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

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

Look at this guy's subtitle: "ATSs most important and intelligent member"

Does anyone expect this guy is they type of guy to ever admit when he's wrong?

He's a narcissist who will always think he's right.

I admit I was wrong[/url]

The truth, more like the sh*t comes out in the wash. It is incredibly obvious that this person will go to any length and stop at nothing to be the center of attention. Even if it is negative attention. It is apparent that this person will say and do anything to keep all eyes on him. Here he comes back in an attempt to hijack the thread with something completely unrelated as he has learned he can't win a debate when he has nothing factual or even logical to offer.

The best thing anyone could do is ignore people like him. Let him stay in his own virtual sandbox.

The first full year of the gun ban in Australia saw gun crime go up %40., so the gun ban did not do Australia much good.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

That about sums it up, people.

I would like to see your sources and the scientific method used to calculate the numbers. Those numbers look incredibly wrong. I'd be willing to bet that they were made by some shade tree anti-gunner without any factual basis.

Until I see the sources and the methods used to gather them: BUNK.

Originally posted by pikestaff
The first full year of the gun ban in Australia saw gun crime go up %40., so the gun ban did not do Australia much good.

And it never will do much good. History will repeat itself over and over if people keep doing the "same old thing". Australia needs to give the people it's arms back!

Everyone knows the whole reason for disarming Australia in the first place was so they could exterminate Aboriginals without resistance. Look at the Aboriginal people today. They are considered the scourge of Aussie society and herded into ghettos within the cities and still left without much in the outback. They make up a huge population of the prisons all because of the racism and deep hatred that has lurked for decades.

WISE UP!

reply to post by LightCraft

Originally posted by LightCraft
Is it really out of date?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.

Alrighty then, please provide just one single terrorist attempt that was thwarted by normal armed civilians versus armed police, counter-terrorism units etc.

Incoming harsh statement alert! Did all of your guns stop 9/11 from happening? Or all of the kids being killed in the schools, or any serial killer butchering masses? The answer to the above is no.

Your guns and your belief in your guns protecting you from some big bad organised group of terrorists wishing to hijack the US and subvert you all, is unfounded. You, the people of the US, haven't thwarted a damn thing since the French helped you get rid of the English and you then subsequently butchered a nation of American Indians wielding bows and arrows/spears with your guns. Your army however has.

You are not your army! You are not all conscripts, enlisted and armed/trained to kill. You're just some average Joe/Jane, like everybody else on this planet. You are not blessed by God, you are not the greatest, the badest, the mightiest. Your gun may make you think and feel like you are, but you're not.

The fact that you actually believe that people like you, an individual, or even the entire people's of the United States have any form of control over your own lives is again laughable. With or without guns, republican or democrat you are OWNED by the government and its banks.

The only thing you should be doing with your guns, I've stated before and state once again, is marching on your government and overthrowing it. Instead you sit by and think you're safe and defended against because you own a pea shooter. The actual concept is bordering on lunacy, let alone separated from reality by a vast chasm of self denial.

You think the world and all the bad guys are out to get you, so you want to own guns to protect yourself - point. That's it. Stop right there, take a breath, own up to you and your countrymen's vast paranoid delusional problems and seek help.

You are hamsters on the great fear mongering wheel of life, all of you, all of us. Time to wake up now.

Cheers,
T

Originally posted by LightCraft

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

That about sums it up, people.

I would like to see your sources and the scientific method used to calculate the numbers. Those numbers look incredibly wrong. I'd be willing to bet that they were made by some shade tree anti-gunner without any factual basis.

Until I see the sources and the methods used to gather them: BUNK.

No no no, only because you don't like the numbers, its not always debunked.
Here is my source, which links to this deeper source.

Edit: The used scientific method would be called "arithmetic", I guess. Usually, you can count the deaths related to guns, and you should know the number of people with permits in your country. I will leave the following to the interested readers, as my old professor used to say..

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by LightCraft

 

I guess you just couldn't hit the reply button?

... you know your audience and you will get the reaffirmation you are so desperately seeking.

Surprises me that after such a tragedy the focus is still on the weaponry and not the children.

No matter.... *sigh*

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))

Militia was defined as every free male because we didn't have a standing army.
Men, any able bodied men were gathered to fight and naturally they would have to be armed.


wiki.answers.com...

The Continental Congress established the Continental Army in 1775 to fight the revolution. The Legion of the Unites States was established in 1792- 1796 to fight the Native Americans, which means it was established and renewed once.

The Congress re-raised the army for the war of 1812 and Mexican-American War from 1846-1848.

Once again for the Civil War Congress called up the state militias to form an army.

It was not until the late 19th / early 20th century that the current standing army was formed.

Taken from section 8 (Powers of Congress) of the United States Constitution



To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


To provide and maintain a Navy;


To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clearly a distinction is made and arming a Militia meant arming those charged with executing laws of the Union, suppressing insurrections and repelling invasions. I don't see today's Libertarians doing any of that. They mostly just sit on their porch.

The whole Nation's heart aches for these children! The reason we are discussing it with such passion is because nobody wants to see it happen again! The anti-gun crowd just doesn't seem to get the fact that all the good people in the world could turn their guns in and the bad guys will never have to worry about opposition again.

ATS has many bright people and many who pride themselves on critical thinking. And many more who want to sift through the BS. Apparently this is difficult for some as they are looking so hard between the cracks, they can't see the answer right in front of their nose. Don't be one of those people.

It appears you read and cite only the parts of things you agree with. The explanation of a militia and the second amendment has been gone over several hundred times. You're missing something.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Originally posted by LightCraft

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

That about sums it up, people.

I would like to see your sources and the scientific method used to calculate the numbers. Those numbers look incredibly wrong. I'd be willing to bet that they were made by some shade tree anti-gunner without any factual basis.

Until I see the sources and the methods used to gather them: BUNK.

No no no, only because you don't like the numbers, its not always debunked.
Here is my source, which links to this deeper source.

Edit: The used scientific method would be called "arithmetic", I guess. Usually, you can count the deaths related to guns, and you should know the number of people with permits in your country. I will leave the following to the interested readers, as my old professor used to say..

edit on 19-12-2012 by ManFromEurope because: (no reason given)

The CDC seems to disagree. And I wonder why: That source is hell bent on disarming the entire world! No wonders the numbers are so skewed!

Here's the most recent numbers by the CDC: See cdc.gov

Mortality
All injury deaths

Number of deaths: 177,154
Deaths per 100,000 population: 57.7

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

Number of deaths: 34,485
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.2

All poisoning deaths

Number of deaths: 41,592
Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.5

All firearm deaths

Number of deaths: 31,347
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2

reply to post by conspiracytheoristIAM
A simple answer to that is. Jealous of our rights to bear arms.

When this constitution was drawn up, i don't think your forefathers thought for a minute ordinary members of the public would be running around with easy access to semi automatic military handguns and shotguns, its not about the guns its about the "types" of guns that are too easy to get, let each member have a gun for their right and protection, but make it illegal for ordinary people to have these military type guns, This is what its all about, and this is what's going to happen. Anyone who wishes to keep these types of guns, especially after all the stuff that has happened is a moron.

Originally posted by Tikitiboo
Anyone who wishes to keep these types of guns, especially after all the stuff that has happened is an American

Fixed that for you.

People forget one thing when it comes to owning guns.

If a country ever is invaded, a country without civilian gun owners will have only its military to rely on. But a country like the US will have millions of American civilians, armed and ready to defend their country against the foreign invaders, as the case should be!

Switzerland makes sure every one of its citizens is armed, in preparation for exactly this kind of event. And of course, the gun violence in that country is miniscule.

In Sweden (my country) until recently, members of the Home Guard (Think US National Guard, but more like reserves, and not full-time unless in case of war) were to keep an assault rifle at home for the exact same reason. Until the cowards made sure this policy changed, with no thought as to what will happen if Sweden is ever invaded. Because the same people have also virtually handicapped our now almost decommissioned military.

People who want to ban guns are some of the most dangerous in the world, because they're trying to tell you how to live your lives. In other words, they're trying to restrict your freedom. And as such they are just as bad as any tyrant out there. In my not so humble opinion. Your owning a gun is none of their damn business.

I live in Sweden, but I have an American girlfriend. We're planning to get married, and after three years of living in the US, I'll be taking a citizenship test. You can bet your sweet behind I will then begin to exercise my rights as awarded to me by the 2nd Amendment. I would rather die as a lion than live as a sheep.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Conclusion:

Worst responses to my points Ive seen yet and there were some absolute shockers on the other thread.

I really cant believe your serious

I wont be coming back here as your either trolling or secretly on my side and just proving how stupid the gun advocates actually are.

Flame away peeps but at least read my rebuttals

edit on 18/12/2012 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)

Most gun owners just dont get it mate, i made a lot of the same points you did on another forum, and got banned by a pro gun moderator because he got so wound up and couldn't respond to my arguments with any facts or reasons that side with the current gun laws in America! In the end he lost the plot and called me a troll then banned me.

I don't believe America should totally ban guns, but it is so obvious that the current gun laws do not work, and they need to tighten them up.

Originally posted by Gauss
I would rather die as a lion than live as a sheep.

edit on 19-12-2012 by Gauss because: (no reason given)

You think having a gun makes you a lion?

I am sorry, anyone who feels they need a gun to feel safe are not lions, they are weak. My nan could kill Mike Tyson if she had a gun.

reply to post by LightCraft

LightCraft-- Thanks for the common sense approach-- fanaticism exists even in the gun world...
People need to slow down, breathe, and get a grip???
I have been hearing heaving breathing over guns for 99% of my 52yrs on this earth--
and every year it's the same whining, the same screaming into their pillows, to what end-- you still have your guns???

And this crazy 'there out ot get my bazillion rounds of ammo rhetoric', is just that... .

Originally posted by liverlad

Originally posted by Gauss
I would rather die as a lion than live as a sheep.

edit on 19-12-2012 by Gauss because: (no reason given)

You think having a gun makes you a lion?

I am sorry, anyone who feels they need a gun to feel safe are not lions, they are weak. My nan could kill Mike Tyson if she had a gun.

I'm sorry, but only an idiot would take a knife to a gunfight. Or fists to a knife fight. Only an idiot would say people who need guns to feel safe are weak. Bringing a knife to a gunfight - or rather, bringing fists to a gunfight - is exactly what the fanatics in the gun control movement want to do. I say let them. Darwin's law should take care of them fairly quickly after that. But don't you dare try to tell me to do it.

I feel perfectly safe without a gun as long as the biggest thing the criminals around pack is knives. But as we all know, criminals pack considerably more firepower than that. So don't you dare go around and judge people for wanting to have firearms so they can defend themselves!

Originally posted by Gauss

Originally posted by liverlad

Originally posted by Gauss
I would rather die as a lion than live as a sheep.

edit on 19-12-2012 by Gauss because: (no reason given)

You think having a gun makes you a lion?

I am sorry, anyone who feels they need a gun to feel safe are not lions, they are weak. My nan could kill Mike Tyson if she had a gun.

I'm sorry, but only an idiot would take a knife to a gunfight. Or fists to a knife fight. Only an idiot would say people who need guns to feel safe are weak. Bringing a knife to a gunfight - or rather, bringing fists to a gunfight - is exactly what the fanatics in the gun control movement want to do. I say let them. Darwin's law should take care of them fairly quickly after that. But don't you dare try to tell me to do it.

I feel perfectly safe without a gun as long as the biggest thing the criminals around pack is knives. But as we all know, criminals pack considerably more firepower than that. So don't you dare go around and judge people for wanting to have firearms so they can defend themselves!

I didn't say anything about a gunfight. What i have noticed about gun lovers is that they are obsessed with the idea that people are going to get them as soon as they hand over their weapons, that is total stupidity and is based on nothing but paranoia. Let's just say for arguments sake that your government decided to invade itself, do you really think your guns would save you? If anything they would make you a target. The whole "i need a gun to defend myself" thing is a very weak argument indeed, say someone wanted to shoot you, they are not going to give you a heads up and tell you about it, they are just going to shoot you without warning, so you won't even have a chance to defend yourself anyway.

Also, talking about Darwin's law, how many accidental deaths are caused by guns each year around the world?

Originally posted by liverlad

Originally posted by Gauss

Originally posted by liverlad

Originally posted by Gauss
I would rather die as a lion than live as a sheep.

edit on 19-12-2012 by Gauss because: (no reason given)

You think having a gun makes you a lion?

I am sorry, anyone who feels they need a gun to feel safe are not lions, they are weak. My nan could kill Mike Tyson if she had a gun.

I'm sorry, but only an idiot would take a knife to a gunfight. Or fists to a knife fight. Only an idiot would say people who need guns to feel safe are weak. Bringing a knife to a gunfight - or rather, bringing fists to a gunfight - is exactly what the fanatics in the gun control movement want to do. I say let them. Darwin's law should take care of them fairly quickly after that. But don't you dare try to tell me to do it.

I feel perfectly safe without a gun as long as the biggest thing the criminals around pack is knives. But as we all know, criminals pack considerably more firepower than that. So don't you dare go around and judge people for wanting to have firearms so they can defend themselves!

I didn't say anything about a gunfight. What i have noticed about gun lovers is that they are obsessed with the idea that people are going to get them as soon as they hand over their weapons, that is total stupidity and is based on nothing but paranoia. Let's just say for arguments sake that your government decided to invade itself, do you really think your guns would save you? If anything they would make you a target. The whole "i need a gun to defend myself" thing is a very weak argument indeed, say someone wanted to shoot you, they are not going to give you a heads up and tell you about it, they are just going to shoot you without warning, so you won't even have a chance to defend yourself anyway.

Also, talking about Darwin's law, how many accidental deaths are caused by guns each year around the world?

Your argument is flawed. Firstly, my government could never invade itself because my country's military has, a) been almost entirely decommissioned, b) is mainly busy working abroad, and c) has recently gone from conscripts to professional soldiers, which means we have approximately 800,000 trained soldiers as civilians whereas we have less than 10,000 professional soldiers right now. That aside, I am also not allowed to carry guns, which you would have known if you had bothered to thoroughly read my first post in this thread.

You also seem to be under the misconception that I live in the US, but obviously, I do not.

Secondly, if someone wants to shoot me, it's my damn right to shoot them first, regardless of what your feelings are on the issue. And your argument that I won't have time to shoot because they won't give me warning, is beyond weak, bordering on pathetic. Basically you're saying, because I won't have time to shoot back and defend myself anyway, I shouldn't be allowed to have the means to do it? I don't have to tell you how utterly retarded that argument is, do I?

I'm done with you. You just stay away from firearms, and stay out of other people's business of owning them. Because it's their business, and none of yours.

Originally posted by Gauss


Your argument is flawed. Firstly, my government could never invade itself because my country's military has, a) been almost entirely decommissioned, b) is mainly busy working abroad, and c) has recently gone from conscripts to professional soldiers, which means we have approximately 800,000 trained soldiers as civilians whereas we have less than 10,000 professional soldiers right now. That aside, I am also not allowed to carry guns, which you would have known if you had bothered to thoroughly read my first post in this thread.

You also seem to be under the misconception that I live in the US, but obviously, I do not.

Sorry, my mistake i did think you was an American.

Secondly, if someone wants to shoot me, it's my damn right to shoot them first, regardless of what your feelings are on the issue. And your argument that I won't have time to shoot because they won't give me warning, is beyond weak, bordering on pathetic. Basically you're saying, because I won't have time to shoot back and defend myself anyway, I shouldn't be allowed to have the means to do it? I don't have to tell you how utterly retarded that argument is, do I?

How is it weak? Do you have super reflex speed, do you have super senses that allow you to know in advance when someone is going to shoot you? You may have a right to defend youself, but to think that you owning a gun is going to stop bullets from killing you is the retarted argument, you have been watching too much Rambo or something.

I'm done with you. You just stay away from firearms, and stay out of other people's business of owning them. Because it's their business, and none of yours.

Oh don't worry, i have no intentions of killing anyone, nor am i pretending to be a lion. I live in a country with good laws on guns and have no need to own a gun, i will leave the criminals and weaklings to that. And this is the free world mate, i have every right to speak up against the stupid arguments gun lovers make just so they get to own a killing machine, i don't like people who own guns for silly reasons, and you don't like people like me, get used to it.

reply to post by liverlad


Your argument relies on that all people who want to kill someone with guns get the first shot every time, everywhere, including during nightly burglaries and public shootings (where they might not necessarily pick me as their first target) which of course is not true. THAT is why your argument is retarded.

And it's not that I don't like people like you. I just don't like you.

Also, this time I really am done. Sorry about that.