Do you own the gun or the gun owns you?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Gun = Dinner, Protection.

I grew up in rural areas and was a hunting/fishing guide for many years. My guns were tools, not symbols of freedom from oppression and tyranny.

Anything more than is necessary to put meat in the deepfreeze or to protect oneself from a grizzly is compensation for a lack of something. We live in a time when a vote can topple a government.




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Enter the "Fudd."

Thank you so much for your complete support of arbitrary tyranny.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jazzgul
 


"if necessary"
That pretty much says it all. I don't think my gun is the solution to every violent encounter. I have been involved in fist fights while carrying, never thought to pull it because the other person was not armed and not trying to kill me. My weapon is there as a last ditch, life saving tool. I will shoot to wound first, unless that person is armed and in the act of harming myself or others. I will do all I can to warn and deter that person, but if they keep coming after the first round, I will shoot to kill. My weapon is a tool to be used when absolutely no other option exists, not a "be all, end all" solution.
ETA: I wanted to say I think my attitude is shared by most other gun owners. We don't carry with the hope of every situation turning into the OK Corral. We carry in the hope it will never have to leave the holster, but there if needed.
edit on 10-1-2013 by DAVID64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
To me Gun/Firearm=Tool. I like to think of firearms as power tools. If used improperly they can be very dangerous. I only have 2 firearms that are truly special to me and that is due to sentimental reasons. Every other gun is just a tool. In the right hands that tool can do amazing things like save lives.. In the wrong hands that tool can hurt or kill people. So I would say I own my guns just as I own my power tools. They do not own me.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Enter the "Fudd."

Thank you so much for your complete support of arbitrary tyranny.



Duck Dodgers in The 24 1/2 Century!!



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
For me, gun = kill or maim. That's what they were designed to do - if they weren't, they'd just have fluffy nerf bullets inside.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
For me, gun = kill or maim. That's what they were designed to do - if they weren't, they'd just have fluffy nerf bullets inside.


Have you ever watched the Olymic shooting or any other competative shooting matches. Those guns are not designed for killing. In my opinion it is the intent of the user that makes a gun a "killing Machine'. There are many firearms out there that were designed to never be used to kill but for sporting purposes only.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by usmc0311

Originally posted by kaylaluv
For me, gun = kill or maim. That's what they were designed to do - if they weren't, they'd just have fluffy nerf bullets inside.


Have you ever watched the Olymic shooting or any other competative shooting matches. Those guns are not designed for killing. In my opinion it is the intent of the user that makes a gun a "killing Machine'. There are many firearms out there that were designed to never be used to kill but for sporting purposes only.


You mean there are guns that really just have fluffy bullets inside? Cool - maybe we should only allow those guns to be sold. It would mean a lot less dead people. Think that would fly?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by usmc0311
 


So, is the gun a tool to help you to construct your reality?
Do you identify yourself by owning that tool?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
You mean like this?
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


Tempting it is right now to float into that amusing TV distraction, but would you care to elaborate what is your question?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jazzgul
reply to post by usmc0311
 


So, is the gun a tool to help you to construct your reality?
Do you identify yourself by owning that tool?


The gun is a tool for me to use for whatever purpose I choose. Me I just like to target shoot, hunt, and have one handy to protect my family. Firearms have nothing to do with how I base reality. I identify myself as an American first and a Marine second. Guns have nothing to do with my identity.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by usmc0311

Originally posted by kaylaluv
For me, gun = kill or maim. That's what they were designed to do - if they weren't, they'd just have fluffy nerf bullets inside.


Have you ever watched the Olymic shooting or any other competative shooting matches. Those guns are not designed for killing. In my opinion it is the intent of the user that makes a gun a "killing Machine'. There are many firearms out there that were designed to never be used to kill but for sporting purposes only.


You mean there are guns that really just have fluffy bullets inside? Cool - maybe we should only allow those guns to be sold. It would mean a lot less dead people. Think that would fly?


No, but when those firearms are being built it is not with the intent for them to ever kill anything. It is with the intent that they will be used for competative shooting and sporting purposes. Paintball guns daren't intended to kill but they are still considered a gun.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by usmc0311

Originally posted by jazzgul
reply to post by usmc0311
 

I identify myself as an American first and a Marine second. Guns have nothing to do with my identity.


Both points of identification are connected to the right of owning guns, don't you think so?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by jazzgul
 

I know the answer I don't have any questions,it is an obvious notion.Unfortunately it is also quite subjective if you are outside of the conversation with what you wish.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 




Enter the "Fudd."

Thank you so much for your complete support of arbitrary tyranny.


Don't tell me you support owning assault rifles because you're... scared? You should try to perhaps grow a pair. Thanks for supporting the decline of manhood.

edit on 10-1-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnorantSquare
 


All possessions own you, you are even socially defined by them (one shouldn't but is). The premise of discussion after that realization becomes void of meaning.

To me it is clearly an attempt to simply rehash a gun discussion using a straw-man approach in regards to philosophical materialism.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Don't tell me you support owning assault rifles because you're... scared? You should try to perhaps grow a pair. Thanks for supporting the decline of manhood.

edit on 10-1-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)

Please stop the personal attacks. If your argument can't stand on its own, then your insecure weak-kneed displays of internet bravado won't help it.

OP, a gun is a device which empowers individuals just like all other tools empower individuals. Tools can be used for good ends or bad, or for no ends at all.

It is the act which has moral status, not the tool.

LesMis's internet tough guy act, for instance, doesn't render the internet an unviable social tool. The tool merely empowers us to see and discuss his inadequacies.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 



All possessions own you, you are even socially defined by them (one shouldn't but is). The premise of discussion after that realization becomes void of meaning.


It is so true. but can you be socially defined by it when it is concealed and stays concealed?? not arguing just asking questions.


To me it is clearly an attempt to simply rehash a gun discussion using a straw-man approach in regards to philosophical materialism.


again so true, so lets start philosophical questions before we get a proconclash in the end when you die you didnt own anything if you perceive owning as definite and not a temporary lease



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnorantSquare
 




can you be socially defined by it when it is concealed and stays concealed


It depends on how you interpret socially defined. Gun owners are a specific type of consumer, there are very specific reasons to own a gun and there are also reasons to not owning one. One could be social defined in that regard, then there is the effect that the ownership creates or is related to. One can feel more confident or secure from having a gun, or having a gun may be a clue that someone is fearful. All this facts do indeed define a gun owner in his stance toward society in general.



in the end when you die you didnt own anything if you perceive owning as definite and not a temporary lease


I don't fallow you completely here. I do not think that material possession should be an aim in life, they are a necessity for living in the system and in society, most of our wants are artificial creations.

I believe that laws regarding heritage should be rethought to address only the assurance of the well being of your legal dependents. One shouldn't be able to inherit more than the average citizen life long earnings. Of course that this is not one of the more pressing issues (like addressing the issue of corporations having the same rights as living people) but it something that merits attention as to uplift and make society fairer.






top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join