I am so tired of hearing people protest about gun ownership in America.

Originally posted by stupid girl
Please especially note:
THERE IS A REASON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS THE SECOND MOST IMPORTANT FREEDOM IN OUR BILL OF RIGHTS

Whatever personal, specific reason you think that is OR ISN'T is unequivocally MOOT.

It's number 2. Period.
That means it's right after 1.
That's pretty important.
The people who wrote the laws enacting our basic rights and freedoms were absolutely brilliant individuals. These people began a whole new era of humanity.
These people knew what was important for a free, civilized society to live relatively at peace with the rights afforded to them.

So, you think people exercising the MOST important right should shut up and stop expressing their "moot" opinions about the second most important one. It's right there in your title: "I am so tired of hearing people protest about gun ownership in America." Well, too bad. You're just going to have to live with hearing that, since it's the MOST important freedom we have.

Also, as I'm sure you know, the people who wrote the Constitution, while being brilliant, were also flawed human beings. Their "whole new era of humanity" included something big from the old era - slavery.

And their free, civilized society allowed people to be bought and sold as property. And those people weren't allowed to bear arms. Sure, you could argue "But that's exactly why we should protect the Second Amendment! To prevent tyranny!" But that would mean that you are calling the Founding Fathers 'tyrants.'

Give that a little thought and perhaps you'll see that every issue is not a definite choice between perfection and imperfection. Sometimes it's a choice between good and better.

Originally posted by TerribleTeam2
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

So can someone trained well enough in hand to hand combat - i.e. Karate, and the rest of the multitudes of other hand to hand combat courses.

I understand where you are coming from mate, and I agree, but the simple fact is this - if the person is there to rape your wife etc, then he/she/it is close enough for the use of hand to hand combat.

But as the saying goes "to each their own....."

I just wanted to post this essay, Reason vs Force for you.

Reason vs. Force
by Marko Kloos

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 gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken 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 [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the muggers 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 weight lifter. 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.

Originally posted by itsawild1
READ UNINTENDED CONSQUENCES. A BOOK BY JOHN ROSS.It is a book you will not be able to put down after the first half. It will explain how the government has been chipping away at our gun rights. that it is treason and a offence that is punishable by death. Please go read this book. You all have under the constitution the right to own anything the simple soldier carries into the field. any restrictions to this statement is treason and punishable by death, just a lot of cowards out there afraid to shoot the ones responsible.

It would be nice if our "Constitutional scholars" actually knew what was in the document.

United States Constitution
Article 3, Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Please show where the government "chipping away at our gun rights" is levying war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

Notice as well - the traitor needs to be convicted in a court of law (Article 3 is the Judiciary). Not by some reactionary lunatic with a rifle.

One could argue, however, that calling for the deaths of elected officials may be considered giving aid to our enemies...

reply to post by MikeNice81


Dear MikeNice81,

Very interesting essay. I would agree with this however there are some specific flaws in the later reasoning. An 80 year old woman with a gun is not on level footing with a 20 year old with a gun, simply due to eyesight, reflexes, hand shaking etc..

As for the rest, guns, knives, bats etc.. well it's all the same at the end of the day. My feelings are distinct, but that's personal.

Regards,
T

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
reply to post by stupid girl

 

Just because you have the 'right' to own a gun doesn't make it 'right' to actually own one. This gun ownership business comes from the old days of the wild west, is it still cowboys and indians over there? Guns are made specifically to kill people but it's okay because you have the second ammendment right? Not right.

Hide behind your amendments all you like, guns are wrong, simple as that. I acknowledge that if you've been brought up with guns then they'll be a normal part of everyday life and you're probably wondering why there's so much fuss over ownership but have a look at your murder statistics and accidental deaths with guns.

It's annoying when I see people say ''but cars kill more people, ciggies kill more people e.c.t e.c.t'', this is a very weak argument and is not a valid point as guns are created specifically to kill whereas cars and ciggs are not.

It doesn't matter what any one of you says, guns are wrong and deep down you know it. None of this matters anyway, it's too late to de-gun the US so debate is pointless.

Now for the backlash, be as harsh as you like.

Hawkwind....If you were God, maybe I'd think about it. However you have demonstrated your incompetence over the fundamental issue concerning fire arms as a threat to "national and personal security".

The obvious statistic has already been illustrated in earlier post regarding "murder statistics" and "accidental deaths with guns." I'd like to avoid using the word ignorant but you've clearly ignored the statistics.

Originally posted by stupid girl
In 2009, there were 10,224 homicides involving guns (FBI uniform crime reports).

"Homicide" includes self-defense shootings.

Anti-gun advocates aren't aware of or simply don't bring light to that fact.

Almost half of gun deaths are suicides. These people would have found a way to kill themselves.

The population of America is 311 million, give or take a few.

That means 0.0032875% of the American population’s death were the result of a firearm.

If we take half of those as suicides, then that leaves 0.0016437%.

That amount would be even further reduced by the number of “homicides” that were actually in self-defense.

It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States.

www.newmediaexplorer.org...

The most shameful part about your accusations is when established lifeless material as AMORAL , this isn't the ancient times when people crucified objects like it were possessed by demons.

Furthermore, you've destroyed your case when you made this statement:

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
...''but cars kill more people, ciggies kill more people e.c.t e.c.t'', this is a very weak arguement and is not a valid point as guns are created specifically to kill whereas cars and ciggs are not.

The sheer irony of it is that the very things that were meant to kill have killed signifanctly less than materials that weren't built to kill. You've once again demonstrated your incompetence for the issue by making this accusation, since you stated earlier about "statistics of murder by guns".

I'd have more respect for you had you brought more pressing and concerning facts and avoided making things personal. And as an aspiring gun owner, you've made it personal by accusing us of 'hoarding evil' when we have worked hard to make our selves disciplined and responsible citizens of a nation that has given us the right to bear arms.

reply to post by torqpoc


The thing is, there are reports of 60, 70, and 80 year old senior citizens defending their family with a gun on a regular basis.

Here are just a few

reply to post by MikeNice81


Dear MikeNice81,

I don't doubt that for a second, but simple physical deterioration demands that there are differences between hand to eye coordination, reflexes and ability to hold a gun steady enough to be as effective as a youthful 20 year old. I was only pointing out a discrepency there, not that 80 year olds are incapable of defending themselves =)

Cheers,
T

reply to post by Electric Crown


Knives and hand to hand. If that fails, harsh language.

Also I think Americans should be defending their right to bear arms. I'd own a gun if I could, you know, just in case.

It is illegal to murder!

Now if a person commits murder then he gets charged with MURDER, not weapon violations.

My point is that only the people in the right (right/wrong NOT right/left) get charged with these crimes, not the people that actually use the right to commit a crime.

There should be no gun restriction at all because it is already illegal to murder.

This is only logical.

reply to post by torqpoc


I agree and disagree with you. If we were talking about a bullseye competition on a firing range I would completely agree. However, since many times the senior citizen gets the upper hand, in real world situations, I would say it makes things as close to equal as possible.

No two people will ever be 100% equal in a violent situation. There are too many factors including the persons ability to handle stress.

You all support gun control you just don't know it, including the OP.

The 2nd ammendment was drafted when the latest tech was flint lock single shot.

Should I be able to own the latest tech in firearms today? A minigun? an RPG? armor piercing bullets? fully automatic. How about a suitcase nuke? Should that be legal?

My point is, if we are honest, we all have a line not to cross. Very few people I know care if you own a rifle or shotgun for hunting. I know I don't care. However I do care about large magazines, assault weapons, conceal and carry handguns in metropolitan areas.

Get out of the black and white and into the "gray" area where the discussion is meaningful.

For instance I would support traceable ammo. I would be interested to know what you think about ammo that is linked to an owner. If your ammo isn't legal you just committed a felony. Seems that could be a positive step in crime prevention and crime solving. I would like to hear a discussion about that.

Originally posted by DisturbedToo
reply to post by liejunkie01

 

That is a bit odd to say the least.

I had a run in with the law several years ago that cops charged me with felony battery with intent to do major bodily harm,

Long story short.
I had no previous record.
The person I attacked (with intent to do major bodily harm) LOL (You'll see why I still laugh to this day about it)who was I believe 24 at the time threw my step son (age 14) up against the wall then punched my best friend 2 or 3 times in the face in a drunken rage. I witnessed this from my table at dinner and approached him right after that incident. I asked him simply what his problem was, He proceeded to throw a punch at me that I dodged. Well, I threw 1 punch. That one punch put him in the hospital for 3 days. Hence my felony charge!?!?!?
How F'd up is it to be charged with a felony of that level for throwing 1 punch?

For fear of never being able to own a firearm for the rest of my life, I plead down to a misdemeanor and agreed to pay his medical deductible of $7,000. Sure I could have fought and probably beat the felony charge, I didn't want to chance losing my right to bear arms.

Hopefully years down the road I am not denied my FOID card because of this incident.

Damn. LOL. Been there and done that; I chased my brother in law around K-Mart with a baseball bat. Never did buy the bat. He's now an ex-brother in law. Nobody hits my sisters or their kids around me.

reply to post by yrwehere1

Originally posted by yrwehere1
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

So are you for or against guns? Its hard to tell from your post. If you or anyone else were to burn the constition, they had best be prepared to have a lot of guns pointed their way.

Its a paradox wrapped inside of an enigma. How can one support the 2nd amendment then talk about "burning the Constitution"?

I guess my point was that regardless of these incremental laws and attempts to disarm the public, it will fail because the people will never give up this right. They could even shred the Constitution, the American people will never give up their guns nor should they.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

Should I be able to own the latest tech in firearms today? A minigun? an RPG? armor piercing bullets? fully automatic. How about a suitcase nuke? Should that be legal?

I salute you, sir. This is an ingeniously precarious question.

If I say yes, then I am thought a great fool, or a terrorist, or worse.

On the other hand, suppose that I say no. If pressed, I might say that I am apprehensive of the potential negative consequences of allowing it, and therefore a preventive policy is necessary to preclude such consequences. For example, a rogue individual may use such weapons for purposes of which I may not approve.

However, the same argument applies to the State. If I allow that States may legitimately possess such weapons, then some rogue State may use them for purposes of which I may not approve. Thus, in order to avoid hypocrisy, I must conclude that it is not legitimate for the State, any State, to possess them either.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

My point is, if we are honest, we all have a line not to cross. Very few people I know care if you own a rifle or shotgun for hunting. I know I don't care. However I do care about large magazines, assault weapons, conceal and carry handguns in metropolitan areas....

For instance I would support traceable ammo. I would be interested to know what you think about ammo that is linked to an owner. If your ammo isn't legal you just committed a felony. Seems that could be a positive step in crime prevention and crime solving. I would like to hear a discussion about that.

I'll answer the second paragraph first. If the ammo is stolen it will be traced back to the original purchaser and not the person that used it. It will actually do nothing to prevent crime. You can trace nearly every new gun sold since the Brady Bill was passed back to the original owner. It hasn't stopped criminals from stealing them and using them in crimes.

A second thing is, how would you make them traceable to a purchaser? A serial number on the case is easy to get around. You just clean up the brass when you're done. The impact of a shot can deform the bullet beyond recognition, or cause the bullet to splinter. So, a serial number on the bullet would be pointless in many cases. You could use an RFID chip in the bullet. Then the same thing applies. At an impact of 300+Ftlbs they could be damaged. Plus people could get around the whole thing by casting their own bullets. It is a simple process and the equipment is readily available.

Now back to the first paragraph.

Studies done around the nation have shown that concealed carry does not lead to an increase in gun injuries or deaths. In fact a study done in the late 90s showed that states disallowing conealed carry had a violent crime rate 11% higher than the national average. In Chicago, where concealed carry is denied, the murder rate is 360% above the national average.

A study of the first six years of concealed carry in Miami FLA showed that not a single CCW permit holder had shot an innocent person. A study of CCW permit holders released in 1999 found that permit holders were 5.5 times less likely to commit a violent crime than the general population.

A 2005 survey by the National Association of Police Chiefs found that 66% of police chiefs believe concealed carry reduces violent crime. Glenn White of the Dallas Police Association said, " “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen ...I think it’s worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert."

Concealed carry in urban areas has never been showed to increase danger in those areas.

According to a report released by The Urban Institute in 1997, the limit on new ten round magazines (that went in to place in 1994) had no impact on multiple victim or multiple shot crimes. “gunshot injury incidents involving pistols [many of which use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds] were less likely to produce a death than those involving revolvers [which typically hold five or six rounds.]”

Magazine size has no effect on the average crime involving a gun. Any limit on capacity would solely be an attempt to curb a statistical anomaly. An attempt that could easily be over come by simply carrying an extra gun.

Do you actually know what an assault weapon is? I'm not trying to be a jerk. I ask because there are a lot of people that are misinformed about so called assault weapons. According to the "Assault Weapon Ban" that passed in 1994 it was any sem-auto rifle that held more than one external accesories. If it had a pistol grip it couldn't have a collapsable stock. If it had a flash suppresor it couldn't have any other accessory. Basically it was a point ban against bobbles and bits. It actually made no sense as a crime prevention measure. That is what congress found out when they commissioned a study on the ban. The congressionaly mandated study found that the weapons regulated by the ban were use in an insignificant portion of all crime before the ban. It also found that the ban had no apreciable effect on the crime rate.

So what was the real reason for the ban if it didn't make a difference on the crime rate? Why don't we ask Dianne Feinstein the Senate's sponsor of the bill. Her response was “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t there.” We could also ask Bill Clinton who said, people “can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles.”

The attack on assault weapons begin after the gun control advocates realized that they could not get the support to ban hand guns. They thought that if they could get the snow ball rolling with an "assault weapon" ban it wouldn't take long to get hand guns restricted or banned.

ETA:

RPGs are not a good idea because they create large amounts of colateral damage if used incorrectly. If you make a mistake with a bullet the damage is minimal. A mistake with an RPG can kill dozens with one shot.An improperly stored nuclear device causes radiation poisoning and death to the whole eco system. A single use or mistake causes a fall out zone of miles. It is not well suited for personal defense because it can effect thousands at a time. Also the fact that it's mere existence can cause death to others that pose no threat means it is not valuable for personal defense.

You can own fully automatic weapons if you get the federal tax stamp and it is okayed by the local head of police. Some states do restrict the ownership of fully automatic weapons. However, the truth is that tens of thousands of people own fully automatic weapons legally.

Yet, at no point in the last 50 years have they accounted for even 1% of murders. The closest to 1% they came was in the city of Miami in the early 1980s. At the height of the drug trad in the city they still accounted for less than 1% of murders. Nationally the number was zero for more than a decade before the federal government banned production of automatic rifles for the general populace.

I see that the government has a habit of banning things that are actually not a real problem.

reply to post by stupid girl


No my friend you constitution is in taters and obama is in talks with the un regarding banning guns...

this is on ats atm.... do you think this accpetable? Do you think if he hadnt got a gun for his birthday. this may have been avoided... The sooner the UN gets its way....the bettter...

14-Year-Old Boy Gets A Gun For His Birthday & Kills His Whole Family! (Even Granny)

kx

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by stupid girl

 

No my friend you constitution is in taters and obama is in talks with the un regarding banning guns...

this is on ats atm.... do you think this accpetable? Do you think if he hadnt got a gun for his birthday. this may have been avoided... The sooner the UN gets its way....the bettter...

14-Year-Old Boy Gets A Gun For His Birthday & Kills His Whole Family! (Even Granny)

kx

If a kid started his house on fire and killed his family, would you ban matches?

Originally posted by mtnshredder

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by stupid girl

 

No my friend you constitution is in taters and obama is in talks with the un regarding banning guns...

this is on ats atm.... do you think this accpetable? Do you think if he hadnt got a gun for his birthday. this may have been avoided... The sooner the UN gets its way....the bettter...

14-Year-Old Boy Gets A Gun For His Birthday & Kills His Whole Family! (Even Granny)

kx

If a kid started his house on fire and killed his family, would you ban matches?

if a kid blew your city up with a nuclear wepon...would you ban nuclear wepons...

kx

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Stupid Girl is actually really smart hehe.

And I really like the energy you put into your OP.

Getting fired up about freedom?

Someone said they don't like guns because they allow totally untrained people to dominate and defeat someone else with more training.

That's exactly why I love the idea of personal gun ownership.

It gives my wife a chance to defend herself and take down some massive guy trying to rape/kill her. That's why we call the gun the Equalizer.

The Gun is a mighty tool, if used for Good. It can give the meek a chance to finally stand up to the strong.

Sadly though, if the massive guy is quicket to the draw it allows him to shoot your wife.... this isn't a playing field where your wife gets a gun and he does not.

Fantastic post.

My favorite saying, and one that will not win over many ant-gun folks comes from the old west days:
"God didn't make all men equal, Sam Colt did."

I think this is what it all about. As Americans we have an obsession with this pesky equality thing, I know were not alone in this obsession but we might be the most vocal about it.

The other important point is that a firearm IS power. So with that we must also teach responsibility, compassion, and respect to our fellow citizens. Repeal ALL gun laws and inside of a few years we will see these values come to pass.

As a matter of note I never carry a firearm and don't have any in my house at this time.