Guns Don't Make Us Free. Period.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

The US is the general bringer of Tyrany. Owning or not owning a gun will not change that. Guns in the wrong hands ends lives FACT. In fact guns have very little other uses than bringing death. Why some people are so keen on holding onto that is mystifying.

Oh...I even own guns myself. I've owned them since I've been 8 years old.

...and they haven't kept me "free" at all, have they?

That being said...I cannot imagine a lawful scenario in which someone would need a gun which held more than 6 rounds....other than perhaps holding back a tyrannical government.

But since there is 0.0000% chance of that happening anyways...what's the point? Nobody's "losing" anything by restricting everything to guns that can't be reloaded w/ fresh 20, 30, or 50 round clip in 2 seconds.

You know...revolvers and traditional shotguns and hunting rifles.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

The US is the general bringer of Tyrany. Owning or not owning a gun will not change that. Guns in the wrong hands ends lives FACT. In fact guns have very little other uses than bringing death. Why some people are so keen on holding onto that is mystifying.

So Michael do you believe the officials of your government are made of a finer sort of clay than you and your fellow citizens? Do you deny that throughout history more have died at the hands of tyrannical governments than at the hands of a sick individual?

It's a simple issue at hand, safety or liberty.

Well...religion has killed more people than governments and lunatics combined...so if you really want to use that logic...I'm totally cool with that.

Guess what? I want protection from the NEW government, and the 2nd amendment is STILL IN PLACE! Whether you agree with that or NOT the only reason the 2nd is still alive is because of people who recognized the threat you dismiss.

I'm not dismissing the THREAT. The threat is very, VERY, real.

I'm dismissing the idea that all those hardcore NRA members have the balls to do anything besides talk. In fact, the history of the last 5 decades has been that the more conservative elements of society blame the victim when the government screws them instead of standing by their fellow citizens.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by seabag

 

Yes it is complete and utter bs. If it worked as intented then you wouldn't have a government that can kill it's own citizens without trials, can send people to other countries for torture and all the other stuff that is all well known to the general public. Not to mention the fact that citizens if they'd choose to revolt with their peashooters wouldn't do anything against a government that has tanks, aircraft, drones, nukes etc.

edit on 16/12/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)

Exactly. You know who REALLY isn't scared of your guns??

THE GOVERNMENT!!

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by michael1983l

 

I could be perfectly healthy when I apply for my gun license, but mental illness can occur at any time and generally cannot be predicted. Doing a background check is merely a snapshot of time that is irrelevant the following week. Whilst guns are legal and so readily available, people with Mental Health problems and people with general irresponsibility and disregard for life will always get their hands on them.

So because you feel the need to be protected from yourself you’re willing to give up your freedom?

Then you deserve neither!!!!

No...I think what he's saying is that mathematically speaking there is a gun owner somewhere who just went nuts...but was fit as a fiddle 15 yrs ago when he bought his weapon. It might you...or michael...or some kid named Adam Lanza in CT. However...unless we periodically check from time to time...there really isn't any telling what kind looney now has a gun.

...or are you "against" the eye screen at the DMV every 10 yrs when you renew your license too?

I think you're confusing issues. These topics are irrespective of each other. And more importantly, a major misunderstanding of gun ownership is that gun owners are not looking to be heros. Speaking for myself my handgun is a tool of defense, not offense.

They did not use them while it still appeared the judicial system was functional and that we could vote in new people if the old ones proved crooked.
The judicial system has not been functional since at least Nov. 22, 1963.

You've just proven that gun owners are a very responsible class and will use every other option before resorting to violence.

I've never disputed this.

Despite overwhelming evidence we live under a corporate/banking oligarchy gun owners are still not ready to take up arms against their government.
...and they never, ever, will. Because it's just all bark...no bite.

Criminals do whatever they want regardless of the law, that's why they're criminals.

Yep...and that's why our criminal government has not been deterred in the least by all those guns you have.

All new laws will do is to disarm those same 10's of millions of responsible gun owners who still agree to live by the law and who have never broken the law.
These people deserve your respect for their restraint, not your admonition for failing to react with violence.

Yep. And with or without those guns...there will be zero difference in the way the government treats it's citizens.

Why do people only rag on America for having guns? Switzerland has more per capita than we do yet nobody wants to take theirs away.

edit on 16-12-2012 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)

Because the Swiss aren't animals...they don't murder one another with them each and every day. They are sane, decent, well-educated, responsible people who can be trusted with their guns and with sharp objects....and who ALSO doesn't even NEED THEM to keep their government in check.

It's the BOOKS that did it...NOT THE BULLETS.

Originally posted by CB328

If it worked as intented then you wouldn't have a government that can kill it's own citizens without trials, can send people to other countries for torture

Owning guns doesn't make you free- not needing guns, that's freedom.

Having a (somewhat) functional society is what makes us free and prosperous, but that's being destroyed by the same people who are clinging to their right to shoot people.

Correct.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

Personal defense is one of the best arguments for 2nd amendment. Police isn't there to protect you 24/7. The whole criminal vs. law abiding citizen is offtopic. This is about tyranny vs. armed citizenry. US is a shining example that a tyranny can flourish while the citizens is happily armed. It's not open for interpretation. It's a fact.

Good and evil are both ALWAYS present….guns just even the odds. A 100lb woman is as tough as a 250lb Navy SEAL when they both have a gun. It simply comes down to situational awareness and the element of surprise (mental ability).

THE GREAT EQUALIZER!!!

Really? My money is still on the Navy Seal.

reply to post by milominderbinder


I'm glad your further posts have refined your thoughts better because the OP left me wondering about the purpose. I agree with you, somewhat about how the past 50 or so years Americans have willingly gave up many freedoms with barely whimper. However, your statements about being alright with ceding the freedom to own the weapons currently available that can at least bring you to near parity with the individuals that comprise the forces of the oppressive government that you describe in you 10+ point in your OP, seem at the very least intellectually inconsistent. Why ascent to a reduction of rights you currently have to the government that does the things in your bullet points already?

And it is absolutely correct that The People are vastly over-matched by the implements of war possessed by the State in a face to face confrontation. However, there is no combat system in the inventory of any power that operates completely independent of Logistics even the lowly Rifleman. Tanks drink huge amounts of gas, require constant preventive maintenance, and break down more often despite that than anyone unfamiliar with them would ever think. Aircraft require even more meticulous preventive maintenance and are when not on a mission are, with some notable exceptions, confined to a fixed base. Retaining the little chance that The People would have to defeat a US military turned against Them is better than insuring there is no chance by restricting firearm ownership as you seem willing to accept.

It's also appropriate to remind you of the second to last sentence in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence while you rail against the crimes, to date unanswered for, committed by the government.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Originally posted by jefwane
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

I'm glad your further posts have refined your thoughts better because the OP left me wondering about the purpose. I agree with you, somewhat about how the past 50 or so years Americans have willingly gave up many freedoms with barely whimper. However, your statements about being alright with ceding the freedom to own the weapons currently available that can at least bring you to near parity with the individuals that comprise the forces of the oppressive government that you describe in you 10+ point in your OP, seem at the very least intellectually inconsistent. Why ascent to a reduction of rights you currently have to the government that does the things in your bullet points already?

I was waiting for that question. The short answer is...I don't advocate that at all.

To me it would seem most logical to frame the discussion in terms of a compromise that featured a de-militarization of BOTH "sides".

Isn't the reason the cops started militarizing in the '80's w/ the SWAT team largely due to the fact that gangs had machine guns and the cops had crappy service revolvers?

What if The Peasants agreed to give up guns w/ replaceable clips and/or a storage capacity over 6 rounds...and the cops agreed to give up chemical, drones, tanks, and all their riot gear? After all...isn't that ALSO what's making The Peasants feel the need to set new records for firearm sales every other day?

All in all...I think THE WHOLE COUNTRY would be best served by an OVERALL demilitarization. Not necessarily a complete DISARMING...but c'mon...shooting rampages can only go so far when a guy has to stop and reload his revolver...speed loader or not....but it's still more than enough for home defense and whatnot. People don't get into 2 hour firefights with burglars...a couple shots are fired tops...and then they are OUT OF THERE.

Isn't that a fairly sane approach? Doesn't it seem like something that BOTH the left AND the Right could come to agree to? After all...the drones are a real problem for cattle ranchers and the hippies have been getting hit with the chemical weapons...right?

...not that such a thing will ever happen. I have full confidence in our ability to be dumb. Team Tie-Dye will square off against Team RealTree and the only winner will be the Federal Reserve....just like always.

Just sayin'.

The solutions really aren't that difficult....but then we turn on the TV and there goes any hope for being reasonable with one another.

What do you expect gun owners to do?
Go on a shooting spree to bring justice back?

"what did gun owners do nothing"
OP is advocating the use of guns little does he know.

are you implying you wish for gun owners to do something?shoot more people?
No.obviously

As it stands now,I believe guns are only good for protection against guns LOL
pretty silly invention really :/

Guns Don't Make Us Free. Period.

Neither do corrupt Governments...

Your argument is not only invalid but completely out of touch with REALITY.

Governments are the greatest mass murderers, not amateurs like Adam Lanza or James Holmes.

94 million people were mass murdered in the 20th century by communist governments.

The enemy is now within... and always has been.

That reason ALONE is enough to make it obvious to anyone that surrendering our guns is total insanity.

Between 1980 and 2008, 4,685 people died in mass-murders.

In the 20th Century:

- Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.

- Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals.

How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power - and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed.

Death by "Gun Control"

"...the tragic fact is that disarming victims leads to great bloodshed. I'm referring to the millions of people who died at the hands of their government over the past century. Most of these mass murders were preceded by a cynical and calculating "gun control" program, leading to eventual disarmament. Genocide followed soon thereafter."

Leave Mass Murder to the Professionals

We are """Free""" by abiding by the Rules set in place far before our time,

People fight more about Guns than any other alleged 'Freedom' America has, Freedom of speech is all but dead, Freedom of religion, the equal rights of men and women etc, but as long as we have Guns to defend ourselves we are 'Free'

America is dictated by 'Rules' set in place at a different time, with a different mindset, we are being dictated by people who were involved with people we hate

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Guns Don't Make Us Free. Period.

Neither do corrupt Governments...

Your argument is not only invalid but completely out of touch with REALITY.

Talking about being out of touch with reality, being out of touch with reality could be defined by basing all of your laws on those that were made 600 years or so a go by people that had a very different reality to live in. I am sure that guns might have been a good idea, when you were protecting your ranches from those pesky indians that you just spent your time performing mass genocide on. Hell why don't we do the same here in the UK, we should all get a cross bow and keep our eyes out for a Welshman in Hereford on a Sunday, because our forefathers made this law then it must be logical and binding today.

Your "founding fathers" were not gods, they were people living in a completely different time than now with completely different enviroment to deal with. You have no idea how laughable it sounds to an outsider when you want to justify an outdated and simply dangerous law based on the fact that your "founding fathers" told you so and in no way should that ever be re-evaluated because that would take away your "rights". Laughable, really laughable. Just when you thought you couldn't laugh at the stupidity of some Americans anymore, you all come out with this argument.

Welcome to the 21st centuary.

What amazes me is that for almost two hundred years that Americans have been able to own guns, there were no mass shootings or psychotic killings. I mean really, did we ever really hear about them until maybe the 1960s at the very earliest? Then all of the sudden they start happening, and the solution is to ban guns? Why not find the real cause of the problem? I think is a symptom of a sick society, not a gun problem. Let's ban bad parents. If parents would all own guns and teach their children gun safety and to respect the power of the gun, i bet there would be a lot less shootings. Really, non-gun ownership is a bigger problem to a safe society than gun ownership is. But the anti-gun folk will never understand.

Or ban violent movie scenes that glorify killing in a way that children don't understand instead. (another failure on parents to keep their young b children from seeing violent movies.) But that would be against the 1st amendment, and the liberal anti-gun folk would be upset. With them, it's ok to pick and choose what laws in our bill of rights to follow.

I think the problem is lazy parents. They let their kids do whatever they want, and are surprised when little Johnny takes a gun to school and shoots up his classmates. Solution? Ban guns! Because stepping up and being a good parent is too hard for your typical lazy American parent.

And the fact of the matter is, guns DO make us safer, you just don't know it because you've never been in a situation where a gun has protected you. My guns have protected me and my family on a few different occasions. And I'm sure the guns police officers carry have saved quite a lot of lives as well.

Guns DO save lives. More so than they kill (in a non war setting.)

reply to post by michael1983l


As you are someone that is a subject and not a citizen in a country that doesn't allow guns, you have really no right telling americans what is best for them. Come back to the thread when you have some experience with guns under your belt. You are like someone who had never painted, telling Rembrandt how to do his job...

reply to post by WP4YT

I think the problem is lazy parents. They let their kids do whatever they want, and are surprised when little Johnny takes a gun to school and shoots up his classmates. Solution? Ban guns! Because stepping up and being a good parent is too hard for your typical lazy American parent.

I don't think it's soley lazy parenting, although I agree that is harming society.

I think when dual-income households started becoming a NECESSITY in this country, and people were unable to spend as much time raising their children, our values started to tank a bit. With parents unable to be there to instill values in their children, the 'folklore' effect of learning from mistakes and teaching right from wrong has dwindled in our culture.

One thing people always fail to connect to the values we had in the 50's is that your average family had a parent that stayed at home and took care of the every day issues that children faced.

The people of the US don't need a "no gun law", they need a attitude change.
Guns are nothing but a tool for the user to inflict fear and harm onto other people.
If you take away the guns, these people will find a different tool to do the same job.

A attitude change within the American society is the clue. Creating a new law prevents nothing.
A law is only used to charge people for the crime they have committed.

Originally posted by spy66
Creating a new law prevents nothing.

Exactly...

As far as mass shootings go: banning guns would be completely ineffective.

Insane people like this will always find ways to obtain them.

The shootings in Norway, Finland and Germany prove this.

Most of us know that when a crazy psycho shoots up a school, they violate any number of already-existing gun control laws to do so. Kliebold and Harris, who committed the Columbine massacre, violated 19 gun control laws in the process of obtaining and using their weapons. Connecticut laws prohibiting those under 21 from possessing firearms did not stop Adam Lanza from shooting up that school, nor did the laws against carrying guns onto school properties.

Here's the simple fact: lawbreakers break laws — make all the laws you want, you're only hindering the law-abiding from defending themselves and others, you're not slowing down the psychos in the least. Passing laws that restrict the millions of law-abiding gun owners in this country does nothing to prevent criminals from committing their deeds.

Banning Guns Would be Completely Ineffective

Gun control laws do not work, and in fact, make things even worse because they disarm people, making them prime targets for violence by the lawless. Millions of Americans are smart enough to see through the emotionalism to realize that as much as liberal Democrats may scream for gun control, these proposed laws would be absolutely worthless.

Germany has tough gun control laws, yet this didn't stop a gunman from killing 15 at a school near Stuttgart in 2009, nor did they prevent another gunman from killing 16 in Erfurt in 2002. The United Kingdom has very strict gun laws, yet this didn't prevent a psycho from killing 16 at a school in Dunblane, Scotland. Norway restricts guns severely, yet Anders Behring Breivik still managed to kill 69 children at a youth camp.

Facts make it very clear — gun laws and "gun-free zones" don't deter criminals, they encourage them. Passing stricter gun control laws simply means more people are prepared to be victims of violent criminals who don't bother to obey these laws. In essence, one failed law simply becomes the predicate for more failed laws.

Why most Americans don't go along with the calls for gun control