Every possible reason for gun ownership addressed and countered

page: 9
29
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   
This is really interesting!!

We give our opinions about how other countries should behave, like Israel, Iran and so. We even invade countries so to change the way they operate, but the OP can't voice his opinion about gun control in the U.S. because he's not an "American"?




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
You've already been rebuked, so I'll spare you. I will tell you a couple personal stories, though.

I live in New Mexico. There are a LOT of illegal aliens here, and they are not here for the jobs. I also know some cops here - APD specifically - and I hear the skinny about what is REALLY happening in the streets around here. It is not good. There is basically a perpetual gang war, and there are black gang members who have been displaced by Katrina trying to claim turf. Before Katrina, black gangs were practically nonexistent here, mostly Mexican cartel and MS-13, and your local outfits.

I have personally been in situations where I was face-to-face with these cockroaches and felt threatened - at Walgreens. These are not stable people who you want to piss off when you're behind them in line at Walgreens. Another incident placed me beside a car with 3 gangbangers (who were high). I happened to glance over as I like to have good situational awareness, and the guy in the back seat 5 feet from my door is mad-dogging me the entire time. I quietly reached into my console and slid my .45 into my lap. He was a smart cockroach and decided to stay in the car, but he could have had a gun in my face inside of 3 seconds if he felt inclined. I was prepared for that eventuality. In fact, there have been MANY times I have been driving in Albuquerque and gotten my .45 out of my console and put it in my lap, that is how unsafe I feel in some areas.

Yeah, the majority of the gun crime is gang on gang here, but believe me when I tell you that these guys do not operate exclusively in the south valley or the war zone any more. They are everywhere here, and there are incidents in places that should be quiet family neighborhoods. Residential burglaries are common, car thefts, home invasions. This is real, not some statistics you can spew to make some bogus case.

Criminals will always get guns. Once they know other people don't have them, it will be a field day for them. Home invasions, armed robberies, those crimes will all increase. That is a fact.

2nd Amendment: You can compare "language" and cherry-pick certain passages, but here are some quotes from some people in American History for you to ponder:

George Washington:

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

“Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” (This is already happening)

Thomas Jefferson:

“All authority belongs to the people”

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery.”

“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Abraham Lincoln:

“Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”


I prefer these opinions over yours. Sorry.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   


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

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



Your Gov is neither subordinate or lacking in ambition.

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.



Yes massacres have happened in other places but once again not with anywhere near the frequency that they do in the US.

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



The guns being used by these people arent home made, they were either purchased legally or stolen from people (usually parents) who did purchase them legally.

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.



therefore using gun crime statistics as a reason for wanting a gun for safety is bunk.

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



As addressed above the more guns in circulation the easier it is for the bad people to get them, it is a self defeating argument.

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.



Despite figures saying gun crime was up, death by guns remained largely static and within acceptable statistical variation.

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



Most of these other countries are either experiencing civil war or serious drug wars. The US suffers from neither of these issues

True, but we do struggle with a general lower/mid class populus that is care free, irresponsible, greedy, irreverent, lazy, desperate, ignorant, wannabe 'hard as', who all to often will act so carelessly without any regard for reprecussions. It not like that in central american countries, because the less fortunate tend to have more dignity. However I feel much safer on my downtown streets than in mexico city.

Btw, I dont own any guns
edit on 18-12-2012 by TomServo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
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



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by thegrayone
This is really interesting!!

We give our opinions about how other countries should behave, like Israel, Iran and so. We even invade countries so to change the way they operate, but the OP can't voice his opinion about gun control in the U.S. because he's not an "American"?



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......



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 

Thank you for sharing your story and for posting those relevant sayings of some of our most influential presidents (altho it is ironic that Lincoln made that statement and then basically suspended constitutional rights).



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by brandiwine14
 




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.


That reminds me of one of my favorite essays by Marko Kloos.

March 23, 2007 by Marko Kloos
why the gun is civilization.



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 gangbanger, and a single gay 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 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 weightlifter. 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 Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Before I make my comment I will say I am not American. My family heritage is though. The hint is in the last 3 letters of my name. The OP has put into words what my mind has been screaming for decades.

Now, all I will say is this:

Keep your right to bear arms. There is nothing wrong with owning a gun. Holding it in your hand makes you feel strong and invincible, right? You can protect yourself from your fellow gun wielding compatriots, right?

Just ban the sale of bullets. Problem solved. You get to keep your guns. That would make you all happy. Right?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
A great, thought out and logical thread. Too bad the majority of people that are pro-guns are unable to construct an intelligent reply and resort to personal attacks or arguing with the mental capacity of a 5 year old. I'm yet to see a good argument for gun ownership, it's always the same few fallacies that you have addressed. I'm tired of trying to talk sense in to people though, they ignore numbers and rational thinking.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
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)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
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



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Not quite every reason.

What about target shooters and those of us who have guns for sport and organised competition ?
(I'm not talking hunting).



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Ive heard many politicans recently in the news asking for the ban of Assault weapons and Weapons of War. So what would this consist of. Well if you ask any soldier, it would Not mean Semi-automatic weapons.
Soldiers are issued a different weapon platform that can either fire in Automatic, Burst or Semi-Auto with the flick of a button.
Automatic= Continuous rounds of ammo fired until trigger released.
Burst= 3-5 rounds of ammo for every trigger pull.
Semi-Automatic= one trigger pull one bullet
Just because a weapon looks like an M-16 doesnt mean it performs like one, An AR-15, XM-15, AR-10, some AK-47, AK-74, may look like weapons of war, but are actually far from it. These guns are really just a hunting rifle that have been cosmetically changed to hold flashlights, lasers, foregrips, removeable sights, etc... They are the exact same as any hunting rifle, besides the outer cosmetics it has. The only difference is what can the gun accept for a magazine, most hold a 30 round clip, but that still means one bullet for every trigger pull.
I feel that if they ban these so called assault rifles, then they better go ahead and ban Hunting rifles as well, Most Hunting rifles have either a 5 round bottom fed clip, or an Internal 5 round feed. With MUCH more power behind the projectile.
I feel that these Politicians need to first understand what a Weapon of War is before deciding to ban all Assault rifles, Should we also ban hunting rifles and Multiple round Shotguns.
im not saying that nothing should be done, because something does, like maybe starting with our society first, and the way childeren are being brought up in a society that has way to many graphic video games, and people on anti-depressents medication.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
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?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Man this site is full of kids.

Of course the guy can say whatever he wants to say (OP) Ridiculous

I do think US needs to do something about the weapons. There you can buy a gun like bag of sweets. It needs to eb regulated, at least some tests need to be done for mental illness...

Now I am surprised people keep making up a conspiracy of everything. I do think this was because the mother was crazy and drove his child crazy. She had guns... terrible news.

I for one stay on this side of the ocean. F%$K that!



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Let me start by saying that I do not fear guns and I am an American.
You have every right to present your opinion. I may agree, or not, or I may find validity in part of what you espouse. Such is the nature of debate.
For purposes of background, let me tell you a story 'bout a man named............. ***Cue Beverly Hillbillies theme song***
My heritage is Scot. British and "Native" American. My family's story starts with the Scot and Irish mass migrations beginning in the 1700's.
My American story starts with the immigration to America of my paternal anscestor, CPT John Knox, in 1743. CPT Knox served with the British Army during the French & Indian War and elected to remain after the war.
My first maternal anscestor known to be in America was the Rev Moses Holland who was a Drummer Boy in General Washington's Continental Army at Yorktown. He went on to found a church in South Carolina. (My mother has been there and has visited his gravesite.) My maternal great great grandmother was Cherokee.
A member of my family has been involved in nearly every major conflict this nation has had right up to the present. We were on both sides of the Civil War , we were on the Trail of Tears and on both sides of the so called "Indian Wars"(Indian Genocide being a more appropo name for the slaughter which ensued). We were in politics in the esteemed persons of President James Knox Polk and Attorney General/Senator/ Secretary of State Philander Chase Knox.
I served in the Vietnam War as well as a Law Enforcement Officer and EMT for 10 years during the 70's. I will be basing a number of my contentions upon personal experience and observation. Granted, this is purely subjective. ( See, we already share one commonality as your entire post was highly subjective.)
My point being that I have a great deal invested in this, my home. My family helped to build this nation with our labor, our love and, when called for, our blood. Every little freedom that is lost, or otherwise mitigated, makes our work and our sacrifices that much more insignificant. My family is not unique, there are many like mine. Though one may espouse that the "times were different" and therefore can not be considered a valid argument in modern times, I must contend that that position is invalid. Times change, technology changes, lifestyles change but people do not. ( Any more than 2 or 3 of us get together, we tend to choose sides.) No decision, IMHO, may be considered viable and useful that does not address both human nature and the historical aspects of how we got to the point of making the decision at hand.
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.
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.
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:



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
POINT 2: your totally correct. The fact that people think they can protect themselves, or even overthrow the US Government with their guns in 2012, thus being a reason to keep them, are delusional, living in the past. This American lady in the video half way down the screen, also agrees "its fantasy".

www.bbc.co.uk...





new topics
top topics
 
29
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join