back to at least 1960 so its easily available if you care to look. Ironic you believe the FBI, arent they part of the machine youll need your guns to fight against?



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragoon01
 





I am not responsible for the actions of criminals who infringe on the life liberty and property of others. I am endowed with the right to defend myself by my birth I do not need permission to do so. The Constitution prohibits the government from restricting that right. All laws that restrict access to the best means of defending my life liberty and property therefore violate an inalienable right. I do not care if a criminal is unarmed. I have a right to defend myself and will use any means I deem fit to properly respond to the level of threat the criminal presents.


Your correct your not responsible for how criminals behave but your society as a whole is responsible for letting guns get into the hands of children who shoot up schools.
Simple undeniable fact is that if guns werent so accessible these kids wouldnt have had them to cause these atrocities.

Your right to own a gun is protected by the 2nd amendment "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed"
So according to your 2nd Amendment the criminally insane should be allowed to own guns.

Are you advocating the criminally insane having guns?



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
OK how about this then,I need the ability to fight multiple targets ,as I trained,because there are too many wrong hands that have them and are waiting to use them,as we converse.Multiple 30rd mags a pistol and knives as well.
I keep VERY careful control of who I allow in my house and warn those who don't know.
I have no idea who might be stupid enough to hit my area or why and I now don't care or fear them.
Piece of mind,that is why.


Dress it up anyway you like you have a gun because your scared without one.

Thats what your saying, can you acknowledge and admit without your gun your scared because everyone else has them?



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragoon01
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?


The fact that you would kill people in defence of your guns really tells me all I need to know about you/

You my friend are a classic gun nut, the fact you would even say you would use it to kill outside of a DIRECT threat to your or your families life tells me your one of the people who shouldnt be allowed to have a gun.

Before you say "but by taking my gun they are putting my life in danger" no their not, their putting other peoples life in safety



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 





Why do you hate guns?


Because they serve one purpose and that purpose is to kill, in this day and age they are not necessary.
I can understand the mentality of "I need one because everyone else has one" but the fact none of you hate guns and most even seem to love them should tell you that people dont care about logic they just want their guns.

OK lets follow the original wording "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" are you in support of the criminally insane having access to weapons? the 2nd doesnt make any allowances for any restrictions, you either agree its outdated or agree that everyone no matter how unstable is allowed to have guns

I think it is, it would need the help of most of the army which is made up of citizens. Would they really turn on you?

Different times, different circumstances and many leaps in technology since then.
Sorry but you fight the gov with guns your dead, simple as that. Fight them with your voices and minds they are


IKS, (Hope you don't mind if I call you that!)
I can see you've already grouped me with "them." Ouch. But even if the purpose of guns is just to kill (which it's not...) that does not mean they have no place in society. You say "in this day and age," but we have not changed. Our tech is a little better. Our human nature remains the same. Humans in this day and age are basically the same as those in 1776 or 776.

The US Constitution makes no allowances for anyone's rights being infringed. But after a due process of law, it is constitutional to deprive people of their life and/or liberty. I don't see that restricting ex-felons or certifiably criminally insane persons as any different, and I don't think the Founding Fathers would either.

Would the government and the army turn on us? Maybe not today...maybe not tomorrow...but maybe in the future. Times change remarkably fast, don't they? Please, see past the here and now, and understand that none of us know what the future holds. Prudence tells me that weapons are the best defense against a tyrannical government that cannot be stopped by reason, and statistics tell me that guns are used more often to defend life and property (at least in the US) than to take it. [For instance, see this page: linky I'm sure you've seen the recent threads detailing pro-gun statistics and how crime in the UK is supposedly on the rise. (Note: I haven't gone through all these stats myself; this is quickie research here, so if you find comparable statistics that contradict these, feel free to let me know; I'd be indebted to anyone that can show me any data I rely on is wrong.)

And no, there has been no technology change since the ongoing US occupation of Afghanistan. The locals there are using weapons which are roughly on par with or perhaps even inferior to (depends on how you look at it, I think) the guns available to the average American...and they are certainly not losing.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Dress it up anyway you like you have a gun because your scared without one.

Our governments are run by mass murderers.

If that fact does NOT scare you...

Your corn bread might not be done in the middle.


REAL history makes this very VERY clear:


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


"...the tragic fact is that disarming victims leads to great bloodshed. I'm referring to the millions of people who died at the hands of their government over the past century. Most of these mass murders were preceded by a cynical and calculating "gun control" program, leading to eventual disarmament. Genocide followed soon thereafter."

Leave Mass Murder to the Professionals



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
The idea that we can create a world where people only die of old age is crazy. We will never be able to cure all disease, prevent all accidents, and stop all murder. We are already overpopulating our planet. How much worse would it be if no one died until 100 years of age. Its rediculous! We can't own guns, can't smoke, can't eat bacon, can't use salt, can't drink alcohol. We have to wear seatbelts and helmets, workout, count calories, and take a multivitamin.

Let people live their lives without placing all kinds of contraints on how they do it. If my gun isn't hurting anybody, then leave my gun the heck alone! What is with people who like to go around thinking of ways to run everyone elses lives. Politicians, religious leaders, celebrities, they all stick their nose in my business.

I think that people who wear their pants hanging down past their butt are morons, but I don't think that we should ban wearing your pants down past your butt.

The only way to end murder is to ingrain into the mind of society the value of life and respect for others. Its going to be hard to do that in a society with legal, government funded, abortion and violence everywhere, but that is what we must do.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


And what of this?
www.youtube.com...#!


What of it?

2000 fringe loonies does not mean anything in my opinion.

What about the 750 000 who signed the petition to the US asking for gun restrictions/bans?


Yeah, and the 3.13 Million others that did not sign it get screwed because you hold up an internet petition, with no real way to actually tell if a person has signed it multiple times, get to dictate a law that circumvents and thrashes the 2nd Amendment???
Again, the Europeans/Aussies chime in with crap.
If WE want to change the 2nd Amendment, there is a path for that. It is called a Constitutional Convention.
Not MOB RULE.

SO, thanks for your BS again.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
those petitions are a joke, I have signed many of them, and kept track of the ones that I signed or were interested in. I noticed that President Obama still has not issued a reply to Texas' petition for peacefull succession.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MrBigDave
 


Or the planning to build a Death Star.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


The fact those petitions are useless and dont accurately reflect a society as a whole was kinda my point.
Neither does a protest of 2000 people in a country of 23 Million



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

6) Then why not ban knives, cars, alcohol etc etc they kill people too!!!



Guns and swords serve only 1 purpose, to kill!!!
Im not sure if gun advocates realise how ridiculous they sound when they say ban cars or alcohol, to be honest I dont even feel those comments are worth addressing, knives however are worth talking about.


Oh right, you don't "FEEL" they are worth talking about, even though you KNOW and I KNOW, the damage that alcohol abuse does vastly outweighs the damage that legal gun ownership does?

Look at the murders, rapes, assaults and abuse carried out as a result of the abuse of alcohol- look at the lives blighted, kids taken into care, raped, murdered etc

MASSIVELY more victims than through legal gun ownership- yet you "feel" it is not worth talking about, as it does not fit your narrow narrative


Brilliant, huh? Refuse to address a substance that has absolutely NO positive uses, is strictly for "entertainment", and has been proven to cause thousands of deaths in multiple ways. But let's ban something that does have useful purposes and kills a fraction of the people that alcohol kills.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

I addressed your above point here




I personally believe they should be banned, guns already in circulation should stay there but no more to be sold. Start a buyback scheme so that as people no longer feel they need their firearms they can be turned in therefore taking them out of circulation.


Its correct that its an impossibility to take away everyones guns and I know Im not going to change anyones mind but Im more interested in an intelligent discussion on the topic as opposed to a slinging match and I am open to having my mind changed despite what people think


I don't think they would be out of circulation. The circulation would simply go underground. It doesn't take too much to produce a firearm these days. As you offered a buyback, the price on the black market would rise. Simple supply and demand. Many people will realize that rare guns are not only quite valuable, but actually invaluable to a mostly disarmed people.

You don't seem to be thinking this through properly. The worst will never give up their guns. They will then become dark lords over everyone else. This is taking a step backwards.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
You left out an important point.

I want a gun.

What is your legal or moral authority to tell me I can't have one?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sconner755
You left out an important point.

I want a gun.

What is your legal or moral authority to tell me I can't have one?


Point 15 applies to you

I have no authority to take your guns nor am I trying to.
Im just pointing out that all your justifications are either contradictory, useless or like in your case selfish



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Says the person with no guaranteed right to bear arms.

Sure sure then, sure sure.





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join