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.
Theres no country on earth that could or would want to occupy the USA and if it came down to a nuclear war there would be no survivors so tell me again why you need a gun for anything other than hunting or target shooting.
1) intrusion/assault by armed criminal
2) riot
3) oppression by domestic government
4) oppression by foreign invader
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there is a break in where not only is the victim home, but subjected to violent assault...every 2 minutes in these United States. Ask those ~267,000 annual victims what they could possibly need a gun for besides hunting and target shooting?
Ask the people harmed in the LA, Baltimore, Ferguson, etc riots what they could possibly need a gun for besides hunting and target shooting?
#3 and #4 are much less probable, but still possible. And I would ask in either of those cases...would a gun be needed for more than just hunting and target shooting?
Because you dismiss the possibility of people being violently assaulted does not mean it does not or cannot happen. It can, and it does. Criminals don't care about the law and government has the monopoly on lawmaking, force and violence. Either of these entities can and will bring force to bear upon you if it suits their whim. Would you prefer to be more or less capable of mounting a defense, should the situation arise?
And btw, the 2nd Amendment didn't make it into the Constitution because the Founders had just rebelled against the tyranny of deer or paper targets. Read the Federalist Papers.
Other countries are not founded on the single most libertarian (small "L", small/limited government with many restraints) governing document ever penned. We are. Rule of law and whims of tyranny are different in other countries because very few have anywhere the recognition of natural, individual rights that we do. Read the 9th and 10th Amendments, please. Natural rights of the individual and the sovereignty of the states and the People is baked right in, on purpose, to clear up any doubts.
The natural right of self-ownership (my life, my liberty) is a condition of existence. From that natural right comes the natural right to defend that life and that liberty. Keeping and bearing arms is simply possessing/employing the tools that help one defend life and liberty. Natural, individual right of self-defense. Governments do not grant natural rights - existence does that. All governments do is usurp, abridge, violate and trample natural rights in the name of their own power and their personal safety against those whom they oppress. You being able to build/trade for a weapon that strengthens your natural right of self-defense is a condition of your existence, and all government can do is either respect that natural right or violate it in some way.
But oh yeah, keeping and bearing arms as a natural right is indeed a condition of existence. You're born with that right.
Law abiding in practical terms means following whatever laws are written, whether you know them or not. Virtually every business owner in America is a law breaker on a daily basis, because very few know every law, reg and special favor written into our legal code that they are required to follow. Bureaucratic thugs enact this byzantine morass of legal minutia to give themselves the power to destroy you whenever they feel it is necessary. An example most are familiar with is simple cronyism. One business gives more money to government than does their competitor, and oh lookie there, government finds some cool legal nuance they may have written 5 minutes ago that allows them to harass/oppress/persecute t that competitor right out of business. Perfectly legal, right? Shame on that competitor for not being a law abiding citizen, right?
In the case of gun control, most of which has roots in racist oppression of free African Americans, the "competitor" is the free American who has the capability of resisting harassment and oppression. Historically, the first gun control laws said whites could have guns, but blacks could not. Ever wonder how a bunch of doofuses wearing bed sheets could simply drag black people from their homes, torture and then hang them? Two tings need to be going on for that to happen with the doofus having no fear of injury - (1) blacks must be disarmed according to law and (2) government is involved, even if simply agreeing to look the other way, in the crime. In the early days of the groups like the KKK, the government WAS the doofus in the white sheet. Many is the local law enforcement who put on the costume of anonymity to be able to go do criminal crap and still have a badge. Easy to do when the law makes the intended victim utterly helpless.
And that is all gun control laws do - make individuals utterly helpless before any sort of harassment, oppression, attack, etc. Oh no, you say, you can still have some guns, just not good ones...you know, like the ones your oppressor will be carrying when they come to violate your rights. The KKK gets the machine guns and the black person gets the 6 shot revolver. The KKK gets the law on their side and the black person has the law against them. Wonder who wins in that little battle, eh?
Criminals who don't care about the laws governing theft, assault, murder, etc...they don't care about the laws concerning guns. The government has the best technology, the laws and their monopoly on force and violence. So basically, "common sense" laws boil down to declaring government and criminals are the apex predators, and "law abiding" citizens are their virtually powerless prey.
And all this because a school board in FL decided a career juvenile delinquent should be able to pass background checks, even with 40+ run ins with law enforcement. I need to be made helpless before any attack because a bunch of liberal bureaucrats screwed the pooch hard. Nice.
Theres no country on earth that could or would want to occupy the USA and if it came down to a nuclear war there would be no survivors so tell me again why you need a gun for anything other than hunting or target shooting.
Not according to you, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up? Your exact statement below:
Quote:
If for some reason a hostile enemy managed to defeat the American military i doubt very much your little gun would be of much use against such an adversary.
I guess you didn't like my response as you failed to address it?
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. It's has nothing to do with wants or needs. Not only that it's not up to you to determine what anyone needs for any lawful purpose. Just as it's not up to me to tell you what you need. It's called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs.
So you tell me:
Why do you need the police?
Why do you need the criminal justice system?
Why do you need prisons?
Why do you need mental health facilities?
Why do you need locks on your doors and vehicles?
Why do you need drug and alcohol rehab facilities?
If you don't think that we need any of the above than it's obvious why you don't think anyone needs a gun for anything other than hunting and target shooting.
Theres no country on earth that could or would want to occupy the USA and if it came down to a nuclear war there would be no survivors so tell me again why you need a gun for anything other than hunting or target shooting.
What do you do when you live in a city like Baltimore and when the people decide to riot and the Mayor refuses to send in the police because she wants to give the rioters space to "vent their frustration"?? If the police refuse to act, the people must be able to protect themselves.
What would happen if Democrats did abolish the Second Amendment if they were in power for the first time since 2009-2011?
Are you actually aware of what it actually takes to repeal an amendment to the Constitution. Just how much control they would need to have? How many bodies they would need to be elected to be in control of?
Not according to you, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up? Your exact statement below:
I guess you didn't like my response as you failed to address it?
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. It's has nothing to do with wants or needs. Not only that it's not up to you to determine what anyone needs for any lawful purpose. Just as it's not up to me to tell you what you need. It's called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs.
So you tell me:
Why do you need the police?
Why do you need the criminal justice system?
Why do you need prisons?
Why do you need mental health facilities?
Why do you need locks on your doors and vehicles?
Why do you need drug and alcohol rehab facilities?
If you don't think that we need any of the above than it's obvious why you don't think anyone needs a gun for anything other than hunting and target shooting.
And nor with self-defense (ie personal or family defense), as written.
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.
