Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A response to: " Every possible reason for gun ownership addressed and countered"

page: 1
64
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+70 more 
posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
A response to IkNOwSTuff's post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

1) Its in our constitution
Yes it is, and there's a reason for it being there.



The writing is somewhat ambiguous but I take it to mean an armed militia exclusively, not an armed citizenry.
This was written in a time of war on American soil, people being armed was a necessity, it most certainly is not today. America has arguably the best trained and best equipped military in the world and geographically a land invasion is pretty much impossible. You no longer need guns, the redcoats are no longer coming.


Your interpretation is absolutely incorrect "armed citizenry" is included. Specifically:

Report by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (1982)—"In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States’ to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a ‘militia,’ they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard." (Source: U.S. Senate, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary (1982))
The Supreme Court—In U.S. v. Miller, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. (Source: U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939))



IThis was written around the same time as the 2nd amendment, Its actually laughable how out of date the above quote is.


Is it really out of date? I think not. We have had multiple attacks on US soil in the past decade. And many attempts which have been thwarted by people who stand vigilant ready to do bad things to bad people intent on doing bad things to us! And what is worse we have domestic nationals trying to subvert from constitutional edicts at every turn. There are multiple hate groups and terrorist sympathizing organizations operating within our borders. Not to mention international movements such as the islamo-fascist hate groups trying to impose Sharia law in the US populace.

Perhaps the Goverment's lack of subordination is part of the problem. The moral of the story here is: We the People loan out power to the Government and ultimately have the ability to govern the Government through the democratic process.
2) We need them to defend ourselves against the government


Once again the US has the best military in the world, what exactly is an AK or even grenade launcher let alone handgun going to do against an army of tanks, helicopters and drones except make you and your family a target?


It is indeed true that The United States of America is the greatest military power in the world. Our military capabilities far surpass those of any other nation on earth. The reality is: Take just two states of the union for this example we'll choose Pennsylvania & Michigan; If only the portion of Michigan & Pennsylvania's population which had hunting licenses took up arms which is roughly 1,005,000 & 1,299,372 people (total 2,304,372), you would have the LARGEST STANDING ARMY IN THE WORLD by over nearly 1 million bodies. That doesn't include non-hunters who are armed, sport & competitive shooters, recreational shooters prior military and law enforcement in those states. Add people the other states and the number grows to nearly incomprehensible size.


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

Not very many. See the great thing about the US Military is the fact that our Service members are protected by the US constitution. Any US service member can refuse to carry out an Unlawful Order or one that violates the Constitution of the US. There are also what are known as conscientious objectors which is: "an individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service" on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, and/or religion.



If it ever came to the Gov fighting the people I think they would pull out all the stops, even if you went to ground in the forests or mountains somewhere, they have satellites that can read the writing on a small coin with heat sensing capabilities. How long do you think you will last?


There would be no possible way that the US Government could "pull out all the stops". They can't just carpet bomb their own cities and civilians. A National scale guerrilla war would quickly exhaust every military resource available and would be unsustainable militarily. In fact you could amass the US, China & Russia's militaries into a combined force, the US population would quickly overcome them.



In this day and age the most successful form of rebellion is a peaceful one, look at Egypt or as a better example India, both of these countries achieved a change of government without violence, why can Americans not consider doing the same if it ever came to that?


Not always. Predators, tyrants and dictators only understand one thing: FORCE. Peace is great, and I am all for it! In an ideal world everyone could sit down and sing kumbaya and make everything better. This is not the world you or I live in.

3)Its not just the US that has this problem



Sorry but yes it is!!

No it's not.


Every country has murder, people with mental issues, criminals with guns and gun deaths yet no other country in the world has people going into schools, malls, cinemas etc every few months blasting away at innocent people. Yes massacres have happened in other places but once again not with anywhere near the frequency that they do in the US. 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.


Norway 77 people? Finland? Germany, Switzerland? Lets not even delve in to the African continent. The frequency of these occurrences is there and widely unreported. You forget that many countries do not have the freedoms that our domestic press enjoys. And you said it yourself: These guns that show up in these crimes are usually stolen. So how can you justify taking them from people who obtain them legally? You can't because good people follow the law, bad people do not.



Someone mentioned suicide bombers as proof of this being untrue, suicide bombers are politically or ideologically motivated and usually are not citizens of the country they commit their act in.
These shootings are not politically or ideologically motivated and all so far all perpetrators have been American citizens


Uhhh McVeigh, Kracynski? You're pulling these stats out of your back side. Sources please and thanks. Stop posting opinion as fact.



+2 more 
posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
4)Its part of our culture/ its a tradition



Just because something is a tradition or part of culture doesnt make it right.
How many of you think female circumcision is correct?
How many of you think honour killings are justified?
How many of you think training bears to dance by putting them on hot plates that burn their feet is right?


Does this happen in America? I thought we were talking Guns and America here? Let's try to stay on topic.



All these things are traditions or part of different cultures yet all are in most sensible peoples minds just sick. Just because something is part of your culture does not make it right. It could be argued that with the frequency of these shooting sprees that this is now part of your culture!!!


That is a pretty lame argument.


5) If guns are banned then only criminals will have guns



Every country has criminals with guns, it has been suggested if you really want a gun you can get one. This is true for criminals with resources to buy them and access to people who deal in them. I doubt very much that the majority of people who have committed these recent shootings fit into this category.


It is very easy to get a gun anywhere in the world. And criminals do have the resources to buy them, how else would they get them? If they don't, they just steal them. Your 'doubts' don't constitute FACTS.



Most criminals have weapons to either protect their drug stash or turf, actually using them they know is not good for business. By far the majority of gun deaths are either crimes of passion or the work of mentally ill people, not drug dealers or bank robbers.


You're absolutely positively wrong. By and large most gun deaths in America are Suicides followed by Homicides and then Accidents. The amount of people who die in any sort of firearms related incidents are dwarfed many times over by things like Doctors negligence, Motor vehicle accidents, influenza, cancer, stroke & alcoholism. Funny how we don't see a push to ban Doctors, booze and the like. (source gunowners.org... Article 7.)



Also taking guns off the market takes away the ability of criminals to easily get guns.

Not a chance. Where there is a will there is a way. It is as easy as heading down to your crack corner with a wad of cash. We need to get tougher on criminals not good people.


This was posted in the other thread, somehow the person who posted felt this supported the argument for guns being legal

• 71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
• 64% had been convicted of a crime.
• Each had an average of 11 prior arrests.117,118
• 63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they know their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories).
119 Most gun violence is between criminals. This should be the public policy focus.

So most gun crimes not committed against good law abiding citizens therefore using gun crime statistics as a reason for wanting a gun for safety is bunk.
Im sure it makes you FEEL safer but its not the reality


The first stat says nothing about "gun crimes" it is obviously highlighting the fact that Gunshot victims who were most likely perpetrating a crime when they were shot had been arrested previously. Says nothing about gun crimes. The 64% had actual convictions and they averaged 11 arrests! See a common theme here, these bad guys are repeat offenders and have no regard for the law. The "system" obviously hasn't reformed them, maybe the 9mm did. Permanently.
As for 'most' gun violence being between criminals: GOOD. I would much rather have two crooks shooting and killing each other than a crook and a good guy. The reality is: criminals are scared of the armed public and are less likely to commit a crime if they think there is a likelihood of being shot while trying to commit the crime. The fact remains that there are many incidents where the bad guys come after good people. And guns save their lives. Criminals avoid armed citizens. After all, they don't want to be hurt on the job.

Here's one example:
"Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole." (source Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Problems 35 (February 1988))

Here's another great stat for you:

"Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.(20) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives."

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



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.


I have yet to see conclusive evidence by any credible source as to what these numbers actually are. The ATF let guns 'walk' into the hands of cartels, can you really "trust" their stats?



The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers.

These numbers are so low they are almost non existent.



Source


LOL, you read one article from a biased news outlet and you're an expert? Laughable at best.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
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.


Tools like Guns and swords have many useful purposes other than killing. See: Competitive shooting like USPSA, IDPA, Skeet, Trap, High Power, Bullseye, Hunting, Fencing, Martial arts.


As weve seen with the chinese incident people who are unbalanced and want to hurt people will find a way to do so but thats be callous for a second and look at the figures
Gunman walks into school and opens fire= 27 dead 20 injured knife weilder walks into school and start slashing and stabbing= 0 dead 20 injured


You're right, the criminally insane will always find a way to do harm no matter what the means. The China incident was a stroke of sheer luck. If the man had been any more competent there would have been a different story to report.


If someone opens fire with a gun in a crowded place, even 100 feet away if your in his line of sight your a target, 3 teachers tried to rush the gunman in the latest tragedy and all were shot down.
Someone walks into a mall and stabs someone, everyone scatters and to get to the next victim they need to chase them down, if you can get hold of a chair, pole, piece of wood or even a handbag you have a fighting chance of being able to disarm him. Hell even with just your hands you can hold him up till other people are able to help you overpower them.


Yeah, better yet; someone has a gun and blows him away then nobody gets cut.

7) Guns dont kill people, people kill people


Yes but a person with a gun can kill alot more people than a person without. Guns make killing easy and impersonal, you can stand across a room pull out a gun and BANG someones dead.
As pointed out, with a knife, bat, pole you need to get within striking distance thereby giving the person a chance to either run or defend themselves.


You can easily ring up a high body count with a car or a bomb or by arson. There are a number of ways to get it done, it's not the car, the bomb or the matches fault, it's the sicko using it. Same with guns.


As many of you like to quote Washington banned guns... BUT comparing the 10 years before the gun ban and the 10 years after the only statistically significant change to any crime figures showed gun deaths were down!!!!!!! There was only 1 year after the ban were gun deaths were equal to even the lowest year prior to the ban. Banning guns in Washington saved an estimated 47 lives


Your facts are wrong:
"Washington, D.C. has, perhaps, the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, and yet it is frequently the Murder Capital of the nation. In the 25 years following the DC gun ban, its murder rate INCREASED 51 percent, even while the national rate DECREASED 36 percent" (Source: FBI, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports (1977 and 2002)"

8) I need it to keep my family safe



Everyone the world over worries about their families safety and security but most of us do just fine without a gun. The reason most of you have put forward is that criminals have guns so you need them. 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.


Yes criminals do have guns and therefore I do need them. I refuse to be a victim, I refuse to let my family fall prey to ruthless criminals. Your claim that more guns makes it easier for criminals to get them is a moot point. The number of legally obtained guns falling into criminal hands is minuscule compared to the number of guns in circulation in the US.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
9) Guns aren’t the issue, we need to help mental people



I agree these people doing the shootings are slipping through the cracks but once again these crazy people have access to guns way to easily. If they could only get access to knives then we would see headlines that read 20 injured instead of 27 killed


You seem to be hung up on this ONE anomaly where someone slashed 20 people and they miraculously survived. Take a look at the grim figures of machete gangs in Africa & Jamaica. That will really open your eyes as to the lethality of knives. The fact is these mentally challenged people are slipping through the cracks. There is a lack of guidance and a lack of parenting and a huge lack of responsibility. If people actually spent time with their children they could identify and treat these issues. Nowadays it's easier to plop them in front of a TV , game console or iPod than to actually act like a parent. pop culture and media isn't a substitute for parenting.

Here's some FACTS for ya:
"Knives more deadly: According to the FBI, people have a much greater chance of being killed by a knife or a blunt object than by any kind of rifle, including an "assault rifle."(109) In Chicago, the chance is 67 times greater. That is, a person is 67 times more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death in Chicago than to be murdered by an "assault rifle." (source Matt L. Rodriguez, Superintendent of Police for the City of Chicago, 1993 Murder Analysis)

s
10) But look at what happened in the UK after guns were taken away



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


Acceptable? What's acceptable here you're saying the variation and upswing of gun crime in the UK is 'acceptable' yet you touted the "DC Gun bans as saving an ESTIMATED 47 people over a 20 year period"? WTF?


When gun crime is mentioned it is mainly reffering to armed robbery, Even if you have a gun on you if someone pulls a gun on you and demands your wallet, phone etc etc would you really risk your life trying to pull it out? No possesions are worth dying for!!!!



More facts for you:
Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.(20) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
I know you must be hating the FACTS right about now.


And once again most gun crime even in the UK is commited by criminals against other criminals, not law abiding citizens


So this justifies making it hard for the good people to get guns? Your logic is seriously flawed. The "most" part must be within an "acceptable level" according to you.


11) Look at how little crime there is in Kennesaw where guns are mandatory


So the law is pretty much the same as other places in the US that allow gun ownership, if you dont want a gun get one, if not, dont.
I find it unbelievable people who use this place as evidence for how good gun ownership is always miss this point


You can't argue with the numbers. You're grasping for straws here.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
12)I use it for hunting



I can appreciate this and to me its the only acceptable reason for wanting a gun. Of the estimated 100 Million gun owners in the US I wonder how many are hunters? Ill take a stab and say bugger all (that means very few)


Well thank you for your permission to hunt Mr. end-all-be-all. And you're wrong about your "bugger all" theory in 2 states alone there are more than 2,3000,000 hunters. Hardly bugger all.

And as for your "only acceptable reason to own a gun" comment: The fact of the matter is: You are able to have your opinions here in the USA because there are good people standing by with guns ready to do bad things to bad people in order to insure that the USA citizens are able to enjoy their lives. If there were not vigilant people standing ready, people would not have the same freedoms they do today. And because ether are so many armed citizens, that keeps our Government in check and renders them ineffective of forcibly taking our rights away. Period. Thankfully, you are not American.


Plus when hunting for sport (I doubt many of these hunters are starving) wouldnt it be more sporting to use a bow and arrow? A rifle is enough for hunting, no need for handguns or semi autos


You have no clue as to what you're talking about and no concept of freedom. I want the best tools for any job that may arise and each one of these guns are tools and serve a purpose. You can't try and limit my effectiveness when criminals have no regard for my life.

13) Most gun crimes happen in gun free zones


When I heard about "gun free zones" I assumed it meant states or districts,counties etc etc. It actually refers to school zones and the like. I doubt very much the thinking of these people going into schools, malls and other GFZ is that no one will have guns, these are places with a large amount of people in a small place. Since most of these people plan on dying anyway I seriously doubt they are concerned about whether anyone else has guns and may fire on them


Once again, your "doubts" do not constitute FACTS. These people who commit these crimes are ruthless predators and are very calculating. They choose their targets based on a likelihood of little to no opposition. They wouldn't be very effective otherwise. Hello, common sense? You'll notice that Adam Lanza stopped shooting kids and took his own life when he knew armed people were closing in on him. Otherwise the carnage would have continued.

14) America isn’t the worst by far when it comes to gun deaths



True but statistically its right up there

In number of total gun deaths the US is fourth
# 1 South Africa: 31,918
# 2 Colombia: 21,898
# 3 Thailand: 20,032
# 4 United States: 9,369

when adjusted to a per capita rate the US is 12th with 9 gun deaths a year per 100,000 people.

Now on either of these figures the USA is by far and away the leader when compared to other western countries.
Either way the fact that gun advocates quote that the US isnt the worst really says something about the way they think.

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


First: When you take into consideration the number of guns in the US these statistics shrink exponentially. Compared to the number of guns in circulation per capita vs. violent crimes, the USA would be much farther down the list. Your perception is incredibly skewed. Again grasping for straws.

Also, your attacks at the "way people think" is ridiculous. The fact is: the USA is not the worst nor will it ever be the worst while there are good upstanding citizens who are armed legally and prepared to defend themselves.

Next the USA is and has been in the middle of a war on drugs for the past 3 decades. Where have you been? Civil war? Let's not even go there.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
15) I don’t care Im keeping my guns



This is what it basically comes down to, the gun is the adult equivalent of a teddy bear. It makes you feel all warm and snugly. They can strrp away your other freedoms but as long as you have guns you dont care.

So they are the arguments I normally see given by gun advocates as reasons for why guns shouldnt face tougher restrictions or bans. To summarise my position I dont believe guns everywhere is justified and the reason people want guns is because everyone else has guns and you dont feel safe without one. 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.Anyone caught with a gun without the valid permits should face a mandatory jail term, since if they were illegal anyone caught with one would be upto no good anyway I dont see this as an issue.

I enjoy this forum because it forces me to challenges my beliefs and actually think about what I hold to be true, I encourage and look forward to anyone who doesnt agree with any of the above to CIVILY tell me how and why I am wrong.


Ok Im done...... Flame away


To sum it all up: I am not of the mind to give up any of my freedoms afforded to me by the Constitution. Others may choose to, that is fine. But they must realize that they have that ability because there are good people with guns ready to do whatever is necessary to protect their rights whether they agree with it or not. That is true love and true patriotism. If there were not a long line of like minded people standing at the ready, I fear that many people would not have the ability to publicly profess their beliefs in the manner in which we do today. That to me is sad. As they say a freedom not exercised, is a freedom lost.

Banning guns will never solve the issue. There will never be any 'gun buy back schemes" which would work, criminals will never give them up willfully. There is only one thing these predators understand and that is power. I believe that we should give good honest law abiding people whatever tools necessary to defend their own lives and those of their families and loved ones. I also believe that we should give our law enforcement better means to carry out their duties. They are often outgunned by crooks, that is also sad. I am also of the opinion that "Gun free zones" must be abolished as they are a safe haven for predators to carry out their atrocious acts unchallenged.

The Constitution of the United States is a wonderful gift given to us by some very wise and visionary men. We would do well to preserve it and do them honor. The sacrifices they made to us is an immeasurable gift of love and one of freedom. Let us never forget their sacrifices and honor them by honoring our Constitution and our Great Nation!



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Great thread, S&F for you ! Why is it that so many of the anti-gun posts and threads come from people not even from the U.S. ?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by LightCraft
 


Good post S&F..... Constitutionally speaking, the militia and the citizenry are synonymous. they are one in the same, because the militia was(is) made up of ALL able bodied men (I forget the age range) but it's something like 18 - 55. As you know, the primary purpose for the 2nd amendment is to defend a member state and the citizens therein against an out of control, tyrannical federal government. Therefore the 2nd amendment is just as important now as it ever has been considering the direction our federal government is going. As far as "assault weapons" are concerned, as long as those in power have them, so will I. As long as those who have the power and resolve to oppress me, I will be equally as armed as they are. Period. This was part of the original thinking behind the 2nd amendment. Our system was designed to operate behind a system of checks and balances, and being equzlly armed as those who have the power is one of those checks and balances.

The 2nd amendment HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING. Think about it... back then, people hunted for their food. It was the ONLY way to survive and feed one's family. There were no grocery stores. Because hunting was a common and everyday activity, why in the world would the founders feel it necessary to guarantee the right to hunt in a bill of rights whose power is derived from God? They didn't. Therefore, the primary purpose for the 2nd amendment is as I stated above.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracytheoristIAM
Great thread, S&F for you ! Why is it that so many of the anti-gun posts and threads come from people not even from the U.S. ?


Honestly, I do not know. I think they have their own little idea of utopia and think the rest of the world should be 'just like home'. As I indicated in the post: I think many of them fail to realize that state controlled media which is common in many countries will always skew the popular opinion.

All I can say is: good thing they are not American!



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by LightCraft
 


Good post S&F..... Constitutionally speaking, the militia and the citizenry are synonymous. they are one in the same, because the militia was(is) made up of ALL able bodied men (I forget the age range) but it's something like 18 - 55. As you know, the primary purpose for the 2nd amendment is to defend a member state and the citizens therein against an out of control, tyrannical federal government. Therefore the 2nd amendment is just as important now as it ever has been considering the direction our federal government is going. As far as "assault weapons" are concerned, as long as those in power have them, so will I. As long as those who have the power and resolve to oppress me, I will be equally as armed as they are. Period. This was part of the original thinking behind the 2nd amendment. Our system was designed to operate behind a system of checks and balances, and being equzlly armed as those who have the power is one of those checks and balances.

The 2nd amendment HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING. Think about it... back then, people hunted for their food. It was the ONLY way to survive and feed one's family. There were no grocery stores. Because hunting was a common and everyday activity, why in the world would the founders feel it necessary to guarantee the right to hunt in a bill of rights whose power is derived from God? They didn't. Therefore, the primary purpose for the 2nd amendment is as I stated above.


Agreed!

You hit the nail right on the head! Thank you for adding to the thread!



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Well, the person who wrote the thread that the OP is debating doesn't live out here in No Man's Land.

I do.

We have a shotgun (for closer shooting), and a small caliber rifle (for things farther away).

Our closest neighbor is over a mile away. We are alone and basically defenseless, except for our guns. If somebody were to drive off the main highway onto our caliche road and decide to rob us, even if we called 9-1-1, it would take probably close to 20 minutes to get at least one sheriff's deputy out here. Therefore, our only defense is our shotgun.

None of the farmhouses out here in Texas gets ripped off, and that's because everybody knows that every farmer and rancher is armed. You wanna get your butt full of buckshot, try and rob one of these isolated houses.

We can only rely on ourselves for protection, and that's fine by us. We're keeping our guns, thank you very much. It's what's in the can of whoop ass when it opens.





+1 more 
posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I'm a Brit and mark me down as pro US gun ownership. In fact I could even see an argument for firearms lessons/training in schools. Get 'em early and teach 'em right. I completely disagree with the OP from the other thread. For me it's about human rights.

Many British and Commonwealth country citizens that are anti US gun just don't get it. One of the reasons USA was born was out of a desire for freedom to live your life as you see fit without any unnecessary governmental interference. Government shouldn't be telling people how to live. People should be telling govrnment how to be and ensuring (by the gun if necessary) that government is as small as possible. Defence of borders, protection of human rights, a just legal system, and protecting the people from corporate power are all government needs to be involved in.

The desire to own guns should be all that is needed. All the other valid reasons for gun ownership are secondary in my opinion. If you want to own a gun it should be your business and yours alone. Provided your gun ownership and use doesn't infringe other peoples rights it's none of their business. If you use it illegally then you should face the consequences.

Gun prohibition is a kind of pre-crime/thought police action, plane and simple.

We Brits and commonwealth countries mostly simply don't have that mindset. We've had too many hundreds of years of being subjects not free citizens. We are the people who stayed behind and put up with the atrocities of The British Empire when the founding fathers and immigrants fled the tyranny to the new world.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in article 3 that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

The scholarly paper linked below points out that gun confiscation leads to infringements of civil rights.

www.impsec.org...



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by LightCraft
 


As I have previously stated, the only way that any gun ban would ever work is if 100% of the population is on board and that includes all governments. I certainly don't see that ever happening. Banning guns or outright repealing the 2nd amendment isn't something to be taken lightly, because 15 years down the road, "maybe we shouldn't have banned guns" isn't a phrase I want to hear. Study history people. Or we will be doomed to relive it.

MOTF!



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Star and flag for you! great points, and FACTS lol not opinions I doubt the OP of the other thread will come here to try and counter any of your points but great thread!



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by RN311
Star and flag for you! great points, and FACTS lol not opinions I doubt the OP of the other thread will come here to try and counter any of your points but great thread!


Thank you Sir! It is indeed very hard to refute facts! Which is why people tend to get in these 'emotional debates" rather than try and look at issues scientifically. It is much easier to explain how something makes one 'feel' based on ones own 'perception' as skewed as it may be.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
reply to post by LightCraft
 


As I have previously stated, the only way that any gun ban would ever work is if 100% of the population is on board and that includes all governments. I certainly don't see that ever happening. Banning guns or outright repealing the 2nd amendment isn't something to be taken lightly, because 15 years down the road, "maybe we shouldn't have banned guns" isn't a phrase I want to hear. Study history people. Or we will be doomed to relive it.

MOTF!



Yeah, if something like that were to ever happen it would sure suck to look back and say "Oh I wish I was never such an idiot" or "I sure wish I had a gun to repel all these looters" by then it will have been far too late.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by merkins
I'm a Brit and mark me down as pro US gun ownership. In fact I could even see an argument for firearms lessons/training in schools. Get 'em early and teach 'em right. I completely disagree with the OP from the other thread. For me it's about human rights.

Many British and Commonwealth country citizens that are anti US gun just don't get it. One of the reasons USA was born was out of a desire for freedom to live your life as you see fit without any unnecessary governmental interference. Government shouldn't be telling people how to live. People should be telling govrnment how to be and ensuring (by the gun if necessary) that government is as small as possible. Defence of borders, protection of human rights, a just legal system, and protecting the people from corporate power are all government needs to be involved in.

The desire to own guns should be all that is needed. All the other valid reasons for gun ownership are secondary in my opinion. If you want to own a gun it should be your business and yours alone. Provided your gun ownership and use doesn't infringe other peoples rights it's none of their business. If you use it illegally then you should face the consequences.

Gun prohibition is a kind of pre-crime/thought police action, plane and simple.

We Brits and commonwealth countries mostly simply don't have that mindset. We've had too many hundreds of years of being subjects not free citizens. We are the people who stayed behind and put up with the atrocities of The British Empire when the founding fathers and immigrants fled the tyranny to the new world.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in article 3 that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

The scholarly paper linked below points out that gun confiscation leads to infringements of civil rights.

www.impsec.org...




Merkins: a pat on the back to you Sir!

Thank you for your excellent observations and sound contribution. I will look over the paper you linked to shortly.

S&F!



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
Well, the person who wrote the thread that the OP is debating doesn't live out here in No Man's Land.

I do.

We have a shotgun (for closer shooting), and a small caliber rifle (for things farther away).

Our closest neighbor is over a mile away. We are alone and basically defenseless, except for our guns. If somebody were to drive off the main highway onto our caliche road and decide to rob us, even if we called 9-1-1, it would take probably close to 20 minutes to get at least one sheriff's deputy out here. Therefore, our only defense is our shotgun.

None of the farmhouses out here in Texas gets ripped off, and that's because everybody knows that every farmer and rancher is armed. You wanna get your butt full of buckshot, try and rob one of these isolated houses.

We can only rely on ourselves for protection, and that's fine by us. We're keeping our guns, thank you very much. It's what's in the can of whoop ass when it opens.





A country boy can survive!



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Is the states the same now as it was when the constitution was created? If the answer is yes...what good is it? If the answer is no, why quote it as a source? Is it gospel?

Are the citizens of the states in the same predicament they were when that constitution was drawn up?









 
64
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join