I know if worse comes to worse I for one will be relocating to Montana;
Montana may leave the Union over gun rights !
Montana may leave the Union over gun rights !
"Firearms are used approximately 2 million times per year to defend life and property. What were you saying of cant think of a reason?"
Do I need to shoot down this garbage again? This 'survey' is complete and utter garbage, and I debunked it thoroughly a few weeks ago - as has been done by countless others.
The better surveys put the number closer to 100k per year, 150k tops.
So yes, there are reasons to own a gun to defend yourself, or think you have the ability to defend yourself/your family. Not going to argue with that logic.
Do I need to shoot down this garbage again? This 'survey' is complete and utter garbage, and I debunked it thoroughly a few weeks ago - as has been done by countless others.
The better surveys put the number closer to 100k per year, 150k tops.
So yes, there are reasons to own a gun to defend yourself, or think you have the ability to defend yourself/your family. Not going to argue with that logic.
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2004
- 11,465
- 1
- 0
AT'ers should stick to FPS games, and myspace. AT's collective knowledge of guns and gun laws is rivaled only by it's intimate knowledge of womez
My 3 reasons for owning guns:
1. It's damn fun to shoot. Have been trapshooting and target shooting since I was 10. There's nothing better than going out with your dad and grandpa to shoot...and the smell of a spent cartridge being ejected from the chamber. Can't wait to carry on the tradition with my kids when they're older.
2. Defense of home and property. My guns are locked in a fire safe 24/7 but I keep 1 pistol nearby in one of those small code-safes in case someone is stupid enough to try and break in at night. I pray I never have to use it but woe be to that person who makes me.
3. To guarantee we the people can never be oppressed by either our government or by invading forces. This last one is the primary reason for the 2nd amendment -- the right that guarantees all others. No country would dare invade us -- can you imagine the guerilla war that would ensue with so many of us armed? Long live the USA!
1. It's damn fun to shoot. Have been trapshooting and target shooting since I was 10. There's nothing better than going out with your dad and grandpa to shoot...and the smell of a spent cartridge being ejected from the chamber. Can't wait to carry on the tradition with my kids when they're older.
2. Defense of home and property. My guns are locked in a fire safe 24/7 but I keep 1 pistol nearby in one of those small code-safes in case someone is stupid enough to try and break in at night. I pray I never have to use it but woe be to that person who makes me.
3. To guarantee we the people can never be oppressed by either our government or by invading forces. This last one is the primary reason for the 2nd amendment -- the right that guarantees all others. No country would dare invade us -- can you imagine the guerilla war that would ensue with so many of us armed? Long live the USA!
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,333
- 136
Democracy itself justifies private gun ownership. A citizen of any democracy needs no further justification for owning a firearm than the fact that they live in a democracy.
Perknose's link was misleading. The overwhelming majority of Americans support the 2nd amendment right of the people to own guns. That doesn't mean they support a fully unregulated right however (which was the poll question).
The OP, however, is nuts. SCOTUS is going rule in favor of the individual right tomorrow, in a manner so sweeping that it might even go too far. I, for one, do not think that convicted violent felons should be allowed to possess, for example.
The international gun debate, however, is OVER. Guns bans did absolutely nothing to curtail crime, and disempowered the people and weakened democracies across the globe.
You know, I really have to admire the average NRA type's ability to go apeshit over nothing. Most people with a cause, they need actual opposition to spout off...but not gun nuts. You guys can just imagine these evil-doers bent on "taking your guns", then come up with the craziest sounding shit I have ever heard to "defend" a right nobody is threatening. I mean for fucks sake, you're talking about KILLING people going door to door collecting your guns when as far as I'm aware, no such people exist. What the hell is wrong with you?
Honestly, I think the existence of an opposition movement to gun ownership (not that they are particularly effective) is at least partially fueled by how fucking crazy a lot of gun owners seem to be. Don't get me wrong, most of them are just fine...but the problem is the ones that feel the need to talk about gun rights tend to be the most wingbat segment of the population. If people like the OP would just shut their traps, I think it would HELP the gun rights movement a huge amount.
Honestly, I think the existence of an opposition movement to gun ownership (not that they are particularly effective) is at least partially fueled by how fucking crazy a lot of gun owners seem to be. Don't get me wrong, most of them are just fine...but the problem is the ones that feel the need to talk about gun rights tend to be the most wingbat segment of the population. If people like the OP would just shut their traps, I think it would HELP the gun rights movement a huge amount.
Rainsford, no one is going to come door to door...at least not yet. Most of us however are worried about the incremental eroding of our rights to the point where gun ownership steadily declines over decades with new generations of people to the point where a gun ban someday in the far future will be an eventuality when only a small majority of people that still care about ownership are powerless to stop it. THAT is what we are trying to prevent -- like what happened in Australia, Britain, and most of Europe.
There are plenty of attempts to degrade our rights short of a ban. Things like "1 gun a month" laws which NJ and other states are attempting to pass. Ballistic fingerprinting (ala serial #s on bullets) which would have the effect of substantially raising the cost of ammo to the point where the average middle class gun owner would find it prohibitively expensive to shoot. And on, and on, and on.
Rights are never taken away quickly. They are eroded over time and under our noses while the sheeple sleep.
There are plenty of attempts to degrade our rights short of a ban. Things like "1 gun a month" laws which NJ and other states are attempting to pass. Ballistic fingerprinting (ala serial #s on bullets) which would have the effect of substantially raising the cost of ammo to the point where the average middle class gun owner would find it prohibitively expensive to shoot. And on, and on, and on.
Rights are never taken away quickly. They are eroded over time and under our noses while the sheeple sleep.
/agree - I have no problem with responsible level headed folks owning guns but some of the crazies in the NRA that just go ballistic and start talking about killing people make me think twice.
ElMonoDelMar
Golden Member
- Apr 29, 2004
- 1,163
- 338
- 136
This thread is full of people who want to "take away my guns". Granted, none of them are suggesting door-to-door searches, but passing anti-gun laws will have the same effect.
And did you notice how many of them are forum moderators here? Frightening
One week off for calling out a mod.
Rio Rebel
Senior Moderator
Rainsford, please take a few moments to watch this or any of the other several videos on youtube regarding gun confiscation after Katrina. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
As the last interview shows, even more absurd than taking away that man's guns was the fact that the law enforcement personnel were not even willing to give him receipts so that he could get his weapons back. Instead, he's told to get a lawyer if he wants them back. Does any of that sound right to you?
OS
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 15,581
- 1
- 76
That remington gun IS an AR platform clone.
CA is the WORST possible measuring stick, with an "assault rifle" ban written by fuckstick politicians, who apparently don't know shit about guns.
The CA DOJ stopped updating the banned list because it was stupidly pointless as just pointed out to you.
"assault weapons" is mostly a made up, media talking point, that is oblivious to the fact that many guns are almost the same internally while only having cosmetic differences.
RY62
Senior member
- Mar 13, 2005
- 890
- 153
- 106
:Q
I've never used my handguns for robbery or any other crimes. I use rifles, shotguns and yes, even handguns for hunting. I have a concealed carry permit but I rarely carry, on my person, unless I'm hunting or target shooting but I often have a handgun in my vehicle. I have several guns within easy reach if I were to ever need them for home defense although I pray I never would need to use them for that purpose.
A gun is only as good or bad as the person that is holding it.
lol at your last statement. Afghanistan and Pakistan have a very violent history (those Pushtuns love their guns. There's one in every household) yet Afghanis haven't had peace for over a generation. The gun culture there is 100X worse than anywhere else in the world and they have been invaded time and time again.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
The somewhat misnomer on this thread is that there is a RIGHT for individual to own a gun. As we enter a period in our history when the supreme court becomes the sole arbiter of what the constitution says. And we have Justice Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito needing to find just one more justice to make the most weird decisions in our nations history. As they more or less decide their perceived needs trumps what the constitution says in clear language. When they decided the need to fight terrorism trumps the bill of right, you gun owners were silent.
And now you gun owners may well wake up tomorrow and find that 200 years of precedents just went down the toilet, and you in fact have no right to own a gun because the supreme court done said so.
I do not know how long it has to go before some group or another will finally find nine lamp posts to hang these fools. It may not teach these so called legal dictators how to read the clear language of the constitution, but it may show their successors we the people do not suffer fools gladly.
I can not imagine a harder to implement legal decision than to deny the right of gun ownership totally. I am in favor of rational gun control that I think the NRA foolishly fights,
but knowing the current supreme court, I do think they are fool enough to decide no American has a right to own a gun.
And now you gun owners may well wake up tomorrow and find that 200 years of precedents just went down the toilet, and you in fact have no right to own a gun because the supreme court done said so.
I do not know how long it has to go before some group or another will finally find nine lamp posts to hang these fools. It may not teach these so called legal dictators how to read the clear language of the constitution, but it may show their successors we the people do not suffer fools gladly.
I can not imagine a harder to implement legal decision than to deny the right of gun ownership totally. I am in favor of rational gun control that I think the NRA foolishly fights,
but knowing the current supreme court, I do think they are fool enough to decide no American has a right to own a gun.
Of course not, but I don't think it's indicative of a widespread movement to take away guns from people by force...or for that matter to take them away slowly by changing the law. Sure, as others have pointed out, there are people who would LIKE to outlaw private gun ownership, but they've been spectacularly unsuccessful in accomplishing that despite decades of effort. In fact, gun rights seem to be going the OTHER way, with more states adopting less restrictive carry and ownership laws.
This doesn't mean things are perfect, but I don't think it would be possible for the "from my cold, dead hands" folks to sound any more ridiculous. There may be situations that warrant those sort of pronouncements, but we're not even remotely there yet, and being overly dramatic about it makes people look silly. And worse, it undermines ACTUAL concerns because geniuses talking about shooting cops who come to take their guns overshadow the people trying to discuss real problems by making it easy to lump all pro-gun rights folks into the nutbar militia member camp.
So what? They haven't accomplished anything, despite years of talking. Because that's what it comes down to, talk. But instead of discussing the topic in a reasonable manner, many people seem to think the appropriate response to a negligable danger is to start talking about killing people. Come on, does that sound reasonable to you?
Actually Rainsford, they have accomplished many things, especially in other countries. Many gun nuts do go crazy, but the problems are real. Take gun registration for example, the people who want gun registration do not want to "take my guns away," but politicians in Chicago used registrations to ban handguns, just by closing the book. A small group of people used a very popular reasonable measure to ban guns without actually passing a gun ban. And, it is that very small group of people who are willing to use loopholes like that make gun control legislation, even reasonable laws with good intentions, very dangerous to our rights.
Link
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
I'm not a big gun person and could really care less about my "right" to own them, because I don't waste my life worrying about extremely improbable events like mall shootings. I also think the argument about guns as a means of protection from the government is kind of silly, it's not like civilian firearms would be able to do anything against a Bradley, lol. If it ever came to the point where we needed to revolt against our government, I'd be fighting with whatever I could find/make -- stones, molotov cocktails, etc. Whether I had a gun or not probably wouldn't make much of a difference.
But at the same time, there's not really any evidence to support that gun bans reduce violent crimes (in fact, it seems like in some cases, bans result in *increased* violent crimes -- makes no sense to me, but it's not like you can argue against statistics), so I say more power to the people who want to own them.
But at the same time, there's not really any evidence to support that gun bans reduce violent crimes (in fact, it seems like in some cases, bans result in *increased* violent crimes -- makes no sense to me, but it's not like you can argue against statistics), so I say more power to the people who want to own them.
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I'm not a big gun person and could really care less about my "right" to own them, because I don't waste my life worrying about extremely improbable events like mall shootings. I also think the argument about guns as a means of protection from the government is kind of silly, it's not like civilian firearms would be able to do anything against a Bradley, lol. If it ever came to the point where we needed to revolt against our government, I'd be fighting with whatever I could find/make -- stones, molotov cocktails, etc. Whether I had a gun or not probably wouldn't make much of a difference.
But at the same time, there's not really any evidence to support that gun bans reduce violent crimes (in fact, it seems like in some cases, bans result in *increased* violent crimes -- makes no sense to me, but it's not like you can argue against statistics), so I say more power to the people who want to own them.
The #1 use of a private firearm against a government is as a method to obtain better weapons, or assassinate important targets. They're perfectly well suited to those two tasks.
The 2nd amendment isnt about hunting. Its not there to protect a hunters ability to shoot animals.
Most gun owners dont hunt. As a hunter you are in the minority as far as all Americans are concerned. Trying to screw over other gun owners isnt a very good position to have because if they take away other guns they will eventually try to take away yours. United we stand, divided we fall and all that bullshit.
BTW ever heard of someone being called a "Fudd," because based on your opinions it sounds as if you fall into that category. Better go educate yourself on what the 2nd amendment is really about and hopefully you will change your mind on it.
Any AR-15 that you go to the gun shop and buy is not an assault rifle as they arent full auto.
People do hunt with AR, its legal in most states, with maybe the only restriction being maybe the size of the magazine allowed for hunting.
They can be used in self defense.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter