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.
Boots aren't designed to kill, either or flashlights. Knives have legitimate uses other than killing.
Guns don't.
Any logical person should be able to make these distinctions in approximately 5 seconds of actual thought.
Guns have legitimate sporting purposes other than "killing". Target shooting, sporting clays, trap, skeet, etc. However, that isn't why the Second Amendment was written. Citizens need a defense against criminals, and that also means government criminals acting in a tyrannical way, foreign, and domestic.
We've had various forms of gun legislation in this country.
Many on both sides have declared, the laws are infallible yet the real world results dictate otherwise.
We have criminals still obtaining firearms, commissioning them in the use of criminal enterprise.
Yet we have states with laws that declare the citizens have a duty to retreat and have to rely on an officer with a badge and a gun to solve their issues for them.
It is evident our justice system is broken, combined with laws that protect criminals, and restrict the rights of those to defend themselves against criminals...
There are prosecutors who work the system, if you have a dog for example, and a burglar breaks into your home, and the dog viciously attacks the burglar, why does the burglar have the right to sue the home owner?! The home owner is the victim. Not the criminal!
So I ask this in all fairness.
Why would you continue to chip away at the firearm, enabling criminal enterprise and breeding generations to come to be reliant on a badge to solve their problems? Why do you preach reliance on another form of government to solve your problems for you?
Why not allow the citizenry to own what they want and how they see fit?
Why not prosecute the criminals to the fullest extent of the law, for what their actions were?
Why not make tougher border line repeal of the 8th for violent offenders?
Why not take comfort in knowing that your neighbor your fellow stranger is armed to aid in thwarting criminal enterprise without hesitation?
I ask this in complete fairness.
If you remove incentive, the actions will cease.
If you add incentive such as gun free zones, you only create victims. And that is evident proof positive with states and cities with the highest murder rates (as in unjustifiable death) that hold the toughest firearm laws.
In a hypothetical if we are to be honest...
1. Arm teachers-school shooters would be slain on site children are protected.
A bank truck offers far more incentive to be attacked than a school...
2. Vegas-if anyone else were on that floor and were armed or within vicinity of the shooter were able to (key word) Communicate and assemble they could have thwarted that scumbag quicker than the police did.
Why are you against a stronger society with a national stand your ground vigilant approach of taking matters into your hands to thwart evil without punishment?
Why anti gunners are you so emotionally compelled to ignore the blatant truth that your laws provide incentive for the criminal intent, and have been complete and utter failures only restricting and limiting what is available?
I don't want to hear the argument on the basis of subjective "need".
I don't want to hear the false equivalency of access to a nuke as the 2nd pertained to being equally equipped to a field soldier has access to.
I want an honest answer along the lines of
The media told me so.
I don't have it in me to defend myself, my loved ones, or my fellow citizens.
I am terrified and scare easily.
I lack knowledge pertaining to firearms therefor I will try to topple honest debate and conversation with false equivalencies and emotional tirades.
Be honest.
Convince us 2A supporters why we should see things your way since the biggest inception of firearm control was introduced in 1934. Convince us why we should see things your way.
Can you legitimately do that or are you only capable of vitriol and immature attacks?
I want to honestly hear exactly why you believe firearms legislation is conducive to society. I want to hear your honest concerns.
Boots aren't designed to kill, either or flashlights. Knives have legitimate uses other than killing.
Guns don't.
Any logical person should be able to make these distinctions in approximately 5 seconds of actual thought.
Cars weren't designed to kill, yet they've killed more people than firearms...
Sex wasn't designed to kill, yet there are more new cases of HIV reported than deaths by firearms...
Firearms hold no intent to kill, it is the person who operates it just the same as knives flashlights or any other blunt force weapon within your grasp... I'm sure someone could find a way to kill with a paper clip if they were really that motivated...
I to am mystified at the faith and trust the 2A antis have in the government. Their just absolutely insane revulsion at the very idea that there is a need to be armed so we may defend ourselves and insistence that we can rely on the police and to make matters worse in the insanity of their views that we should submit to criminal attack. "Just give them what they wan" they say. By doing so you won't get hurt. Isn't that just so ...humanitarian...of them. And if what they want is something besides material possession? Something with a price tag so high it's worth a life to keep? Well, I say the life that pays that bill should be the goblin. A 230 grain cranial injection at 900 feet per second might not give him what he wants. But it will give him what he deserves and desperately needs.
I'm speaking from a position of experience with what certain types of criminals "want". A dearest loved one was attacked by such a vermin, and had she "just given him what he wanted" even if she had survived it would have been a living death. But she did not submit. She defended herself. And the varmint now lives his life in prison tied to a wheel chair and a bodily waste bag. If it were allowed I would gladly finish him off.
These types of criminals are not going to be happy just taking your purse or your wallet or your car. And the cops will not be there to help you. If you are unarmed, you will likely die or in many cases wish you had. The undereducated (or sometimes over "educated") people who espouse such views as I described and want to see the citizenry of the US disarmed need a serious reality check. Many more justified , life saving defensive shootings happen every day, compared to a wacko every once in a while. This just doesn't get any media exposure. The media wants innocent victims who died because they couldn't fight back. When a woman puts a couple 9mm HPs into a would be rapist it doesn't resonate properly with the agenda.
So, to all my peers in the responsible and intelligent shooting/ firearms community out there (those tens of millions) be safe, be alert, be armed and be ready for anything.
That ^ 100%. As good of a job as LEOs do, they just simply CANNOT be everywhere at once to prevent every possible crime. And, in fact preventing crimes isn't even their job. Their job is law enforcement and criminal investigation, BOTH of which happen AFTER a law has been violated and/or a crime has already been committed.
We ARE ultimately responsible for our own and our loved ones' self-defense. Period.
We've had various forms of gun legislation in this country.
Many on both sides have declared, the laws are infallible yet the real world results dictate otherwise.
We have criminals still obtaining firearms, commissioning them in the use of criminal enterprise.
Yet we have states with laws that declare the citizens have a duty to retreat and have to rely on an officer with a badge and a gun to solve their issues for them.
It is evident our justice system is broken, combined with laws that protect criminals, and restrict the rights of those to defend themselves against criminals...
There are prosecutors who work the system, if you have a dog for example, and a burglar breaks into your home, and the dog viciously attacks the burglar, why does the burglar have the right to sue the home owner?! The home owner is the victim. Not the criminal!
So I ask this in all fairness.
Why would you continue to chip away at the firearm, enabling criminal enterprise and breeding generations to come to be reliant on a badge to solve their problems? Why do you preach reliance on another form of government to solve your problems for you?
Why not allow the citizenry to own what they want and how they see fit?
Why not prosecute the criminals to the fullest extent of the law, for what their actions were?
Why not make tougher border line repeal of the 8th for violent offenders?
Why not take comfort in knowing that your neighbor your fellow stranger is armed to aid in thwarting criminal enterprise without hesitation?
I ask this in complete fairness.
If you remove incentive, the actions will cease.
If you add incentive such as gun free zones, you only create victims. And that is evident proof positive with states and cities with the highest murder rates (as in unjustifiable death) that hold the toughest firearm laws.
In a hypothetical if we are to be honest...
1. Arm teachers-school shooters would be slain on site children are protected.
A bank truck offers far more incentive to be attacked than a school...
2. Vegas-if anyone else were on that floor and were armed or within vicinity of the shooter were able to (key word) Communicate and assemble they could have thwarted that scumbag quicker than the police did.
Why are you against a stronger society with a national stand your ground vigilant approach of taking matters into your hands to thwart evil without punishment?
Why anti gunners are you so emotionally compelled to ignore the blatant truth that your laws provide incentive for the criminal intent, and have been complete and utter failures only restricting and limiting what is available?
I don't want to hear the argument on the basis of subjective "need".
I don't want to hear the false equivalency of access to a nuke as the 2nd pertained to being equally equipped to a field soldier has access to.
I want an honest answer along the lines of
The media told me so.
I don't have it in me to defend myself, my loved ones, or my fellow citizens.
I am terrified and scare easily.
I lack knowledge pertaining to firearms therefor I will try to topple honest debate and conversation with false equivalencies and emotional tirades.
Be honest.
Convince us 2A supporters why we should see things your way since the biggest inception of firearm control was introduced in 1934. Convince us why we should see things your way.
Can you legitimately do that or are you only capable of vitriol and immature attacks?
I want to honestly hear exactly why you believe firearms legislation is conducive to society. I want to hear your honest concerns.
I have always wondered why MORE people have NOT challenged state gun laws, when the Constitution is very clear, "shall NOT be infringed"!
FEDERAL law trumps all STATE and CITY LAWS.
States passed laws against abortion and people filed suit and it went to the Supreme Court and the court found the law "UN-Constitutional.
We've had various forms of gun legislation in this country.
Many on both sides have declared, the laws are infallible yet the real world results dictate otherwise.
We have criminals still obtaining firearms, commissioning them in the use of criminal enterprise.
Yet we have states with laws that declare the citizens have a duty to retreat and have to rely on an officer with a badge and a gun to solve their issues for them.
It is evident our justice system is broken, combined with laws that protect criminals, and restrict the rights of those to defend themselves against criminals...
There are prosecutors who work the system, if you have a dog for example, and a burglar breaks into your home, and the dog viciously attacks the burglar, why does the burglar have the right to sue the home owner?! The home owner is the victim. Not the criminal!
So I ask this in all fairness.
Why would you continue to chip away at the firearm, enabling criminal enterprise and breeding generations to come to be reliant on a badge to solve their problems? Why do you preach reliance on another form of government to solve your problems for you?
Why not allow the citizenry to own what they want and how they see fit?
Why not prosecute the criminals to the fullest extent of the law, for what their actions were?
Why not make tougher border line repeal of the 8th for violent offenders?
Why not take comfort in knowing that your neighbor your fellow stranger is armed to aid in thwarting criminal enterprise without hesitation?
I ask this in complete fairness.
If you remove incentive, the actions will cease.
If you add incentive such as gun free zones, you only create victims. And that is evident proof positive with states and cities with the highest murder rates (as in unjustifiable death) that hold the toughest firearm laws.
In a hypothetical if we are to be honest...
1. Arm teachers-school shooters would be slain on site children are protected.
A bank truck offers far more incentive to be attacked than a school...
2. Vegas-if anyone else were on that floor and were armed or within vicinity of the shooter were able to (key word) Communicate and assemble they could have thwarted that scumbag quicker than the police did.
Why are you against a stronger society with a national stand your ground vigilant approach of taking matters into your hands to thwart evil without punishment?
Why anti gunners are you so emotionally compelled to ignore the blatant truth that your laws provide incentive for the criminal intent, and have been complete and utter failures only restricting and limiting what is available?
I don't want to hear the argument on the basis of subjective "need".
I don't want to hear the false equivalency of access to a nuke as the 2nd pertained to being equally equipped to a field soldier has access to.
I want an honest answer along the lines of
The media told me so.
I don't have it in me to defend myself, my loved ones, or my fellow citizens.
I am terrified and scare easily.
I lack knowledge pertaining to firearms therefor I will try to topple honest debate and conversation with false equivalencies and emotional tirades.
Be honest.
Convince us 2A supporters why we should see things your way since the biggest inception of firearm control was introduced in 1934. Convince us why we should see things your way.
Can you legitimately do that or are you only capable of vitriol and immature attacks?
I want to honestly hear exactly why you believe firearms legislation is conducive to society. I want to hear your honest concerns.
I have always wondered why MORE people have NOT challenged state gun laws, when the Constitution is very clear, "shall NOT be infringed"!
FEDERAL law trumps all STATE and CITY LAWS.
States passed laws against abortion and people filed suit and it went to the Supreme Court and the court found the law "UN-Constitutional.
It baffles me.
Maybe when we have a more "Constitutional" Supreme Court it will happen.
Boots aren't designed to kill, either or flashlights. Knives have legitimate uses other than killing.
Guns don't.
Any logical person should be able to make these distinctions in approximately 5 seconds of actual thought.
Guns are indeed designed to kill. OK, actually, guns are designed to accurately launch a projectile (or small group thereof) at high velocity. Now, the most common purpose that an operator would employ accurately launching a projectile at high velocity is to kill whatever that projectile is launched towards.
Absolutely. Agreed, 100%. No doubt at all about what is the true design function and purpose of a firearm.
/rant_on
And because that is indeed the fundamental, no_doubt_about_it purpose of firearms, we have a fundamental no_doubt_about_it right to keep and bear such arms, what with the armed populace being necessary to the security of a free state and all. Security of a free state is protection and defense against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Those enemies will have firearms, therefore, those defending against them should have them as well. A populace that is known to be armed is more secure from aggression just based on common sense.
If any enemy, foreign or domestic, is unsure whether or not you are armed with the capability of easily killing them, their willingness to visit aggression upon you will be severely curtailed. That could be an angry neighbor, a garden variety thief/hoodlum, a rioting mob, or an invading occupying force from your government or some other nation. No matter who the aggressor is, they will think twice about their aggression if they a) know that a bunch of people are properly armed to return deadly force and b) don't know which house is which.
That is the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Read all of the writings by all of the thinkers of the time who pushed to make the right explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights. Someday, tyrants will seek to cause oppressive mischief, and an armed populace will be the reason they do not. And history is 100% perfect on this next fact - ALL GOVERNMENTS, ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE EVOLVE TOWARDS TYRANNY. The Founders knew this to be true, so they baked the protection of the natural right to keep and bear arms right into the cornerstone document of the whole freaking enterprise, right from the get go. That amendment is a major reason why our Constitution is the longest standing government framework in the world. Wholesale changes and flipping the established order upside down to suit the whims and whimsy of today's Tyrant In Chief is much, much more difficult when the populace outnumbers the government and its standing army by 300 to 1, and that populace is armed. This stable, generally peaceful governing system you were born into and think is the natural way of things? Yeah, it has lasted long enough to lull you into thinking it always will almost entirely because of the 2nd Amendment.
What stalled the British army in the Carolinas in 1777-78? It wasn't government issued troops wearing government issued uniforms firing government issued and approved rifles in a government issued and approved manner. It was every day common folk keeping and bearing arms. The most powerful army on Earth at the time, held at bay by farmers exercising their natural right to self-defense and keeping/bearing arms. Russia and now the US, bogged down in Afghanistan for decades. Common citizen on horseback with small arms, keeping the two great superpowers bogged down in hit and run wars of attrition. No invading army has ever conquered the Afghani people. Take a guess what their secret is? Why do armed insurgencies almost always foil the best laid plans of the greatest military forces? Hmm...what could it be that allows the common man to hold such military might at bay, so often throughout history? What....could....it...be....I....wonder....
Every US citizen with a firearm defends you against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Their very existence as a voluntarily armed citizen tells every aggressor in the world that if you want it, you better pack a lunch and get ready to put in overtime, because we'll be fighting back, tyvm. Just them retaining their right to keep and bear arms, and them exercising that right peacefully and lawfully DEFENDS YOU 24/7/365 because they represent a tangible, verifiable, legitimate threat of opposing whatever aggression some idiot or group thereof is considering.
Boots aren't designed to kill, either or flashlights. Knives have legitimate uses other than killing.
Guns don't.
Any logical person should be able to make these distinctions in approximately 5 seconds of actual thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
Guns have legitimate sporting purposes other than "killing". Target shooting, sporting clays, trap, skeet, etc. However, that isn't why the Second Amendment was written. Citizens need a defense against criminals, and that also means government criminals acting in a tyrannical way, foreign, and domestic.
Exactly.
Any logical person should be able to make these distinctions in approximately 5 seconds of actual thought.
dman72, so it isn't about how many of an object is collected, it is about what you think it's intended use is for ? That is where the fetish comes in ? Seems to me that is based on an emotional conclusion based on what you think the intended use of an item is. Pretty much zero logic used there.
I have always wondered why MORE people have NOT challenged state gun laws, when the Constitution is very clear, "shall NOT be infringed"!
FEDERAL law trumps all STATE and CITY LAWS.
States passed laws against abortion and people filed suit and it went to the Supreme Court and the court found the law "UN-Constitutional.
It baffles me.
Activist, progressive courts uphold this crap, then the SCOTUS won't hear the case.
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.
