To those who own guns. What's the attraction?

[FDF12389]

They do.

No they don't, the majority of gun crime happens by individuals who could not legally own that weapon. e.g: Persons under 21 with handguns, convicted felon, illegal immigrants.

Look at drugs, completely illegal but everyone can get them. Start fixing our CURRENT gun control laws, then you can talk about adding new ones.

 

[FDF12389]

1. the military is with you, in which case your plinkers are not needed
2. the military is against you, your plinkers go plink against armor while you die by the millions until you surrender.

The point of the forefathers was of course that that was the state of the art weaponary at the time, anyone could defeat an army with enough colt 45's, today, you'll need an airforce, artillery and armed forces to defeat the government run military.

Your plinkers won't do shit in but get you killed in this situation, even whitey007 knows that.

He's also a man who willingly wants to let corporations own his house, his everything via compliance and they can choose to change it at any time because he actually believes it's their right.

You should focus on companies, the state isn't the real cause of government spending, it's to cover for frivolous companies secrutities that went horrible that you pay.

Yea just look at how we rolled over Vietnam, Iraq, Cuba, and Afghanistan. Planes just made it too easy, we were in and out of those countries in like, what was it, 3 hours?

Get real, guerrilla warfare has devastated many armies in the past, the fact that you underestimate the resilience of a single armed man shows you have no military or police experience.

 

[nick1985]

Get real, guerrilla warfare has devastated many armies in the past, the fact that you underestimate the resilience of a single armed man shows you have no military or police experience.

But but but...he's SAS!

 

[FDF12389]

But but but...he's SAS!

Slow And Stupid?

 

[olds]

I am not sure why you guys are arguing with RocksteadyDotNet and Locut0s. They have neither critical thinking skills nor the intelligence to apply it if they did. Your time could be put to better use.
But piss in the wind if you must.

 

[piasabird]

Well, I use to do some target shooting, and I found shooting targets has a calming effect. It also teaches you to control your body and focuses your mind. In some martial arts training and in the orient Scholars use to be taught how to use a bow because it helped to focus the mind and body together.

To hit a bulls eye, one must have self control. It is part Mind, part breathing control part hand eye coordination.

 

[amddude]

Yea just look at how we rolled over Vietnam, Iraq, Cuba, and Afghanistan. Planes just made it too easy, we were in and out of those countries in like, what was it, 3 hours?

Get real, guerrilla warfare has devastated many armies in the past, the fact that you underestimate the resilience of a single armed man shows you have no military or police experience.

Was going to post something like this, but it is super true.

What I find personally amusing is that, generally speaking, the same people who say that small arms are useless against armies with armor, aircraft, etc are the same people a few years ago who said iraq and afghanistan was hopeless.

 

[piasabird]

The hit and run attack is very useful when fighting an occupying force. IED's work well too as well as destroying bridges and rail roads. A slow war of attrition using a hit and run tactic killing 2 or 3 enemies at a time and running away can devastate and tare down a military force.

This is why I can understand military organizations that commit genocide. I can even sympathize with Genocide as a battle technique.

 

[olds]

Guerrilla warfare has always been effective. Did you already forget Hogan's Heroes?

BTW, don't for a second think that we a re losing on any front because of guerrilla warfare. That's not the case.
We are losing because of live video feeds, the internet and the pussification of America.
Back in the day, we bombed entire cities to ruins to force our will. You think the atomic bombs in Japan just targeted soldiers? Did aircraft in Dresden just target soldiers?
Men, women, children, it didn't matter. Don't want to get killed? Don't fight. Protest against your government that's getting you killed.

Now days everything is immediately on CNN/Internet, we are pussified and don't have the stomach to do the real, dirty task of war. So instead we dink around, have unrealistic rules of engagement and sacrifice our soldiers on then altar of pussification.

 

[Freejack2]

I think it depends on where you live. I imagine in some states where the gun laws are rather minimal it's not uncommon for kids to grow up around them and be comfortable as an adult carrying one.

In states such as New York it's very difficult to get permission to carry a handgun. Last I remember reading if I wanted to apply for a gun permit there was an extensive FBI background check, then if I passed that I went before a judge who decided if I could carry a gun or not. On top of all that you have to have a really, really good reason to carry one before they'll even consider it. Like armed security guard.

 

[BoberFett]

Back in the day, we bombed entire cities to ruins to force our will. You think the atomic bombs in Japan just targeted soldiers? Did aircraft in Dresden just target soldiers?

That may well be, but how would the US government win a revolution by destroying a major city? Their infrastructure and tax base begins to crumble, and they likely piss off even more people causing further unrest. Scorched earth policy during a revolution here is destined for failure.

 

[zinfamous]

ftfy

In all seriousness, you are dead wrong. The entire premise of the 2nd amendment is exactly the same today as it was back then.

totally agree with your argument here (TV/internet for 1st = gun technology for 2nd etc), but disagree that yesterday = today = constitution of 1779 = constitution today.

The point is that what was relevant then is not necessarily relevant today, and so on. The constitution was designed for and expected to be interpreted through a modern perspective. It was not meant that all that was necessary at a pre-industrial time would trap future generations into antiquated rules that hold no more relevance.

That is NOT to say that what is true of the 2nd amendment then is not true now--Just that you can't make the argument that some parts are worth interpretation, while others are not. That some parts of the document are specifically more holy and untouchable than other parts. 'tis silly.

It is not on a pedestal. it is ink on animal hide. It went neglected for generations. Only now do people seem to care so much about it. And I'd lay down a few hundred bucks that 80% of those who feel so strongly about the sacredness of this document couldn't even recite 5 lines.

 

[irishScott]

They got rid of their Guns for a reason. I suspect they have no desire to adopt US problems by returning Guns to the Common Man.

Yes, and the reason was fear of each other. I love how said nations (yours included) tend to expound the superiority of their culture when you wouldn't even trust your neighbor not to kill you if he had a gun. If that's not the case, maybe you can give me a more rational reason why law abiding mentally stable citizens should not be armed.

Like I've said before, if your culture was so superior guns would still be legal. People just wouldn't buy them.

If you think good citizens having the ability to protect themselves is a bad thing, I honestly don't know what to say. Enjoy your peasantry I guess.

 

[amddude]

Guns essentially outlawed in 1996

Just sayin

 

[sourceninja]

Guns essentially outlawed in 1996

Just sayin

That graph would be much more useful if it should data before 1996. For example, I could make a graph showing that I get more sex after marriage.

However, if I start my graph at the date I was married it would just show that I indeed have sex, not that I get more sex or that marriage is good for a sex life.

 

[nick1985]

That graph would be much more useful if it should data before 1996. For example, I could make a graph showing that I get more sex after marriage.

However, if I start my graph at the date I was married it would just show that I indeed have sex, not that I get more sex or that marriage is good for a sex life.

/fuelonthefire

 

[tcsenter]

I realize that this is sensitive ground and I don't mean to start a flame war, though perhaps one is inevitable for a topic like this. Anyway I'd seriously like to know, no politics, no agenda, no slant intended. As someone who has grown up in a household that is gunless and has no interest in them I'm curious. What is the attraction for you?

Find a gun enthusiast with some firearms training, ask them to take you to the range (and offer them ~$25.00 for ammo).

/question

 

[Phanuel]

Find a gun enthusiast with some firearms training, ask them to take you to the range (and offer them ~$25.00 for ammo).

/question

I've taken all of my friends to the range, most had passing interests in firearms from tv/movies/video games. We're definitely all liberal leaning non-religious types, men and women. They've all enjoyed shooting at targets and hitting what they were aiming at and working to improve their aim.

The women seem to especially love the AR15 since the recoil of .223/5.56 round is very minimal and the ability to hit something rather easily at 50-100-200 yards is easy fun.

I have no desire to hunt or use my firearms against another human being unless it's life or death for myself or my friends and family. Shooting is, as others have said, a rather relaxing and focusing affair. Punching a single ragged hole in a piece of paper isn't an easy feat.

 

[edro]

Hand held immense power, Engineering, History, Protection, Art, Hobby, Fun

 

[Train]

1. the military is with you, in which case your plinkers are not needed
2. the military is against you, your plinkers go plink against armor while you die by the millions until you surrender.

The point of the forefathers was of course that that was the state of the art weaponary at the time, anyone could defeat an army with enough colt 45's, today, you'll need an airforce, artillery and armed forces to defeat the government run military.

Your plinkers won't do shit in but get you killed in this situation, even whitey007 knows that.

He's also a man who willingly wants to let corporations own his house, his everything via compliance and they can choose to change it at any time because he actually believes it's their right.

You should focus on companies, the state isn't the real cause of government spending, it's to cover for frivolous companies secrutities that went horrible that you pay.

Every time you post something military related, you look dumber and dumber.

Tell me, how many UK soldiers died in Afghanistan? Why didn't the taliban's piddly little plinkers and homemade bombs go plink plink against the mighty, industrialized, too-powerful-to-compete-with-rifles military of the UK?

 

[zinfamous]

Every time you post something military related, you look dumber and dumber.

Tell me, how many UK soldiers died in Afghanistan? Why didn't the taliban's piddly little plinkers and homemade bombs go plink plink against the mighty, industrialized, too-powerful-to-compete-with-rifles military of the UK?

because the Taliban is using quality, US-made plinkers?

:awe:

 

[FDF12389]

because the Taliban is using quality, US-made plinkers?

:awe:

Yea, they have those big bad killer guns that we see on the news, those things just cant be stopped, cause they're all black, and they got like lasers and shit. Good thing we got those banned. But yea with those big bad guns the tlibans got it made, here we just have 30-30 lever plinkers, those can't kill anything because they don't look badass.

 

[Triumph]

Guns essentially outlawed in 1996

Just sayin

I don't know what your position is, but if I put this graph in a lab report and tried to use it to explain something without any supporting text, I would get an F. Where is the ordinate and abscissa labels (although I can guess)? I can't tell the difference in the colors between assault and sexual assault. What happened before 1996? This is terrible, go back and redo it!

 

[Ackmed]

So many people here are completely ignorant about the war in Afghanistan is laughable.

 

[sandorski]

Yes, and the reason was fear of each other. I love how said nations (yours included) tend to expound the superiority of their culture when you wouldn't even trust your neighbor not to kill you if he had a gun. If that's not the case, maybe you can give me a more rational reason why law abiding mentally stable citizens should not be armed.

Like I've said before, if your culture was so superior guns would still be legal. People just wouldn't buy them.

If you think good citizens having the ability to protect themselves is a bad thing, I honestly don't know what to say. Enjoy your peasantry I guess.

lolfail