Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I should not have a gun because I know the government will take care of me. Throughout world history, and the US history, it has been shown the government has and always will have the people in its best of interest, and do all they can to protect them. The government will not inflict harm on its people, and if you need the government's assistance in an emergency, they will be there within one minute. There is no reason to hunt, you can buy food at grocery stores. Sport shooting does not require individual ownership, a company can own the guns you use at the shooting range.
if guns dont kill people then why have we not heard of any countries defense forces turning in guns for knives, clubs of hammers? or or automobiles for that matter
the constitution is a good piece of work for humans..however it is not perfect..one must look at the times it was written in.
soldiers were the bottom of the barrel of society often enlisting to escape a jail sentence, only officers were from the upper crust..could it be the founders did not trust soldiers?? and then preferred a musket armed citizenry (landed freemen)
many 2nd amendment zealots are the same john birchers who see conspiracy behind EVERY corner...if i felt any need for a weapon it would be for protection from the 2nd amendment gun hordes and that logic make NO sense
Would they have written the constitution the same way if there were Ak-47's,Ar's, Glocks with extended mags, and bump stocks available? Something tells me there'd be a bit more nuance.
I think some of ya'll should be trading in some of your guns for fishing rods smh.
There were the equivalent back then, ie weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens being equal to what the military had. Interestingly enough, one reason we had an edge over the Brits is because our civilian militia had guns with rifled barrels and the Brit's muskets did not. So the civilians had superior guns to the military in some cases...and could own cannons....so your point above is, well...pointless....
Not when people say that guns should be banned to to POTENTIAL danger. Once that is introduced as a reason, all other POTENTIALLY dangerous item are fair game.
Yeah, I know it destroys a main argument of the left.
You want to discuss swimming pools? Those with a background swimming pool must have a fence around it at least 8 feet high and the gate must be locked at all times. Home-owners insurance goes way up for those with a backyard pool also.
Perhaps we could follow your swimming pool example further. There should also be extremely strict regulations with the guns locked up at all times when not in use.
Also, anyone who owns a gun must purchase insurance for any damage/injury they cause with that gun.
if guns dont kill people then why have we not heard of any countries defense forces turning in guns for knives, clubs of hammers? or or automobiles for that matter
Guns are just a tool. And a very efficient one, hence their usage by armies. If a nutjob wants to kill innocents, any other tool could work just as well...
What reasonable and rational inquiry and investigation, determines why you personally should not have a gun?
Can you think of any reasons, why you personally should not own a firearm?
Long guns:
1) I don't hunt
2) I don't work/hike/camp in Grizzly or Polar Bear country
3) I don't have livestock to defend
4) I can't justify the time and expense required to be a proficient shot. If I could justify them, I would probably go with Archery instead because it's quieter, I've enjoyed it more when given the opportunity to try both and I can walk to the local Archery range from my home.
Hand guns:
1) I am not involved in the justice system either as law enforcement, court worker or criminal. Nor am I currently involved in any disagreement with anyone which could be expected to devolve into violence.
2) Any one not deterred by my German Shepherds likely would be undeterred by the possibility I have a gun
3) See #4 for long guns.
There is often an assumption that all individuals that don't have guns are anti-gun. To me, having a gun would make as much sense as having a dredge barge or an iron smelter. Okay less sense because I could probably lease out the dredge barge or the iron smelter to someone who could use them.
I don't care if people have guns for the reasons I don't have guns. I just don't get why people think everyone should have access to weapons and clips that can be used to mow down crowds. It's my understanding that a deer ain't worth **** as food if it's full of bullets.
You want to discuss swimming pools? Those with a background swimming pool must have a fence around it at least 8 feet high and the gate must be locked at all times. Home-owners insurance goes way up for those with a backyard pool also.
Perhaps we could follow your swimming pool example further. There should also be extremely strict regulations with the guns locked up at all times when not in use.
Also, anyone who owns a gun must purchase insurance for any damage/injury they cause with that gun.
Thanks for bringing up the analogy.
Over and over again you keep missing the point that gun ownership is a right. Owning a pool is not.....
1) I don't hunt
2) I don't work/hike/camp in Grizzly or Polar Bear country
3) I don't have livestock to defend
4) I can't justify the time and expense required to be a proficient shot. If I could justify them, I would probably go with Archery instead because it's quieter, I've enjoyed it more when given the opportunity to try both and I can walk to the local Archery range from my home.
Hand guns:
1) I am not involved in the justice system either as law enforcement, court worker or criminal. Nor am I currently involved in any disagreement with anyone which could be expected to devolve into violence.
2) Any one not deterred by my German Shepherds likely would be undeterred by the possibility I have a gun
3) See #4 for long guns.
There is often an assumption that all individuals that don't have guns are anti-gun. To me, having a gun would make as much sense as having a dredge barge or an iron smelter. Okay less sense because I could probably lease out the dredge barge or the iron smelter to someone who could use them.
I don't care if people have guns for the reasons I don't have guns. I just don't get why people think everyone should have access to weapons and clips that can be used to mow down crowds. It's my understanding that a deer ain't worth **** as food if it's full of bullets.
This thread is not about "need" or "want"
Is there a rational reason you personally SHOULD NOT have a firearm.
Is there a defect in your character, that you personally feel you should not have at least one form of firearm?
Sorry. I didn't read far enough.
Not that I am aware. I will assume that the point of the question is further down the thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
