The Right to Responsible Gun Ownership

[praxitas]

However, I doubt a situation like that will ever happen in my lifetime...but at some point, I am sure it will.

I hope that statement is true, but I don't know. I live in a smaller city, and can tell you crime especially mugging, armed robbery, break ins ect. seem to be on the rise. If the economy does not get straightened out, utilities keep going up, taxes go up you never know how people will react.

As far as guns go I have no problems with people owning whatever they want to own. Yes, for the crazies out there it presents a much easier option than building a bomb, but like Jen said they will find a way to do their evil.

Do I need an AK to defend myself if someone breaks into my house. No, I have a 9mm that should do the job just fine. If there's a zombie apocalypse I may though . In all seriousness though I consider the country not stable at best and I would much rather be overstocked than understocked if ____ hit the fan. There seems to be a bigger and bigger gap between people with their beliefs and when lines start being drawn I think bigger problems could arise.

At least for me what it boils down to is my family and their safety. For me its not about being a crazy gun lover, its about doing what you feel you may need to in order to make sure your protected.

Personally, I don't even like the fact the govt knows what arms I have or don't have.

 

[The Josh]

When I say knives in particular, I do not mean jargon. I carry a switchblade in my purse and I WOULD use it if necessary. And vehicular homicide? Happens ALL the time. You really can kill people with cars and knives and poison. I grew up a very depressed teenager, I've pondered many, many ways to die. I don't take any of them for granted to use as jargon in a gun argument. If guns really are the problem, ban the guns that are the problem. Handguns. Then once that right is taken away, they'll find a way to take our shotguns and rifles. When those are gone, they'll make the selling of replica katanas and swords illegal too. It's that old saying, you give them an inch, they'll walk all over you.

I know these things can happen. They're just extreme examples so thats why I say Jargon. I know especially the issues with cars. My Dad has been a paramedic for the last 20+ years he and I both have seen some nasty ____. I can't comment on the taking your life issue. As bad as things have been for me personally the last year I would never think that way. My will to live is far stronger than my weakness to check out (dont mean that to be rude thats just my look at it). I'm glad you found a way to get to a better place. Again, no they won't. The process is far far to hard and many folks including myself would stand up for the right to own a handgun or rifle.

A parallel which you don't agree with but I believe strongly in is censorship (which is also unconstitutional). When they start banning certain words, they can start banning certain topics. When they start banning those, they can start banning protests or books. Once some books are banned, they'll find ways to ban even more of them. Same principle.

I never said I'm not against censorship. I personally am not for it. When I saw they would be screwing with Mark Twains Tom Sawyer that pissed me off. Again, to do that would require the process and thats damn near impossible. This isn't Nazi Germany where the country is a bunch of babbling idiots that blindly follow.
But he was The Omega Man and Taylor!

You know, it wasn't until the ideas of our Constitution filtered over to Africa that slavery was banned in places there, too, just as slavery was banned in the US as deemed to be unconstitutional. I know that those words were written a long time ago, but they hold strong even today. I disagree that they need to be "updated" for our generation. I am Libertarian. I believe our Founding Fathers were wise and insightful of the future and knew what they were talking about, and we don't need to change a damn thing.

Well, as I said it wasn't until the country nearly came apart at the seams because of Slavery did we do the right thing and then still it wasn't for many more years after that we made things at least sort of right for blacks. Then we have to agree to disagree on that because stuff like gun laws and rolling with those that are 200+ years old isn't wise, and I believe our founding fathers would be upset with us if we didn't use our brains to evolve.

Great. So you agree we need to keep our current rights intact for future generations?

I agree we should keep the rights we have just as I believe in a womens right to choose. I've never stated otherwise. I've just said that no reason for folks to own one style of weapon thats meant for military use not civilian.

My older brother served in Afghanistan. He witnessed awful things, did things he is ashamed of. But yet he still owns guns and would never give them up.

Well, I am thankful for his service. I'm not asking him to give up his pistols and rifles. I would think though in a civilian setting he would agree assault rifles have no place.

 

[mr.thrifty]

I've just recently became a firearm owner after a lot of research. living in a city there is a different stigmata I face that those in more rural areas don't have, that's fine as I won't be wearing a t-shirt advertising what I'm carrying.


I like the saying "I'd rather have one and not need it, then need one and not have it"

 

[devilof76]

In 2001, Argentina had a full economic meltdown. There's a survivalist forum called the Frugal Squirrel (I think) and an architecture professor from Argentina posted insights for those who never experienced a true S.H.T.F. episode.

He specifically panned AR-15's and 1911's as inefficient and 9mm's as highly preferable, but he was living in an urban environment. I don't know how well that wisdom would hold up in a rural setting. Gangs of raiders were the main problem (as well as crooked police) and the issue he had was that incidents happen so quickly that there was seldom time to aim. Being able to get multiple shots off in a short period of time was what was most likely to save you, so a semi-automatic rifle seems like it would be pretty useful when you were dealing with multiple targets approaching your home.

 

[Devil_666]

the first insult i see this thread will be closed and people will be shot.

 

[devilof76]

I never said I'm not against censorship.

And it was Huck Finn.

This isn't Nazi Germany where the country is a bunch of babbling idiots that blindly follow.

rolling with those that are 200+ years old isn't wise

It is when they were smarter than you.

I believe our founding fathers would be upset with us if we didn't use our brains to evolve.

Surrendering our right to self-defense, particularly when those to whom we delegated it are proving daily that they have zero respect for the rights upon which this country was founded, is not evolving. It's counciling primitivism and subservience, which is devolutionary.

And here I thought you were opposed to slavery. Another typo, perhaps?

 

[mr.thrifty]

In 2001, Argentina had a full economic meltdown. There's a survivalist forum called the Frugal Squirrel (I think) and an architecture professor from Argentina posted insights for those who never experienced a true S.H.T.F. episode.

He specifically panned AR-15's and 1911's as inefficient and 9mm's as highly preferable, but he was living in an urban environment. I don't know how well that wisdom would hold up in a rural setting. Gangs of raiders were the main problem (as well as crooked police) and the issue he had was that incidents happen so quickly that there was seldom time to aim. Being able to get multiple shots off in a short period of time was what was most likely to save you, so a semi-automatic rifle seems like it would be pretty useful when you were dealing with multiple targets approaching your home.

Thanks for the info.. here's a link with some great insight....https://billstclair.com/clairewolfe.com/wolfesblog/arg.html

 

[devilof76]

That is the post I was talking about. I guess it got around.

Awesome. Good stuff, huh?

 

[mr.thrifty]

Google was my friend...

Lots of real life info.

 

[devilof76]

I guess he never mentions AR-15's by name (he mentions MBR's; I don't know what that is). I read it awhile ago, and all rifles like that were interchangable as far as I was concerned.

So Josh is almost right (not for the right reasons, or in the right). Warfare is the only place you'd need something like that. However, given that this is America, I sure as hell would not rule out the need for one in such a scenario. Economic meltdown here would have extreme potential for advanced gang warfare.

Oh, wait...not if all the guns were illegal...after the legal structure has completely disintegrated.

 

[mr.thrifty]

[Massad Ayoob] Some great info regarding firearm ownership in the US as we know it now.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/18rqeJ2ClyU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qW_xaTf5oqI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[devilof76]

Damn. Can't see at work. I'll have to wait until I get home.

 

[fosing]

In 2001, Argentina had a full economic meltdown. There's a survivalist forum called the Frugal Squirrel (I think) and an architecture professor from Argentina posted insights for those who never experienced a true S.H.T.F. episode.

He specifically panned AR-15's and 1911's as inefficient and 9mm's as highly preferable, but he was living in an urban environment. I don't know how well that wisdom would hold up in a rural setting. Gangs of raiders were the main problem (as well as crooked police) and the issue he had was that incidents happen so quickly that there was seldom time to aim. Being able to get multiple shots off in a short period of time was what was most likely to save you, so a semi-automatic rifle seems like it would be pretty useful when you were dealing with multiple targets approaching your home.

I kinda picture myself picking the AA-12/Atchisson Assault Shotgun for S.H.T.F episodes...

and perhaps an impending zombie apocalypse.

thanks for the link mr. T, that was a insightful read.

 

[Darth Cruel]

One of my favorite topics. And kudos to everyone for not getting out of hand with the subject.

I hope you all don't mind my throwing in a few of my own thoughts. I read the thread (both of them, actually) so I will be reiterating points made previously. This post is also not a rebuttal to any opinions that I read, pro or con. It is simply me stating my own view.

First off, let me say that my opinions were formed after researching The Constitution and it's intent for a website that I was creating.

I dislike the federal government getting in to my personal life. To me, it is obvious that portion of our government is grotesquely usurping authority that is not intended for them.

There is a reason that we have federal, state, county, and local governments. And that is so that we can set up our communities to be in accordance with how we want to live. Making nation-wide blanket rules is intended to be for interstate interaction...period. And I feel that The Constitution makes that perfectly clear.

For that reason, I am against federal gun laws. I am not against community gun laws. That is to say that I am OK with some communities banning weapons so long as the Federal Government does not try it.

I understand that the Second ammendment states that " 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." As it does to some, it seems to me to be intended to be for a militia. I also understand that some feel that the military and National Guard take the place of a militia. I believe they do not. The military and National Guard serve the government. A more local militia (such as state or county) is intended to protect the citizens of that area against foes that may include our own government...which has the benefit of having our military and National Guard at its disposal. But even that does not get to the basic point which is that nobody has the right to remove a person's right to have a weapon...even an assault weapon. The only rights people have in that case is to chose not to have one themselves and to try to convince others through dialogue to do likewise, if they can. And to work to make regulations in their own community if it is the will of those living their.

There are nations who have gun laws that require them to have an assault rifle in their homes...with no huge assault rifle crime issue. To me, this supports the idea that it is a small percentage of the people, not the guns, who are the problem.

A gun of any kind is an inanimate object. There are many simple truths in the world that can not be argued and one of them is: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". And it seems to me that controlling firearms is an excercise in futility much like fighting insect bites would be by removing the repellant. We can even look at the ten year ban we just emerged from. That ban ended up dying.

I like guns. I like assault weapons. I understand that there are people who do not like guns. But I do not accept that someone who does not like guns has the right to deny me the ownership of one.

 

[-Super Hans-]

Rednecks and their guns

 

[Kabukiman]

The thought of me having a gun sounds awesome. The thought of any of you yahoos having a gun sounds terrifying.

 

[hoodonit00]

For that reason, I am against federal gun laws. I am not against community gun laws. That is to say that I am OK with some communities banning weapons so long as the Federal Government does not try it.

I agree with your whole post except for what I quoted. Things like gun laws shouldn't be able to be controlled by anything less then state law. Reason is if you don't like your states gun laws you can always move. County wise let's say you live in county "A" which has gun laws you agree with. You and the spousal unit want to go to dinner in county "C" which has the same gun laws as your county. You have to go through county "B" to get to county "C". County "B" has a ban on guns and you just got pulled over in county "B" for speeding. If you are carrying you just committed a felony. Instead of a speeding ticket you now face possible prison time.

 

[BadMoon]

Gun owner reporting in.

 

[Darth Cruel]

I agree with your whole post except for what I quoted. Things like gun laws shouldn't be able to be controlled by anything less then state law. Reason is if you don't like your states gun laws you can always move. County wise let's say you live in county "A" which has gun laws you agree with. You and the spousal unit want to go to dinner in county "C" which has the same gun laws as your county. You have to go through county "B" to get to county "C". County "B" has a ban on guns and you just got pulled over in county "B" for speeding. If you are carrying you just committed a felony. Instead of a speeding ticket you now face possible prison time.

I do understand your point. But that, to me, is a dilligence that we should accept for as much freedom as we can keep.

 

[AllisonAmy]

"Redneck" reporting in.

[/QUOTE]