100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Guns | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
No one will ever get my guns..And If they try they will barrel first. Exactly the type of person we don't need owning a gun. I don't agree with the government so I will shoot them. Really because we have right to overthrow the government........and that is written also in the bill of rights and constitution.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm more scared of all these people who love guns being able to buy them than I am of the army being set loose on the people, or whatever the paranoid delusion is. I'm never quite clear. However, the wording in the Second Amendment could be read like this: "Because an army is necessary for the security of the state, the private citizens can carry guns." Which probably made a lot of sense at the time. Now, not so much. I'm not sure how much we should be pandering to paranoid delusions. In any case, the idea that you might want to declare war on your own government, and arm yourself for that specific purpose... only in America would you consider that patriotism. Any other country in the world would call that treason. Makes just as much sense now as it did then......should we be invaded.......or a civil war.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No one will ever get my guns..And If they try they will barrel first. Exactly the type of person we don't need owning a gun. I don't agree with the government so I will shoot them. Really because we have right to overthrow the government........and that is written also in the bill of rights and constitution.... Yes and if you rad more posts you will see I have stated that fact in this thread. There is a difference between being in a war and shooting the messenger. Also an attitude like that doesn't help pro gun rights. If you lash out in violence it makes people not want to side with you. I am not against owning guns. I just personally interpret the constitution different and don't think it's a "right" but a privilege. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. Though, the ones who are kind of scary are the paranoid ones who talk about stockpiling guns and ammo because people and the government are out to get them. Classic AES. The law allows people to own guns. If they aren't breaking the law, it don't matter how "scary" you think they are. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A gun like fire is a tool of man for benefit or destruction.
Like fire it is regulated. The issue is only the degree of regulation. There is no cut and dried correct answer to the question of how much regulation is necessary or desirable. Thus the debate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A gun like fire is a tool of man for benefit or destruction. Like fire it is regulated. The issue is only the degree of regulation. There is no cut and dried correct answer to the question of how much regulation is necessary or desirable. Thus the debate. I disagree with that analogy. Fire cooks food, provides light and warmth. These are totally non destructive things. What non destructive things do guns do? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. Though, the ones who are kind of scary are the paranoid ones who talk about stockpiling guns and ammo because people and the government are out to get them. Classic AES. The law allows people to own guns. If they aren't breaking the law, it don't matter how "scary" you think they are. I can think whatever I'd like. I didn't say they need their guns taken away from them, did I? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So my question to everyone who opposes guns is this: Why do you want women to be raped and people to be murdered, robbed or assaulted? Show me where any of this has stopped since gun ownership has become more open? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree except the right to bear arms doesn't mean to own a gun. The supreme court said a man could have hunted for food everyday of his life and would not of been said to bear arms. You are incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms means ownership. The Washington Post on the ruling by the Supreme Court "The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service. " No I am not. United states vs Miller. It is much closer to the language used to write the bill because the case is more than70 years older. It also included other weapons, not gun related. Britain was good about banning staffs and shepherds crooks and other tools that could be used as weapons. Look up the history of the walking stick and shilleleigh (spelling). They were used as defensive weapons, but were technically banned even those they served other uses. The US when first drafting this accounted for farmers using scythes and other farm implements as weapons as needed. The government wasn't allowed to take those away. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So my question to everyone who opposes guns is this: Why do you want women to be raped and people to be murdered, robbed or assaulted? Show me where any of this has stopped since gun ownership has become more open? It hasn't stopped, but it's less common. I quoted the average statistical drop in a previous post. I support policies that 1) are constitutional and 2) result in fewer crimes. If you support gun control or bans, you have to explain why you support policies that are 1) Unconstitutional and 2) result in more crimes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So my question to everyone who opposes guns is this: Why do you want women to be raped and people to be murdered, robbed or assaulted? Show me where any of this has stopped since gun ownership has become more open? It hasn't stopped, but it's less common. I quoted the average statistical drop in a previous post. I support policies that 1) are constitutional and 2) result in fewer crimes. If you support gun control or bans, you have to explain why you support policies that are 1) Unconstitutional and 2) result in more crimes. I'd like to know if there's been a drop due to guns, or if, more then likely, women aren't reporting them anymore. After all, if the laws aren't helping the victim, then why bother. I actually have no problem with guns. I disagree with concealed, I think its idiotic. When the states go to visible holsters, I might get one myself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So my question to everyone who opposes guns is this: Why do you want women to be raped and people to be murdered, robbed or assaulted? Show me where any of this has stopped since gun ownership has become more open? It hasn't stopped, but it's less common. I quoted the average statistical drop in a previous post. I support policies that 1) are constitutional and 2) result in fewer crimes. If you support gun control or bans, you have to explain why you support policies that are 1) Unconstitutional and 2) result in more crimes. I'd like to know if there's been a drop due to guns, or if, more then likely, women aren't reporting them anymore. After all, if the laws aren't helping the victim, then why bother. I actually have no problem with guns. I disagree with concealed, I think its idiotic. When the states go to visible holsters, I might get one myself. So...you think it's possible that after a state legalizes CC, people stop reporting crimes so often? I guess that's possible, but it is so much MUCH more likely that fewer crimes are committed because people are afraid of being shot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So my question to everyone who opposes guns is this: Why do you want women to be raped and people to be murdered, robbed or assaulted? Show me where any of this has stopped since gun ownership has become more open? During the decades the American Rifleman has published “The Armed Citizen” column, thousands of incidents of law-abiding Americans using firearms to halt or prevent crime have appeared in the magazine. Editorial space allowing, the total could have been far greater of course, as award-winning survey research shows that each year in the U.S. gun owners use firearms for protection as frequently as 2.5 million times. This archive contains “Armed Citizen” entries from the present back to 1958. The database is searchable by key word and state and results are displayed in chronological order according to the month of publication in the American Rifleman. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statistics are a real easy means of verifying the effects of "gun control" in our country.
Take for instance the states and municipalities that have the most oppressive regulations and even outright bans on firearms. Washington DC is a great example. There you have for all intensive purposes a ban on gun ownership. Check the violent crime and murder rate per capita in DC. It is one of the highest in the nation. You'd think that intelligent people could deduce from the statistics that regulating and controlling "legal" gun ownership INCREASES violent crime. Perhaps it's because where the honest law abiding citizens are stripped of their right to bear arms the criminals run rough-shod over them. I don't believe it's a issue of statistics or historical record or even current social conditions in this country. I believe the debate today hinges on intellectual dishonesty, emotionalism and media spin of the facts. The sad truth is that most people don't take the initiative to educate themselves on these issues. They simply watch tv and listen to the reports spoon fed to them by the media. Hence the vast majority of them are carried away in the sensationalism attributed to this important issue by the liberal media. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rifle Association has too much money too buy the votes they need......guns won't ever be banned
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a shame that money buys votes in this country. I was taught that's bribery. I'm grateful for the NRA, but I have to say that they've misappropriated the issue regarding gun ownership at times.
The bottomline is that we have the right to own guns in this country because our constitution guarantees it. I think the issue is clouded many times by all of the "hunting" arguments. I am a hunter as well. But I don't need hunting to justify my right to own guns. Infact if we adopt hunting as a justification for gun ownership we fall prey to much of the political argument for the "kinds" of guns we can own. My position is this; If my enemy can get access to it, I should be able to own it to defend myself and my property. That goes from pee shooters to grenade launchers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a shame that money buys votes in this country. I was taught that's bribery. I'm grateful for the NRA, but I have to say that they've misappropriated the issue regarding gun ownership at times. The bottomline is that we have the right to own guns in this country because our constitution guarantees it. I think the issue is clouded many times by all of the "hunting" arguments. I am a hunter as well. But I don't need hunting to justify my right to own guns. Infact if we adopt hunting as a justification for gun ownership we fall prey to much of the political argument for the "kinds" of guns we can own. My position is this; If my enemy can get access to it, I should be able to own it to defend myself and my property. That goes from pee shooters to grenade launchers. I agree....we have a right to protect ourselves from government and invasion as well |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A gun like fire is a tool of man for benefit or destruction. Like fire it is regulated. The issue is only the degree of regulation. There is no cut and dried correct answer to the question of how much regulation is necessary or desirable. Thus the debate. I disagree with that analogy. Fire cooks food, provides light and warmth. These are totally non destructive things. What non destructive things do guns do? Guns offer protection, make warning sounds and can be used for any number of desirable uses. Shooting down mistletoe, hunt food, scare off a bear, herd animals or self defense. Fire always destroys something else to make warmth or light or cook food. Sometimes it destroys the food. So the analogy is still spot on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A gun like fire is a tool of man for benefit or destruction. Like fire it is regulated. The issue is only the degree of regulation. There is no cut and dried correct answer to the question of how much regulation is necessary or desirable. Thus the debate. I disagree with that analogy. Fire cooks food, provides light and warmth. These are totally non destructive things. What non destructive things do guns do? Guns offer protection, make warning sounds and can be used for any number of desirable uses. Shooting down mistletoe, hunt food, scare off a bear, herd animals or self defense. Fire always destroys something else to make warmth or light or cook food. Sometimes it destroys the food. So the analogy is still spot on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A gun like fire is a tool of man for benefit or destruction. Like fire it is regulated. The issue is only the degree of regulation. There is no cut and dried correct answer to the question of how much regulation is necessary or desirable. Thus the debate. I disagree with that analogy. Fire cooks food, provides light and warmth. These are totally non destructive things. What non destructive things do guns do? Guns offer protection, make warning sounds and can be used for any number of desirable uses. Shooting down mistletoe, hunt food, scare off a bear, herd animals or self defense. Fire always destroys something else to make warmth or light or cook food. Sometimes it destroys the food. So the analogy is still spot on.
Funny story my dad didn't believe in having a gun in the house except for an old civil war rifle and bayonnette.....well we had misltoe at the top of one of our and watching him try and shoot it down with a bow and arrow was just one of the funniest things I ever witnessed.....lost all my arrows he did..... |
|
|
|
|
