Mass Shootings Will Never Negate The Need For Gun Rights

This is the best article I have seen in awhile on the subject. It does really come down to that: Either you believe that people have an inherent right to self defense, or you don’t. All other arguments are a peripheral distraction.


www.alt-market.com...

Though the media often attempts to twist the gun rights debate into a web of complexity, gun rights is in fact a rather simple issue — either you believe that people have an inherent right to self defense, or you don’t. All other arguments are a peripheral distraction.

The inborn right to self defense and the ability of the people to maintain individual liberties in the face of tyranny supersedes all other arguments on gun rights. In fact, nothing else matters. This key point is so unassailable that anti-gun lobbyists have in most cases given up trying to defeat it.

Instead of trying to confiscate firearms outright (which is their ultimate goal), they attempt to chip away at gun rights a piece at a time through endless flurries of legislation. This legislation is usually implemented in the wake of a tragedy involving firearms, for gun grabbers never let a good crisis go to waste. Exploiting the deaths of innocent people to further an ideological agenda is a common strategy for them.

I love this supporting quote as well:

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

a reply to: infolurker

That's kind of exactly what I don't understand, who are you defending yourself against?
Rivaling gangs? Your gouvernment?
Does that actually happen that someone prevents being robbed because he shoots the intruder?
How often in comparison to mass/school shootings does that happen?

Excuse my ignorance, those are genuine questions.

— either you believe that people have an inherent right to self defense, or you don’t.

Yep.

Far too many don't.

Civil liberty means absolutely nothing to them.

They think only rights are allowed, and are subject to the whim of the mob.

In direct violation of that inconvenient piece of paper.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: infolurker

That's kind of exactly what I don't understand, who are you defending yourself against?
Rivaling gangs? Your gouvernment?
Does that actually happen that someone prevents being robbed because he shoots the intruder?
How often in comparison to mass/school shootings does that happen?

Excuse my ignorance, those are genuine questions.

Recent historic examples:

- Rioters and looters after BLM marches
- In the aftermath of a massive natural disaster (hurricane, tornado, flood, earthquake)
- Home invasion by a gang (happening with increasing frequency while residents are home)

Any one or all of the above that have happened recently, and will happen again with certainty.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Thank you. I actually believe guns are the smallest issue and it's getting more and more glaringly obvious it's a social issue without an easy fix.
E pluribus unum.
But what would be strong and big enough to bridge the division?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Krakatoa

Thank you. I actually believe guns are the smallest issue and it's getting more and more glaringly obvious it's a social issue without an easy fix.
E pluribus unum.
But what would be strong and big enough to bridge the division?

IMO, widespread education on firearms (like it used to be) is essential to remove the phobias, false facts, and magical qualities attributed to them due to fear and ignorance. Then, mandatory firearms training, that is tax deductible (to offset the cost of exercising a right). Simultaneously, continued risk assessment and hardening of "soft targets". After all, if we can post guards to protect our bank money, we can at least pony up the $$$ to help prevent or slow down entry into a soft target by a determined killer (using ANY sort of weapon, including pipe bombs).

That's a start......

a reply to: infolurker

Then why do we have the highest murder rate in the modern world???

You can’t claim having 3 guns per person and 350 million people , makes us safer.

When we have the highest rates of firearm ownership AND THE HIGHEST number of deaths by gun...


You can’t say that only the criminals will have guns. Because in other places with gun bans. The criminals almost never have a gun...



NO ONE IS BANNING GUNS..

I am just pointing out retarded toddler logic..

a reply to: Krakatoa

WHAT?!!

A) people are far more educated on EVERYTHING today than EVER before..


B) the murder rates have only fallen..


So in the past. People knew less and killed more people.. it is called the Information Age for a reason..

If muslims who don't blow themselves up are expected to take responsibility and stop those that do....
If I'm black and I am expected to take responsibility for other blacks committing crimes

Who takes responsibility for these pieces of garbage?

Just sayin..............

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Well as a thread posted just hours ago pointed out...because there is a small minority of counties which usually contain the highest populations skewing those stats. The majority of places see 0 or very few murders. Then you get places like Chicago that see many a week.

a reply to: infolurker

I hope they realize this soon.

Theyre sacrificing people to absolutely no end.

So I'll say this:

You could literally "mass shoot" a million people and it STILL isnt going to make me want to be defenseless.

Period.

Maybe it's a willful misrepresentation. The way I read the 2d, it says that We The People are entitled to a militia.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A militia can do a lot more than an individual person. A militia can surround and shut down the operational capabilities of any military installation (and all of them at the same time) here in the United States. Aircraft have to land. Tanks have to refuel. Soldiers have to eat.

We The People own many many guns. No four-star general on active duty would think he could hold his own against an Army of 100,000,000 gun owners. Game o-v-e-r when it gets down to it. The militias throughout the land will quickly organize and restore freedom should an element of the government express an act of tyranny. Bundy Ranch Standoff

That's the threat of the 2d ... not that individuals have a natural right to keep and bear arms.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Krakatoa

WHAT?!!

A) people are far more educated on EVERYTHING today than EVER before..


B) the murder rates have only fallen..


So in the past. People knew less and killed more people.. it is called the Information Age for a reason..

Ahhh...sure educated. But not on firearms and the Constitution. How many times, here alone, do we need to repeatedly correct posters on the inaccurate statements about firearms (semi-auto vs full auto is one) and how the Constitution does not grant rights but provides protections to citizens form having the government infringe upon our innate rights.

The fact that at the grocery store if an item doesn't scan properly the cashier cannot even calculate the flipping change from a larger bill. They need to call a manager over to help them with that hard math.

That we have kids eating flipping detergent just to be famous!

Yeah, really educated.

Wake the @#$@#$ up!!

a reply to: neo96

What level of defense is the question.....

Obviously , we don’t think people have the right to tanks and warheads. Do we???

Defense goes from pushing to nuclear missles..

So that is about the most ridiculous talking point ever..

It sounds good and means nothing..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

What level of defense is the question.....

Nope there is no question.

Defense goes from pushing to nuclear missles..

This is what is RIDICULOUS.

Epically.

Using nukes to justify infringing the rights of someone to own a firearm.

So that honor goes to anti gun bots.

When seconds count the cops are just minutes away.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Plenty of people in the past were not educated on fire arms either..

Rifling has only been a common thing the last 100 year.

Guns were expensive:.

About 75% of women never touch a gun..


——//////////////———


You average person could barely read 100 years ago..



By every measurable thing besides maybe divorce rates. We have improved...

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: infolurker

Then why do we have the highest murder rate in the modern world???

You can’t claim having 3 guns per person and 350 million people , makes us safer.

When we have the highest rates of firearm ownership AND THE HIGHEST number of deaths by gun...


You can’t say that only the criminals will have guns. Because in other places with gun bans. The criminals almost never have a gun...



NO ONE IS BANNING GUNS..

I am just pointing out retarded toddler logic..

The highest murder rate in the modern world is Venezuela.

originally posted by: Deplorable
Maybe it's a willful misrepresentation. The way I read the 2d, it says that We The People are entitled to a militia.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A militia can do a lot more than an individual person. A militia can surround and shut down the operational capabilities of any military installation (and all of them at the same time) here in the United States. Aircraft have to land. Tanks have to refuel. Soldiers have to eat.

We The People own many many guns. No four-star general on active duty would think he could hold his own against an Army of 100,000,000 gun owners. Game o-v-e-r when it gets down to it. The militias throughout the land will quickly organize and restore freedom should an element of the government express an act of tyranny. Bundy Ranch Standoff

That's the threat of the 2d ... not that individuals have a natural right to keep and bear arms.

You do see the comma that divides 2A into two distinct concepts? The first, as you describe above, then the second concept, after the comma (indicating a second concept) “, the right of the People to keep and bear arms,” followed by the statement after the next comma, shall not be infringed...indicating that neither of these two concepts shall be infringed.

Nothing more, nothing less...