~ A Sad Story of Woe . . .

[n1bsbri]

Guns are not protected by the Constitution. The right to arm oneself - is simply an extension of the right to defend yourself. In a world that contains firearms - that means that individuals have a GOD GIVEN right to defend themselve - with firearms.

Addressing this part specifically - I said "guns" as a shorthand, and to make the argument consistent with the discussion of pools, etc. I really should have said "ownership of guns" which I think means approximately the same thing as the "right to keep...". I have no argument on the pre-existing right. The constitution only confirms and *protects* that right. I'm sticking by the protecting thing, otherwise what is the purpose of the constitution? It's spelled out there in order to protect it.

 

[calsdad]

Isn't a tool that you use to defend your life, one that this country acknowldedges that you have the natural right to own, much more important than a swimming pool or a car or anything else that you mentioned?

So, wouldn't it actually be more reasonable to presume that, if someone were going to lose something out of irresponsibility, they would lose a privalege such as that to drive a car, and not a right such as the right to keep and bear arms?

Not that I would agree with either case. But, I find it rather silly that you could argue that you would take away someone's natural right to defend their own life for being negligent, before you would take away their right to own a swimming pool for being negligent, when both have the same result.

I have no problem acknowledging the true purpose of guns. I think trying to say that "guns are just for putting holes in paper" is kowtowing to the moonbats who try to change the reality - because they can't deal with it.

So yeah - guns are MEANT TO KILL. I mean seriously - what else are they here for? Try to say that a gun is not a tool meant for killing stuff - is like saying cars are toys you buy a lot of and park in your garage because you like to impress your friends.

Stop trying to deny reality - and deal with it. Reality denial is a copyrighted and patented tool of the moonbats.

 

[OlSparky11B]

*Of course being a liberal with no logic to stand on, there's little doubt that he'll have an epic melt-down any minute now. That's what liberals do when they can't win a debate.

Now I admit, I missed out on a bit of running around in circles here, but I doubt he'll call anyone a racist/sexist/homophobe/xenophobe/jingoist.

 

[Brandon1317]

I have no problem acknowledging the true purpose of guns. I think trying to say that "guns are just for putting holes in paper" is kowtowing to the moonbats who try to change the reality - because they can't deal with it.

So yeah - guns are MEANT TO KILL. I mean seriously - what else are they here for? Try to say that a gun is not a tool meant for killing stuff - is like saying cars are toys you buy a lot of and park in your garage because you like to impress your friends.

Stop trying to deny reality - and deal with it. Reality denial is a copyrighted and patented tool of the moonbats.

You may not agree with my statements but I do respect the fact that are stating there original purpose and what they really are used for. Just being honest about these types of issues furthers your cause and teaches others. Years back all I heard about guns was there need for sport and hunting, no one really wanted to say for defensive purposes which is the one reason every one is giving for the right of ownership. Say I want them to defend myself and others and if I need to kill some one in the process that is the way it is, not I want to go shoot at things at the range and hunt which I have heard alot of gun owners telling others who they think are anti gun so they dont start a agrument.

 

[calsdad]

So you are ascribing human-like properties to an inanimate object? Wow.

Only antis believe that "guns are extra killy" compared to cars, basebal bats, knives, fire pokers, etc.

So you're telling us it would have been "less bad" if the person who was negligent here pushed this guy into a swimming pool and he couldn't swim, and the "victim" almost drowned, but then was resuscitated and forgave the "culprit"?

Ideologically these two scenarios are no different. Yet people like you, want to go out of your way to demonize a gun, as if the gun has some kind of mind of its own or something.

ETA: What do you think of this? If the "victim" was shot in the gut with one of these, would it make you feel better? This particular pistol was designed with the SOLE INTENT of being used to punch holes in paper, and never humans.... does that make it less "killy" to you?

-Mike

I actually think that he's right on that one.

The gun as a tool - has a purpose - the fact that there are guns out there that serve "sporting purposes" - doesn't change the true intent of the tool.

A circular saw's purpose in life is to cut stuff - just because people use them to hack up bodys doesn't change their true purpose as a carpenter's tool

The javelin that is thrown in track and field meets is simply a derivative of a spear - which is an implement of war - and has as it's purpose: to kill stuff.

The shotput - if you go back far enough in antiquity - was also an implement of war. Just because we see it only as a "sporting device" now - doesn't change the original intent of the device.

The bow and arrow - same thing.

How many shows are there now on Discovery Channel showing people with catapults seeing who can chuck a pumpkin the farthest - still doesnt change the original intent of catapults - which was to lob flaming balls and buckets of your enemies heads - back over the castle walls.


I have a hard time trying to dance around the true nature of guns - because it's like giving into the moonbats - who refuse to deal with reality.

 

[George D]

This thread is hilarious. Does anyone else think that Brandon is just playing a practical joke on us? He's going to drop a huge JK and we're all going to be pissed that we actually argued for two days over this. The dude can't really be that big of a moonbat moron. The joke is on us. I'm calling it right now.

 

[SamH]

Nice weather we're having this week .

 

[OlSparky11B]

Duck season.

Rabbit season.

Duck season.

Rabbit season.

Rabbit season.

Duck season....

 

[George D]

Geez....I go for one measly one mile run, and what do I miss?

Anyway,

1). As free men, we have the right to keep and bear arms....for whatever reason we want.

2) under our Constitution, this right is protected.

3) the only way anyone, ever, should be stripped of this right (or any other) is while incarcerated after being found guilty of a crime or crimes by a jury of his peers.

4) ostensibly, you're supposed to have paid your debt to society by the time you get out of prison. Out of prison = free man = see no1. if someone hasn't fully paid their debt, they ought not be out of prison.

5) in assault cases everywhere, if the victim doesn't want to press charges, generally charges aren't pressed. Why any different here?

Problem is, #4 gets clouded by "safe enough" instead of safe to release versus not safe to release.

 

[atmay]

Problem is, #4 gets clouded by "safe enough" instead of safe to release versus not safe to release.

That is a problem. And part of the problem is "but its illegal for felons to own guns, so it should be ok to release this murderer after a year and a half. Without legal access to guns, he can't do it again, right?".

 

[jasons]

"guns are just for putting holes in paper"
guns are MEANT TO KILL.

Both of these statements are overly-broad and completely unnecessary categorizations that do nothing to help the fight.

Saying that ~some~ guns are for target shooting or that ~some~ guns are for killing would be accurate but still utterly irrelevant. Either way I have a right to own them.

 

[atmay]

Both of these statements are overly-broad categorizations that do nothing to help the fight.

Saying that ~some~ guns are for target shooting or that ~some~ guns are for killing would be accurate but still utterly irrelevant. Either way I have a right to own them.

Exactly. It'd be like saying only poetry was 1a protected, or only political speech.

Or that you only enjoy 3A/4A protections in your primary residence, but your summer home is fair game.

 

[calsdad]

Yep, completely serious. I just don't delude myself with the bullshit a lot of guys on here spew to the antis. In my opinion that kind of stuff just sets us back in our cause by making us look stupid. Let me ask you... "Are you f...ing serious" that you actually believe that guns wer originally made, or are still made for any other reason, even though most of us will only ever punch paper with them?

Trying to ban guns because their "true purpose" is to put holes in paper - and occasionally somebody gets killed with one - is an entirely different story than banning guns that serve a deadly reality: sometimes people need to defend themselves, and yes - sometimes people get killed.

If too many people get it into their head that guns are just another "hobby" - then the govt. will have an easy time of it when and if they decide to put in a ban.

The excuse can be: " Find another hobby" - which is actually something I have seen people use as an excuse - people like Brandon.

 

[atmay]

To be fair, its more a pastime than hobby.

 

[jasons]

Trying to ban guns because their "true purpose" is to put holes in paper - and occasionally somebody gets killed with one - is an entirely different story than banning guns that serve a deadly reality: sometimes people need to defend themselves, and yes - sometimes people get killed.

Why? Either way it's banning guns....

 

[Brandon1317]

Some of you guys are funny! One breath you say every one not in jail should be able to have a gun but I have seen so many post where every one is saying oh well you have a old convicition your DQ'd and shouldn't have guns any more tough luck. Make up your minds, which one is it? If you really think every one should have guns if not in jail then thats the way it would be correct ? if there really is 50 mill plus homes with guns it would not be a problem getting that written into law. Unless you conclude that only the wealthy have the power to change things in this country..

 

[jasons]

Some of you guys are funny! One breath you say every one not in jail should be able to have a gun but I have seen so many post where every one is saying oh well you have a old convicition your DQ'd and shouldn't have guns any more tough luck. Make up your minds, which one is it? If you really think every one should have guns if not in jail then thats the way it would be correct ? if there really is 50 mill plus homes with guns it would not be a problem getting that written into law. Unless you conclude that only the wealthy have the power to change things in this country..

You should post quotes so we know who / what you're blabbering about. Who told you that PPs are cool and then said they weren't?

 

[bill o]

Trying to ban guns because their "true purpose" is to put holes in paper - and occasionally somebody gets killed with one - is an entirely different story than banning guns that serve a deadly reality: sometimes people need to defend themselves, and yes - sometimes people get killed.

If too many people get it into their head that guns are just another "hobby" - then the govt. will have an easy time of it when and if they decide to put in a ban.

The excuse can be: " Find another hobby" - which is actually something I have seen people use as an excuse - people like Brandon.

They'll try to ban them either way. If a gun's true purpose is for sport, they'll ban them and tell you to get another hobby. If a gun's true purpose is for self defense, they'll try to ban them because they're so rarely used for that purpose. If a gun's true purposes are both sport and self defense, see reasons 1 and 2 above.

The whole exercise of assigning a "true purpose" to a gun is meaningless. A gun's purpose is whatever it's used for.

 

[bill o]

Some of you guys are funny! One breath you say every one not in jail should be able to have a gun but I have seen so many post where every one is saying oh well you have a old convicition your DQ'd and shouldn't have guns any more tough luck. Make up your minds, which one is it? If you really think every one should have guns if not in jail then thats the way it would be correct ? if there really is 50 mill plus homes with guns it would not be a problem getting that written into law. Unless you conclude that only the wealthy have the power to change things in this country..

 

[atmay]

You should post quotes so we know who / what you're blabbering about. Who told you that PPs are cool and then said they weren't?

This. While both camps are represented here on NES, I don't think anyone ever flip-flops on the issue.

 

[jasons]

The whole exercise of assigning a "true purpose" to a gun is meaningless. A gun's purpose is whatever it's used for.

This is what I've been trying to get across all thread.

 

[n1bsbri]

If a gun's true purpose is for self defense, they'll try to ban them because they're so rarely used for that purpose.

Not so... again from www.gunfacts.info:

Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against
criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13
seconds. Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated
that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.

 

[drgrant]

This thread is hilarious. Does anyone else think that Brandon is just playing a practical joke on us? He's going to drop a huge JK and we're all going to be pissed that we actually argued for two days over this. The dude can't really be that big of a moonbat moron. The joke is on us. I'm calling it right now.

If he is doing that, he's doing a poor job of it. Bodybagsryan is the gold standard of "trolling for fun and profit" and this character is not even anywhere in his league.

-Mike

 

[Brandon1317]

Maybe we wont have to worry about our gun rights in the future the government will just change the meaning of "arms" and it will be all over and done with and no furthur debating will be required!

 

[jasons]

Maybe we wont have to worry about our gun rights in the future the government will just change the meaning of "arms" and it will be all over and done with and no furthur debating will be required!

If we continue to accept and encourage arbitrary categorization of inanimate objects we just may fall into that trap some day. Just wait until gun 2.0 comes out and they decide to call it pumpkin pie.

 

[Boghog1]

Maybe we wont have to worry about our gun rights in the future the government will just change the meaning of "arms" and it will be all over and done with and no furthur debating will be required!

what are you smoking today?

 

[RichM]

"Every time I try to get away, this thread keeps dragging me back in!"

When I get back onto my computer tonight, several of you will get reputation.

Round 'n' round 'n' round we go...


Sent from my way-too-expensive cell phone using Tapatalk. Please excuse spelling errors and missing links.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

Maybe we wont have to worry about our gun rights in the future the government will just change the meaning of "arms" and it will be all over and done with and no furthur debating will be required!

it will be B.S. if the government did that, there will always be a debate, you will have the clear thinking logical americans who know guns do not cause crime and then you will have the moonbats who live in a fantasy world

 

[calsdad]

Because it's the same illogical and irrelevant argument that anti-gunners use to push anti-gun legislation past weak minded logic-challenged sheep, and if a "gun guy" not only believes it but goes out of his way to parrot it that's a problem.

Not acknowledging reality is giving into the weak minded sheep. That's not a road we should be going down.

 

[drgrant]

I have a hard time trying to dance around the true nature of guns - because it's like giving into the moonbats - who refuse to deal with reality.

That's not the part I have a problem with. I have a problem with the tone of his post more than anything else- which seems to promote the notional of "gun accidents are special because guns are only for killing people". Whether guns were designed to shoot humans, cows, or whatever, really isn't relevant to the incident at hand. It just seemed like it was dripping with "emo anti juice" to me.

-Mike