What are legitimate reasons for citizens owning guns?

[brycejones]

There is nothing to be done ever

 

[ivwshane]

That is the intent of the 2A, really.

Sure that was the intent hundreds of years ago. That ship sailed far far away in the last century.

No that wasn't the intent hundreds of years ago. Its the intent according to the supreme court of 2008. Prior to that the 2nd was a states rights issue about protecting itself.

 

[dank69]

No, this thread is about what are reasons to own guns, one of the options in the poll being fighting the government if it came to it. How you think the fight would go means absolutely NOTHING. That IS the intent of the 2A, and it is as relevant today as it was in 1782. I'm sure the colonists couldn't win against the mighty British Empire. The Soviet Union, with all its might, would just roll over Afghanistan. There are examples all throughout history like these. But again, how you *think* things would go simply doesn't matter in regards to the intent of the 2A.

You replied to my statement that the idea of us owning guns would be a check against government tyranny is laughable, so our discussion is about that and nothing else, no matter what the rest of the thread is about. You go on *thinking* colonists with the same guns as the British Empire is the same as you and your modified semi against a Hellfire missile from some zit-popper who will go home to jack off to 4-chan porn 5 minutes after lighting you up.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You replied to my statement that the idea of us owning guns would be a check against government tyranny is laughable, so our discussion is about that and nothing else, no matter what the rest of the thread is about. You go on *thinking* colonists with the same guns as the British Empire is the same as you and your modified semi against a Hellfire missile from some zit-popper who will go home to jack off to 4-chan porn 5 minutes after lighting you up.

You paint everything in such exaggerations it is easy to see why you don't have a grasp on reality in regards to this subject. Everything is a stereotype to you when it comes to guns, you have no idea.

 

[Paratus]

Who says I want to take away your guns? Our argument is about whether or not John Q. Public has a chance against the US Military. That is it.

I actually think an armed populace would give a volunteer army a hard time in some theoretical conflict between the populace and a tyrannical government.

The problem is those who most strongly spout the “2A is for overthrowing a tyrannical govt” line are the ones who most strongly support actual tyranny.

Tajy is salivating at the thought of Trumps Census Bureau appointee rigging the census to keep conservatives winning over in the census thread.

Slowspyder is in this thread painting US citizens exercising their rights to assembly and redress the government for grievances due lack of equal treatment under the law as protestors destroying neighborhoods because they didn’t win.

As long as a tyrannical government targets minorities and women first and leaves the guns alone you won’t see a single 2A fanatic lifting a finger or a gun to over throw said government. Although you might see a few put on some brown shirts.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

There is nothing to be done ever

There is, leave the country. Ciyas, chump.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I actually think an armed populace would give a volunteer army a hard time in some theoretical conflict between the populace and a tyrannical government.

The problem is those who most strongly spout the “2A is for overthrowing a tyrannical govt” line are the ones who most strongly support actual tyranny.

Tajy is salivating at the thought of Trumps Census Bureau appointee rigging the census to keep conservatives winning over in the census thread.

Slowspyder is in this thread painting US citizens exercising their rights to assembly and redress the government for grievances due lack of equal treatment under the law as protestors destroying neighborhoods because they didn’t win.

As long as a tyrannical government targets minorities and women first and leaves the guns alone you won’t see a single 2A fanatic lifting a finger or a gun to over throw said government. Although you might see a few put on some brown shirts.

Please, I have no problem with peaceful protest. That's absolutely a right and one I would defend. But what these antifa types are doing is not peaceful protesting, and you know it.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

........
Tajy is salivating at the thought of Trumps Census Bureau appointee rigging the census to keep conservatives winning over in the census thread.
.............

Liar, my reasons for supporting the choice of Dr. Brunell are many and varied.

 

[Paladin3]

I thought you needed the guns to defend yourself from the imminent threat of gun-murder-crime?

Lots of conflicting feelings in this thread from the gun-huggers.

Just because we recognize the actual need to defend our lives is remote does not mean we will allow you disarm the law-abiding and make it a turkey shoot for criminals. You don't have the right to deprive us of the basic human right to defend ourselves because you may be uncomfortable doing so yourself, or because you think it will make you a tiny bit safer (because, yeah, being disarmed in a world where only criminals are armed = safer. )

 

[Paladin3]

Yeah, well regulated militia surely does give you the idea of any idiot even if mentally ill or blind... I mean, that is obvious to everyone who is functionally on the level of an amoeba.

Look anyone of sound mind can just read it and understand that you already have what is required in the form of the National Guard which is the states well regulated militia.

Anyone can do this and understand it except the people who have decided that they do NOT want to understand it. Those people are not any different than the people who have decided that they do NOT want to understand basic biology because it would interfere with their religion.

Not only does that mean that the dumbest people alive are the ones agreeing with what anyone of sound mind understands entirely differently but it also means that the most well armed are those that are functionally on the level of idiots.

So to me, it's unsurprising that something like the LA shooting or the Texas church shooting would happen, when idiots think that gun ownwership is great, only the idiots will own guns.

You got nothing. All you do is misrepresent my message to try and win the debate. You've already lost.

I'm not in favor of arming the mentally ill, blind or amoebas. Yes, the Americans have a shameful past of using slaves to help build our country. News Flash: Most of the world does. Europe was built by a surf class of working poor who struggled and starved to provide the privileged class an easy living, something I would hope you are as ashamed of as I am of American slavery. If owing a gun makes you an idiot then you are ignoring that 99.9%+ of the guns in the United States are never used to hurt anyone.

Bah, I'm too tired to go on, but you have no shame, so ball back in your court. Type some more lies for me. GO!

 

[Paladin3]

I agree with jackstar. Where our paths diverge is if I had the ability or power, I would remove guns.

200 years? I'm from a very small town. The hunting my father (who didn't particularly enjoy having to do) did fed us through the winters.

As long as we are playing in a fantasy world, hey, if I had the ability or power to remove all guns I would too. I'd give mine up because we'd be better off without them overall.

Back in the real world I understand it would be pointless because we'll never disarm criminals. Even if we closed down all the manufacturers, motivated folks would start building guns in their back yard from hunks of steel and a few simple hand tools. There is a huge cottage industry around the globe already doing just that to provide criminals with untraceable guns.

Now tell he how many children I am going to save by giving up mine when you can't do jack about the above? Or tell me how a tool used lawfully and safely 99.9%+ of the time is such a huge problem?

 

[mindless1]

The whole topic is backwards assed. It's asking "what are legitimate reasons". You do not need a legit reason to do something that is legal. It is not your burden to defend being a Law Abiding Citizen. Idiots.

 

[Paladin3]

Putting one's life and that of one's family at the mercy of criminals is certainly not better.

You know I don't understand you. Earlier in this thread you said you had no faith in humanity. Yet you prefer, in this case, that a law abiding citizen entrust her life to a criminal.

What's increasingly striking in this thread are those that prefer (or say they prefer) powerlessness to power if they should ever be forced to fight for their lives.

It's scary for some to admit that mankind is still a bit barbaric and not as civilized as we would like to think. Pretending that guns are the corrupting influence in society causing all the violence can be soothing because then a prohibition on guns is all it will take to get everyone to play nice. No need to look within and deal with man's fundamentally violent nature that a small number of us haven't learned to overcome.

IMHO, there is no bigger lie than when we tell ourselves "violence is NEVER the answer." I'm betting Hitler would disagree, since it was violence and not happy thoughts that ended his madness. Violence is never the preferred answer, but if we refuse to use it when necessary it guarantees we will always be at the mercy of those willing to.

 

[Paladin3]

Letting the car go is better than being in a gunfight, isn't it?

I was carjacked by a man with a knife who took my car. The car was 3 months old, so I was upside down on my loan and ended up owing money after my insurance paid off. It put my young family in a bad financial place because I lost all that money and had to go right back to the dealer buy another one after a hit to my credit.

Would I have shot the guy to protect my hard earned property had I been armed? I'm not sure, but I would have at least stopped him from taking my car. In the name of safety the state made sure the reward for obeying the law was being disarmed and guaranteed victimization by a criminal. Thanks.

 

[Paladin3]

I've never regretted buying one and they've been useful on 3 separate occasions for me. They're in a fast access biometric or combination safe when i have the grandkids over.

Yeah, the one I keep loaded gets unloaded and locked up before we have any visitors over unless I am wearing it, which I rarely do at home. My father would leave a loaded .22 rifle or shotgun standing in a corner of the room and we were taught not to touch without his permission. "I want to see cobwebs on it when I come back," he would say. The penalty for failure is too great for me to risk something like that.

My kids all learned to shoot safely, but it wasn't until I felt my youngest was responsible enough (about sixteen) that she was given access to it should I not be home in an emergency. She's not allowed to have anyone over for any reason during those times either. You can't be too careful.

 

[Paladin3]

Easiest method of suicide. I checked other.

Suicide relates to the value placed on life. The right to die is one of the most fundamental of human rights, but when a person makes the decision to take their life because of mental illness or emotion it is a tragedy. Life isn't so sacred that it should be extended regardless of suffering of the individual though. I also believe the life of the innocent to be more valuable than the life of a person who victimizes others, especially if they use violence to do so.

It is in the best interest of society to do everything possible to enable every person to grow into a law-abiding, self-support citizen. That's far better than having to deal with a violent criminal. Still, If someone refuses to play nice and repeatedly prove a danger to society despite all efforts to reform them...

 

[Paladin3]

Might be a lot to ask of the NSA to spy on Americans as well, amirite? How do you think it would go down for the operator who refuses a direct order? You keep thinking citizens could do anything to stop the US military if it ever came down to it, champ. I mean, there isn't another country in the world that could stop the machine but I'm sure you rednecks will take care of it with your pop guns.

A huge percentage of our military are the very rednecks with pop guns many want to disarm. Not to mention our military and law enforcement take oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I'm sure more than a few would refuse to obey an order to forcible disarm the law-abiding public, even if out of simple concern for their own safety.

While I highly, highly doubt we will every have to fight against our own military and/or government, please don't act like we'd be the on the losing side if it happened and infer that is one more reason to give up our guns.

 

[Paladin3]

There is nothing to be done ever

You should just quit posting if this is all ya' got.

 

[Paladin3]

I actually think an armed populace would give a volunteer army a hard time in some theoretical conflict between the populace and a tyrannical government.

The problem is those who most strongly spout the “2A is for overthrowing a tyrannical govt” line are the ones who most strongly support actual tyranny.

Tajy is salivating at the thought of Trumps Census Bureau appointee rigging the census to keep conservatives winning over in the census thread.

Slowspyder is in this thread painting US citizens exercising their rights to assembly and redress the government for grievances due lack of equal treatment under the law as protestors destroying neighborhoods because they didn’t win.

As long as a tyrannical government targets minorities and women first and leaves the guns alone you won’t see a single 2A fanatic lifting a finger or a gun to over throw said government. Although you might see a few put on some brown shirts.

Fuck you for thinking I don't support equal rights because I am pro civilian gun ownership. Fuck you!

Do you think calling the pro gun folks "brown shirts" does anything to prove your point? It doesn't even make sense because "brown shirts" were all for gun control and a disarmed population.

All you are doing is uniting your opposition and severely undercutting your credibility. My daughters high school debate teacher would give you an "F."

 

[Younigue]

As long as we are playing in a fantasy world, hey, if I had the ability or power to remove all guns I would too. I'd give mine up because we'd be better off without them overall.

Back in the real world I understand it would be pointless because we'll never disarm criminals. Even if we closed down all the manufacturers, motivated folks would start building guns in their back yard from hunks of steel and a few simple hand tools. There is a huge cottage industry around the globe already doing just that to provide criminals with untraceable guns.

Now tell he how many children I am going to save by giving up mine when you can't do jack about the above? Or tell me how a tool used lawfully and safely 99.9%+ of the time is such a huge problem?

You? You will save zero children with a gun exactly the amount of children most "lawful" gun owners will save. The "huge" problem IS the gun problem in America. You're a jackass Paladin. There was no reason to pick our conversation back up yet you did. I think your time would be better spent dry-humping your gun(s), the very gun(s) you suggest you'd be willing to break-up with if suddenly the world were thrown in to utopia. Thank the gun Gods (NRA, Gun manufacturers, bought-and-paid-for-government and a constitution that was written in a time when what has become of the world couldn't have even been imagined... Yay 2A for the perpetually dumb and afraid!) America is too dumb and afraid to get rid of guns! I want to say you're as bad as a gun nutter but you're not. What you are is useless... there you have it, that's your super power. Your other super power? Embracing being power-less. No sense in aiming higher especially with out a gun, right, hmmm *wink* am I right.

 

[Younigue]

I was carjacked by a man with a knife who took my car. The car was 3 months old, so I was upside down on my loan and ended up owing money after my insurance paid off. It put my young family in a bad financial place because I lost all that money and had to go right back to the dealer buy another one after a hit to my credit.

Would I have shot the guy to protect my hard earned property had I been armed? I'm not sure, but I would have at least stopped him from taking my car. In the name of safety the state made sure the reward for obeying the law was being disarmed and guaranteed victimization by a criminal. Thanks.

Holy Cripes man who doesn't understand and support shooting someone to avoid financial inconvenience and keeping your stuff at the small, small, insignificant price of a human life. But hey, the fu*ker brought a knife to a gun fight, what an idiot!

 

[Younigue]

You should just quit posting if this is all ya' got.

You should stop giving advice you yourself won't take.

 

[ivwshane]

Holy Cripes man who doesn't understand and support shooting someone to avoid financial inconvenience and keeping your stuff at the small, small, insignificant price of a human life. But hey, the fu*ker brought a knife to a gun fight, what an idiot!

I thought it was odd that he said he didn't know if he could shoot someone. Why have the gun then? If you aren't going to shoot to kill then its probably better to keep the gun out of the equation and like in his original encounter, walk away alive.

 

[jackstar7]

Just because we recognize the actual need to defend our lives is remote does not mean we will allow you disarm the law-abiding and make it a turkey shoot for criminals. You don't have the right to deprive us of the basic human right to defend ourselves because you may be uncomfortable doing so yourself, or because you think it will make you a tiny bit safer (because, yeah, being disarmed in a world where only criminals are armed = safer. )

That you call it a NEED is telling.

If you didn't know that.

Also, is a piece of technology a basic human right? That doesn't sound right to me.

 

[bradly1101]

There is, leave the country. Ciyas, chump.

Ahhh. The ever-ready fix for whatever we disagree with. Some if not all critics love this country despite its sordid history/present and would love to see positive changes come from debate and our leaders. That's love of country. That's democracy. The kick 'em out crowd seems to want something different.