Why Do People Think They Need A Gun?

Why Do People Think They Need A Gun?

People don't "think" they need a gun. That's the very point.

originally posted by: TheBolt
Wouldn't you want to promote that you have a gun so that no one messes with you?

If you were going to the bank to make a sizable deposit would you carry the bills in a clear sack for all the undesirables to take note of?

I dont think I need to carry a gun

I have a right to carry a gun.

And I have a right to free speech.

And a few other rights.

But the gun right is what protects the other rights. Take that away and you give all the others away Willingly.

a reply to: smirkley

Except that isn't true everywhere else where Free Speech is a right, but gun owning is not.

Nobody is going to take guns away from Americans, it just wont happen. But the paranoia surrounding the 2nd Amendment continues in spite of that fact.

By the way, many would argue that the rest of the Rights enshrined in the Constitution exist under the protection of the 1st Amendment, not the 2nd.

Heck, they even put them in that order!

a reply to: Leonidas

Well I can only speak as an American. I have never known otherwise nor can I imagine otherwise.

The only paranoia of the second amendment is from those that think it is in place for the right to hunt squirrels or protect your homestead primarily, where actually it's first purpose is to protect the peoples from the tyranny of it's governments. The first amendment could not exist without the second, nor any others. Not many people have their own tanks or aircraft carriers which is why the federal militaries can not act with aggression within the US borders. Our militia the National Guard supports us within our borders although more recently are on loan to the federal military machine.

But my point is and on topic, the right to own and bear arms are a personal choice by each citizen not to be infringed upon by other citizens that prefer to not bear arms.

If course there are bad guys with guns and accidents happen too. But that is not mine nor any other legal and law abiding citizens fault. But that is not a proper reason to over regulate or mandate.

a reply to: teslahowitzer

Whats wrong with the police?

a reply to: Leonidas

Price of freedom is eternal vigilance...

If people don't remain paranoid about it, do you honestly think the fed would not try and advance a gun confiscation agenda?

Australia had a long history of gun ownership, hunting etc... So did England...

Sometimes the paranoia gets a bit crazy, but without it i have no doubts they will continue to chip away at the 2nd.

a reply to: smirkley

What is the right of gun ownership worth if you can't have Free Speech?

There are many Free countries that have do not have Free gun ownership.

The 1st Amendment - the right of free speech - is the most critical to any society. It is done without a 2nd Amendment in many places. But that doesn't mean that America should dump the 2nd Amendment. That wont happen.

If guns don't offer some protection, why do cops carry guns?


Why did the Pioneers carry guns? To protect themselves and family from bears, wolves or hostel Indians and other vile people.

Of course its not such a necessity in today's times but a gun would have been a might handy to the Pioneers, since you can't exactly run a deer down, catch him and cut his throat if you need something to eat.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: Answer

Thank you for this thread. I get sick and tired of hearing anti gun people saying all of the things you've listed, all the while depending on guys with guns to protect them. I also like that you've given valid reasons why people should be armed. Guns in the right hands save lives.
Here is another reason: If you're out in the woods, they are necessary. I live in the mountains and there are snakes here. I'm not talking garter snakes. I'm talking copperheads and rattle snakes. Also, there are coyotes. They will attack if they think they have an advantage. There are also bears. You can't outrun them and climbing trees won't work. They can climb, too.

Many times even a gun won't help with a bear.....has to be a large caliber with enough behind it to push through. I have read accounts of bullets "bouncing" off bear skulls before. Would hate to go up against an angry one with my .45. I believe I would be at a slight disadvantage....

And that's why protecting the right to arm bears is such a bad idea.

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: smirkley

What is the right of gun ownership worth if you can't have Free Speech?

There are many Free countries that have do not have Free gun ownership.

The 1st Amendment - the right of free speech - is the most critical to any society. It is done without a 2nd Amendment in many places. But that doesn't mean that America should dump the 2nd Amendment. That wont happen.

With so many amendments, it occurs to be that the constitution was not that good from the beginning.

originally posted by: ispyed
a reply to: teslahowitzer

Whats wrong with the police?

Ask Freddie Gray.

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: smirkley

Except that isn't true everywhere else where Free Speech is a right, but gun owning is not.

Nobody is going to take guns away from Americans, it just wont happen. But the paranoia surrounding the 2nd Amendment continues in spite of that fact.

By the way, many would argue that the rest of the Rights enshrined in the Constitution exist under the protection of the 1st Amendment, not the 2nd.

Heck, they even put them in that order!

Right, they thought freedom of speech was paramount, but they thought the right to keep and bear arms was jsut as important--that's why they put it just after.

There is a phrase about the three boxes of liberty: the soap box, the ballot box, and the cartridge box.

a reply to: Mianeye

I'ts not about winning--anyone who sees it that way is debating this for the wrong reason. Just because I can negate what you say doesn't mean I'm trying to "win" anything; on the contrary, it just means that what you're saying is debatable.

I get that you have reservations about gun ownership by stupid people--so do I. But the majority of lawful gun owners are not stupid about how or why they own them, and having reservations about the few who are doesn't mean that the right to own them in America should be abolished.

Thanks for the discussion, even if you feel one of us had to win or lose.

I carry/own guns for the following reasons:

A. To protect myself and my family.
B. It's my right.
C. I'm not paranoid... Just prepared for a bad situation.

If you knew a hurricane was coming, would you stay in your beach house and live your normal daily life?
I live in a nice area. Crime is well below state and national levels. I still carry for the freak accident that nobody is expecting.

a reply to: moniker

The Constitution is just fine...keep in mind that the Amendments are part of the Constitution, not a separate entity altogether. Just because the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) wasn't ratified as part of the Constitution until two years later doesn't mean "that the constitution was not that good from the beginning," it just means that there were a few important things that they overlooked, or assumed was common knowledge but then realized they should be in writing.

The beauty of the Constitution is that, when it is agreed upon by 3/4 of the states that something is wrong, it can be changed. If it couldn't be changed, and things that were originally part of the Constitution proved to be critically errant, we couldn't amend anything to make it better. That is part of the fault of many nation's documents that ours corrected--at least we're not bound to the whims of a dictator or monarch to have the only power to make changes to how our nation is governed. (in fact, the amendment process bypasses the president altogether)

The amendment process is not a shortcoming of the Constitution, but one of its best parts.

Why people think they need guns?

Because in a country like the US where their government constantly screws everyone over, owning a gun is about the only thing a lot of people think ensures them 'freedom'. A lot of Americans would probably give up almost all their rights before giving up the right to carry a gun and feel 'empowered'. So far from ensuring freedom gun ownership allows the government to constantly strip away peoples rights.

Without guns Americans might realize just how oppressive and corrupt their government really is and they may even get up and do something about it. All the government has to do is threaten to take away their guns every now and then and during the public outrage that follows they can pass just about any other law and it goes by unnoticed/unchallenged.

"as long as i still have my gun im winning...."

originally posted by: moniker

With so many amendments, it occurs to be that the constitution was not that good from the beginning.

Not true at all. The Constitution is often called A Living Document. This is because it was designed to grow and change with the needs of society as a reflection of that society. It's not a weakness of the document that allows it to change, it is one of its greatest strengths in that new amendments may be added or currently existing amendments can be repealed. Otherwise only white, male land owners would be eligible to vote and we could still own slaves or the 10th amendment would be worthless. The Constitution, as written and ratified in 1788, reflected American society at the end of the 18th century and the dawn of the industrial revolution. As territory expanded rapidly in the early 19th century and immigrants began to make their way here, the demographics of our society began to shift. The constitution and the amendment process performed as designed. Some amendments were ratified and many others died without ratification.

a reply to: peter vlar

No no no no no no.

If it were a "living document" there would be no need to include the mechanism or the requirements to make changes to it.

It is not there to change and morph with the times.

The process to make changes, or amend it, are clear as day.

What you offer is the basis of every Progressive ideal out there, which bastardizes words and sentences to mean something entirely different than what it is.

a reply to: macman

I completely agree.

The living document method is simply a way of getting around the letter AND spirit of the law and twisting it to some meaning that differs from both intent and known history.

Progressives don't read the Federalist and they have no intention to know what is in it considering the second amendment or any other amendment. They simply tell themselves and others that "We don't know what the founders intended". That is simply not true. There are more than enough written records to solidify the meaning of every clause in the Constitution, to include the intent and philosophy behind the Second Amendment.

With that said:

No document, government, or agency thereof do not grant me my rights. They are a natural consequence of my presence here on Earth. If anybody wishes to take that from me I will defend it with words and paper first. If that doesn't work I have the training, experience, mentality, and equipment for combat - and I am not above guarding those rights with my blood.