Every possible reason for gun ownership addressed and countered

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by foodstamp

 

What does evaluations and greater accountability do for gun control? Really... It doesn't stop guns from being stolen. It doesn't stop them by being bought legally through a proxy (90% of all illegl guns owned are bought legally) It doesn't stop anything. Just gives law abiding citizens more headaches and higher taxes to implement such a board to oversee a futile worthless form of control. Gun control will not stop a law abiding citizen turned madman from getting a gun and using it. Not ever... Your solution of more control does nothing to counter act the problem. Never has, never will. Our history of gun control is a testament to that..

And here youve just admitted that legal guns very easily get into the wrong hands, this is why guns need to be banned.
Having legal ones around just gives criminally minded people more and easier options for obtaining them

Yeah, I admit it... It's so easy because it's our right. So access is always there... It's when your start to put useless bans in place that just complicate things. Of course they fall into the wrong hands sometimes.. That's why more people should be armed..

You cannot and will not EVER be able to ban guns completely... They will ALWAYS be there...

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by tamusan

 

What do you mean by accountable?

And how does it reduce gun crime as a whole?

Please don't take it the wrong way. I am curious as to what you propose.

Practically all the guns that are "illegal" in the US started out as "legal" guns
Whoever got them legally should be responsible for what those guns do even when not in their hands.

Would stop alot of straw purchases and people would make more of an effort to secure them

Ok, And the fact that 90% of illegally possessed guns are legally purchased..That doesn't mean anything?

Hitting a law abiding citizen with a felony or misdemeanor for having there gun stolen will not even put a dent in gun violence..

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


1. it hasnt changed at all, in that statement it means exactly what I stated. Would you Liberals please quit trying to change the definition of everything to suit your needs.

2. No not mine alone and I most certainly hope it would never come down to that but if it did trust me more than 10% would come together

3.look it up, look up statistics for each place.

4.What a disgusting thing to say and you should be ashamed at yourself for comparing the two. Do you use any old family recipes to cook? do you pass blankets, dolls, rings etc... down from generation to generation? There is a big difference. I answered your questions that you presented 1-15 it would take hours to go over every point of your Liberal Rhetoric and try to persuade you, you are obviously set in your stubborn ways.

Where did you get 100 million gun wielding ones from? Oh I see you confuse us Law abiding citizens who exercise our rights in law abiding ways with the bastards who use them against us. Just so you understand having a lawfully owned weapon to hunt with is not the same as having unlawfully stolen weapons to use to kill and rob others with. 100million vs less than 10,000
And again I say how dare someone allow themselves to be murdered and have their lawfully obtained weapons stolen from them, shame on them.

And for your last points.... I dont live in fear at all. Im an American citizen with rights and I know them. It is because of those rights that I dont live in fear.

I love my country, I love what we have stood for and I hope will continue to stand for. But I loathe people who would take from me my rights and the rights of All Americans because they dont understand something.
The tragedy of what happened was not lost on me. I am a mother and I cried for those babies whose lifes were cut short. The person was a psychopath so please stop judging us law abiding, friendly, good hearted people as if we are all psychopaths as well.
I say to you only to read, read up on American History and try to understand us, understand what it means for us to have these rights and what it means to us if we give them up.

reply to post by foodstamp

1. It's in the constitution * I do understand your point of view that it would appear to relate to a militia specifically, however. Militia's ARE the citizenry. Therefore the citizenry must be armed. Weither or not the militia is organized by the State or the citizenry itself is irrelevant. Not too mention, the PROPER understand of this ammendment has been repeated over and over again in just about ALL our state constitutions. A topic that you do not bring up. In many of these State constitutions, you will find that the wording is even MORE straight forward so you don't "misunderstand it". And the general consensus for these various constitiutions are that the citizenry be armed WITHOUT question. So , I disagree, the ammendment has not been misunderstood by the masses.

I was not aware states had seperate constitutions with different wording, interesting and I will look into that.
I was under the impression THE Constitution was the law of the land.
Militia is an armed group, not 100 million armed individuals

This comment by you is nieve at best. Many many MANY nations that have installed total gun bans have eventually lead to the stAtes turning around and using guns against it's citizenry. Usually during protest or the like. Not too mention, you will find that the countries that exist today that have total gun bans are also amongst the countries with the worst human rights violations in history.

America is not some middle Eastern country, the right to protest is also protected by your constitution is it not?
If your gov is so bad and you think it has the potential to turn on you why not do something before it gets to that stage?
And as for gun bans

Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Japan (excluding WW2 of course) to name a few all have gun bans and our human rights record is pretty good

You make it seem that because the governments gunsare bigger that somehow that makes this a valid argument. You either have not thought this out well or are ignorant to the fact that the government cannot function without it's people. So yes, an armed response by civilians is a REAL threat to the government. The world's histories of disarming the public over and over again is testament to this. Guns are necessary in order to defend a free state. It's a fact.

OK so your saying that you really think if it came to open war against your government you and say another 2 million with your handguns would give them a run for their money?
Really

Once again nowadays to depose a gov the best way is civil disobedience, Ill ask you the same question Ive asked practically everyone else, all have ignored it so far.
If you really feel your gov is capable of shooting you down why not do something about it now before its gets to that stage?

Your argument here has NO bearing on the gun issue. In fact you reinforce what gun "lobbyists" have been saying for decades. There are many crazies here that do "crazy" stuff. and the citizenry must defend themselves and there communities. The guns didn't cause the problem. The crazy man did. And many of the same countries you speak also have gun laws that aren't as strict yet the prblem with mass shottings is non-existant. That should tell you something. Guns in a free society are not the issue. The people IN the society are the issue. Which is why you see tragedy's happen in the US but not in,say, Sweden for example, where every citizen is ISSUED an AK-47 by it's own government when they come of age.

Im not sure I 100% understand the point your making here, most of these crazy people arent buying the guns they are getting them from friends or family who got them legally. A crazy in Australia has very little chance of getting a gun unless he knows some real shady people, even then they would be unlikely to get him one as it would bring heat on them.

I think you mean Switzerland and yes they all have guns but no bullets since 96 so that argument is bunk.

4. It's our tradition You bring up a valid point that tradition does not make something "correct" I agree. However. Guns are tradition not just because they happen to be "tradition". They are tradition because they've been around as long as we've had a constitution and before! And the framers of the constitution were correct in their views about absolute power and defense of the citizenry. That's why we have the nation we do today! You may not see guns as being "right". But judging by history and mans lust for power and money, I'd say you have your head WAY up your own butt.

OK its 6 am here and Ive been responding to replies on this thread for hrs, either they are all blending together in my head or Ive responded to this post earlier in the thread.

Your reason for them being tradition isnt a reason at all its actually the definition

To everyone who has taken the time to post and hasnt been responded to I apologise, Its been busier than I expected.
Ill get around to you but please be patient.

I need some sleep but will be back tomoz to try and get back to the rest of you.

Cheers

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

No sane Dictator President King or Queen would ever invade the USA with all the guns their are here.

reply to post by shaneslaughta

 

While this may have been true back in WW2 do you still think this applies today?

First of all they would have to somehow get troops to the US and unless its Canada or Mexico you think are gonna attack, while they were on the way over they would be blown away!!!!!

2nd the whole economic side of a war with the US is a major deterent.

I doubt very much that nowadays your armed citizens comer into play as a major issue to potential invasions

Got news for ya. Foreign troops are already here. At least the Russian and Chinese. We also have a very open southern border.
You think economic war with the US is a deterrent? The US went bankrupt in 1933 and was taken over by it's creditors. Where the hell have you been? The US no longer has a good manufacturing base. We're a service economy. Our college grads are flippin' burgers!
The rest of the world does not want to do business in the dollar. That's one of the main reasons for Iraq, Libya, and other countries. They no longer wanted to trade their resources for dollars so the US had to make up excuses (lies) to go in and murder and steal. And United States Inc calls people terrorists for defending their country and families against this murderous regime. I am quite sure that once United States Inc has smashed the rest of the world that they will have no problem(conscience) smashing the people of America.

WORLDWIDE HISTORY OF GUN CONFISCATION

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


The milita in the United States is defined as every citizen with a few exceptions under title ten of the U.S. Code.

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Every US citizen is a member of the unorganized militia by law.

Switzerland has machine guns in most every home, bullets were issued until 2007, not 1996, so the arguement is not "bunk." Swiss citizens can purchase semi-automatic versions of the issue SIG on their own and they can pop down to the gun shop and buy all of the exact same ammo they want with their own money so you are incorrect that there is no ammo, just that the Swiss government no longer issues ammo for home storage.

"Civil disobedience the best way." Statement of opinion, not of fact. Only works if you have a government unwilling to do horrible things to you. I agree that we should change things now before it gets that bad but gun control is part of the process that every dictator and totalitarian had to take, so stopping it actually is a step in the opposite direction.

Yes, yes, I know that the Commonwealth states are hardly dictatorships which is why I stated "part" of the process. Many people look to only single solutions and single causes for complex issues.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

1) Its in our constitution

The 2nd Amendment I just found out (much to my surprise) consists of only 2 sentences

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The writing is somewhat ambiguous but I take it to mean an armed militia exclusively, not an armed citizenry.

I don't see this as being ambiguous. What is ambiguous about "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

But let's assume that the reading comprehension skills of Congress, the POTUS, and the Supreme Court is such that they can read the 2nd Amendment and think it means that only the Militia can have weapons (not really a stretch when you consider the state of the education system in the US).

If only the Militia can have weapons, then that would mean that the Military and LEOs have no exclusive right to weapons, any more than anyone else. They are not Militia, after all. If you're going to ban guns from anyone not allowed to have them, strip every soldier, every cop, every FBI, CIA, DHS, ATF, etc. who is not in a Militia of their weapons. Those Secret Service people protecting the President, let them use batons. The same for the agents protecting his children, members of Congress, and the Supreme Court, etc. If we don't need guns to protect ourselves, neither to they.

We can save a lot of money by laying off 1/3 of the ATF, since they will become the just the AT. SWAT teams can conduct raids on meth labs with tazers, since it would be illegal for meth labs to have guns. That alone would save a lot of lives when the raid they wrong houses, which they are apt to do. It would also save a lot of dogs lives. Blackwater would have to conduct their mercenary business without guns.

Of course, the US would have a harder time invading countries that are armed, but it would save a lot of children's lives in those countries. And, of course, drones would have to be disarmed. They are not even people, so the 2nd clearly doesn't apply to machines.

You speak of pitting armed US citizens against the US military as if that would ever be the case. You do realize that those serving in our military have civilian families and are usually very tight knit with their fellow members and THEIR families. You honestly think that they will blindly turn against all that. I am not stating as fact, but Its very plausible to think that most of our serving military members do it to serve their country, to protect the citizens. No one I could imagine joins the military eager to become a lapdog for the government. They do it for traditions, to better themselves, job training and education incentives, and in most cases, just for a steady income to support their families. I suggest watching the a show called Jericho which aired on TV years ago. very good show about the corruptions of government and corporations.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


Ill make this short. You threw in every tired stat and argument out there for gun control.
Can the government GUARANTEE protection in the event of EMP, CME, WMD, zombie infection, Wheat rust, Black Plague, and the like? No. and because of this, I will own a gun. game over.
I won't lie to you and say its for hunting. I bought it to kill people. I would be very afraid if I had to use it, but I will.

Is this the USA fault? Are guns the cause of violence? You argue its guns, because it differeniates us from other countries. I can think of countless things that differentiate us from other countries, of which by your logic, any one of them could cause violence. Prove its not Hollywood, or our tremendous wealth, or our immigration policy that does not lead to violence.
You can hockey stick your stats anyway you want. How about this stat - on a per capita basis, there are less violent crimes per gun owned, compared to other countries.
How about this one - number of murders per capita - we are about in the middle, compared to other countries.

I tell you what. I support your position. I am counting on it if civilization ends as we know it. Please, do not choose to compromise your values at that point. Stay the course! Take the high ground. Be the better man Gunga din.

Originally posted by SpearMint
A great, thought out and logical thread. Too bad the majority of people that are pro-guns are unable to construct an intelligent reply and resort to personal attacks or arguing with the mental capacity of a 5 year old. I'm yet to see a good argument for gun ownership, it's always the same few fallacies that you have addressed. I'm tired of trying to talk sense in to people though, they ignore numbers and rational thinking.

Nine pages before your comment. There many intelligent replies as to the pro-gun side of this. Maybe a little over your head. Numbers and rational thinking are all there for you to see, but you can't, or won't. Plain and simple: It's common knowledge that when the citizenry is disarmed the people are slaughtered. Unless that is, of course, the citizenry is already brain-dead and submissive. Then they don't need to slaughter, they already have complete and utter control over you.

reply to post by Greenx06


they did during hurricane katrina.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


My gun saved my life and the life of my wife and step-son. It took the life of the career criminal that was kicking in my front door with a loaded shotgun. It's folks with mindset's like yours that help clear out the guns so the genicide can commence. Without my gun that night. I would be a damn statistic in the paper. So would my wife and step-son.

If I coulld I would shake the damn hand of Gaston Glock. You don't live here. Your tax dollars don't get used here. You have no vested interest in the affairs of another country. I am pro gun. Will be till I die. Really gets my goat when folks outside the USA complain about our gun rights. What;s wrong, jealous? If so you really need to get the hell over it.

Originally posted by Bildo

Originally posted by SpearMint
A great, thought out and logical thread. Too bad the majority of people that are pro-guns are unable to construct an intelligent reply and resort to personal attacks or arguing with the mental capacity of a 5 year old. I'm yet to see a good argument for gun ownership, it's always the same few fallacies that you have addressed. I'm tired of trying to talk sense in to people though, they ignore numbers and rational thinking.

Nine pages before your comment. There many intelligent replies as to the pro-gun side of this. Maybe a little over your head. Numbers and rational thinking are all there for you to see, but you can't, or won't. Plain and simple: It's common knowledge that when the citizenry is disarmed the people are slaughtered. Unless that is, of course, the citizenry is already brain-dead and submissive. Then they don't need to slaughter, they already have complete and utter control over you.

People are slaughtered? You mean like what happens on a regular basis in the US right now, and what doesn't happen in places like the UK and Aus?

Well, I'm still curious. What's stopping another nub job to enter the school and stab those kids to death with a knife?

Or beat them to death with a steel pipe?

What is the difference?

Why are we staring at guns.. while any lethal object could get the job done. Was it because guns were used during this event?

Would the outcome be any different if the killer used a butcher knife and killed all the kids?

Will the angry/sad parents blame butcher knife manufacturers next? Or perhaps the chefs that needed butcher knifes in the first place?

This is my first comment here on ats. for those who think that we don't need to be armed you better think again.

www.liveleak.com...

The video may be depicting a soldier pulling a prank but it terrifies me knowing that if we were unarmed this kinda stuff can happen to us jokingly or not. We already have a problem as it is with trigger happy cops, I can only imagine would it would be with soldiers patrolling our streets. We should have a right to defend our selves wether it's to defend our home or from our own government. If our government is allowed to carry weapons we should too. Look at what's going on in Mexico there is a ban on weapons over there, yet the criminal cartels over there are fully loaded with weapons of all sorts; a civilian has no chance to defend them selfs from the cartels or curropt cops. No I do not want to live a life where I cannot defend myself, family and fellow Americans .

This is my first comment here on ats. for those who think that we don't need to be armed you better think again.

www.liveleak.com...

The video may be depicting a soldier pulling a prank but it terrifies me knowing that if we were unarmed this kinda stuff can happen to us jokingly or not. We already have a problem as it is with trigger happy cops, I can only imagine would it would be with soldiers patrolling our streets. We should have a right to defend our selves wether it's to defend our home or from our own government. If our government is allowed to carry weapons we should too.

Look at what's going on in Mexico there is a ban on weapons over there, yet the criminal cartels over there are fully loaded with weapons of all sorts; a civilian has no chance to defend them selfs from the cartels or curropt cops. No I do not want to live a life where I cannot defend myself, family and fellow Americans .

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


I will address your points.

1) First of all, the Constitution was not created during a time of war. It was created 7 years after the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, which ended the Revolutionary War. I interpret the 2nd Amendment differently. I read it as 3 parts. The first part establishing the necessity of the militia. The second part establishing the right of the people to bear arms. The third part stating that these rights shall not be infringed.

You don't convince me that Americans no longer need guns. The points you made pointing out why are irrelevant(military, geography) or opinion(necessity). I also find it ironic that a gun-hater is telling people they don't need guns. Kind of a conflict of interest there is it not?

2) You are using a worst case scenario as your only justification. Think about it in a smaller scale. The government of the USA is increasingly taking away the right of the people to have a legal recourse to resolve problems or issues. Use your imagination as to why they want to take away the right of the people to own firearms.

3) So what? These things are meaningless to me. I am aware of the fact that the human race is a violent species. Accordingly, I take steps to ensure my self-preservation. For example, I avoid gun-free zones because I know that they are a shooting range for the excessively violent human being.

Also, the USA has the third highest population in the world. Mathematically, instances of violent acts have a greater chance of occurring the higher the population is.

I'll take my chances. Limiting freedom for a false sense of security leads to oppression. Interestingly, the majority of these massacres have taken place AFTER the USA began the policy of sacrificing freedom for security.

4) Again, so what? I am not the type of person that will meddle in the affairs of other cultures out of a twisted sense of righteousness. I think it is sick that sensible people interfere with others because said sensible person believes that they are right and others are wrong. I see people of this ilk as nothing more than petty tyrants pushing their will on others.

It is not anyone's duty to correct what they believe is wrong. I am content and secure in the knowledge that "I" am a good man. It is not my place to enforce my standards on cultures even if I see things in it that I consider wrong.

So, in closing, I believe that you have addressed and countered nothing.

Originally posted by samerulesapply
Pro-gun ownership types will never back down...there's no bigger picture, only the world they and theirs permeate, you can argue this point until you're black and blue but they won't ever back down - it's a waste of time.

People are selfish, they want what they want and what they want is all that matters...there is no greater good because for humanity to progress for the better requires sacrifice and compromise...and people are just too damn selfish to go there...so were doomed if you ask me.

Have fun killing one another...me? I won't ever visit the states, the abundance of guns being one reason, the extremist religious right ebing another, I could go on. Don't whine when half the world can't be bothered with you, sick hearing this crap. A destructive nation, anyone who can't see that is blind or part of it.

Ok almighty wise one, did you bother to include the worlds military's into your equation? Nope so that in itself goes to show what your selfish agenda is now doesn't it? Why didn't you include that, and by the way we won't miss your arrogance here anyway so stay where you are.