Protect and Serve wrote:
[quote]EnglandWantsYou wrote:
if you're afraid of big bad guns
Right. No need to fear guns. They never hurt anyone
Not in the country. And big guns aren't the problem.
Unfortunately, it's easier for liberals to use scare-tactics to make people afraid of big guns (looking at you, Kevin De Leon) than to pay attention to the real problem (handguns).
http://www.slate.com/bullpen/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_finding.htmlHave you not seen the psychos in the world today? The problem is you'll never have clean street...
Grown up wrote:
pr100 wrote:... and is that working out well for you?
Really well actually. If anyone tries to take them we can shoot them.
All legal like.
But an even better reason = to infuriate liberals and make them go mad.
That one is my fav!
Who is "them"? Surely the idea of keeping the government in line is that in theory the people can use their guns to curb abuses of power by the state. In practice that's never going to happen. The state had bigger guns and is better organised. The only meaningful mechanisms of holding the state to account are through the ballot box and the courts.
Those of us outside of the US don't get mad about US gun policy because we don't care - it doesn't affect us in any meaningful way. We do boggle at the craziness of it tho'...
You do realize that "The State" is made up of people as in "We the people."For what ever reason some think that "The State" has robotic droids with the inability to think, rationalize, or act. These droids when commanded will wreck havoc onto the citizenry of the U.S.A. SORRY That is not the case! "The State" Gets its directives and authority from a document...."I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic." I took that oath as did many others with the sac to do so. We know what it means, and unlike those whom have never served WE understand it.
pr100 wrote:
Grown up wrote:Really well actually. If anyone tries to take them we can shoot them.
All legal like.
But an even better reason = to infuriate liberals and make them go mad.
That one is my fav!
Who is "them"? Surely the idea of keeping the government in line is that in theory the people can use their guns to curb abuses of power by the state. In practice that's never going to happen. The state had bigger guns and is better organised. The only meaningful mechanisms of holding the state to account are through the ballot box and the courts.
Those of us outside of the US don't get mad about US gun policy because we don't care - it doesn't affect us in any meaningful way. We do boggle at the craziness of it tho'...
Yeah Right wrote:
You do realize that "The State" is made up of people as in "We the people."
For what ever reason some think that "The State" has robotic droids with the inability to think, rationalize, or act. These droids when commanded will wreck havoc onto the citizenry of the U.S.A. SORRY That is not the case!
"The State" Gets its directives and authority from a document....
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."
I took that oath as did many others with the sac to do so. We know what it means, and unlike those whom have never served WE understand it."
Sure - but how, in practice do you think the average citizen can actually use a gun to further those aims? Who, exactly, do you anticipate shooting?
We're not talking about guns in the hands of the police and the armed forces - that happens everywhere. We're talking about guns in the hand of Joe Q. Public. How does he actually meaningfully use his gun to further the objectives you refer to?
Really simple. Point them at individuals who want to take them and say NO. First rule of a gunfight...have a gun.As far as civilians vs mil/Leo. The best shooters in the world are civilians. I have been to many shooting schools while on active duty. The instructors, a great majority of them, have never served in a govt agency.Not all civilians are sheeple that expect others to rescue them because they can't defend themselves.Don't live in a closed minded faux world.If you expect others to protect you in everyday life you will be eaten should the wolf come knocking at your door.
pr100 wrote:
Yeah Right wrote:You do realize that "The State" is made up of people as in "We the people."
For what ever reason some think that "The State" has robotic droids with the inability to think, rationalize, or act. These droids when commanded will wreck havoc onto the citizenry of the U.S.A. SORRY That is not the case!
"The State" Gets its directives and authority from a document....
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."
I took that oath as did many others with the sac to do so. We know what it means, and unlike those whom have never served WE understand it."
Sure - but how, in practice do you think the average citizen can actually use a gun to further those aims? Who, exactly, do you anticipate shooting?
We're not talking about guns in the hands of the police and the armed forces - that happens everywhere. We're talking about guns in the hand of Joe Q. Public. How does he actually meaningfully use his gun to further the objectives you refer to?
Level Running wrote:
Really simple. Point them at individuals who want to take them and say NO.
But that's surely not an example of "keeping the state in line" which is what we were talking about.
"Libtards also think women are to stupid and incompetant to handle a firearm."
Who is "to" stupid and "incompetant"??
Actually wrote:
The reality is most Americans don't have guns and even fewer carry them.
On the bright side those with guns and those that bring guns into their house have a much higher chance of being shot with one so perhaps over time....
if you screen out those who illegally own & traffic guns - i.e. violent criminals, dealers, etc. - the rate of gun owners shot is almost 0%, certainly way under 1%........so your math is a little off, but then that's common for liberal control freaks
First, a minority of people in the US feel the need to have guns. And much fewer even feel the need to carry them around.
I'm not one of them and can't speak for them but they are passionate about it.
This "need" only really becomes strong when there is talk about taking away their right or even limiting it.
Ironically, if gun regulations get relaxed, fewer guns will be purchased.
When a gun restriction bill is introduced or even when talked about after a mass shooting, gun nuts go and buy as many guns as they can.
There was a recent announcement about banning Russian AK-47s as a sanction on Russia and sales of AK-47s have now gone through the roof.
Outside of the crazy mass shootings, most people that get shot are those that have guns. People that do not have guns are much less likely to get shot.
Roy D. Mercer wrote:
if you screen out those who illegally own & traffic guns - i.e. violent criminals, dealers, etc. - the rate of gun owners shot is almost 0%, certainly way under 1%
source?
Unless of course you are a student or patron at a facility that is a "Gun Free Zone" and a whacked out liberal (They always are) decides to go on a shooting spree. But hey that never happens.People without a gun get shot all the time. More often than not in so called "gun free zones."I guarantee those teachers in Conn needed a gun one December Morning.
L L wrote:
First, a minority of people in the US feel the need to have guns. And much fewer even feel the need to carry them around.
I'm not one of them and can't speak for them but they are passionate about it.
This "need" only really becomes strong when there is talk about taking away their right or even limiting it.
Ironically, if gun regulations get relaxed, fewer guns will be purchased.
When a gun restriction bill is introduced or even when talked about after a mass shooting, gun nuts go and buy as many guns as they can.
There was a recent announcement about banning Russian AK-47s as a sanction on Russia and sales of AK-47s have now gone through the roof.
Outside of the crazy mass shootings, most people that get shot are those that have guns. People that do not have guns are much less likely to get shot.
39% of American households have a gun according to a recent-ish poll:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/09/Poll-Household-Gun-Ownership-On-Rise
Libtard Alert wrote:
Grow UP wrote:Explain. Why do Americans feel the need to carry around guns.
They are much lighter and more portable than carrying a police officer around.
And we don't have the luxury of armed security like all the libtard politicians armed to the teeth.
A better question- why do libtards feel the need to think they can decide who does and does not need to carry guns?
If you are a law abiding citizen carry as many guns as you desire...Freedom is Awesome!
I immediately disregard anything written by someone who uses the term "libtard". It smacks of poor vocabulary and low intelligence. I love my guns, but find the "libtard" crew making me sympathetic to the progressive arguments.
In what way do you determine that the person that goes on a shooting spree is a "whacked out liberal"? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call the Arizona shopping mall shooter a "whacked out conservative"? After all, he did target a Democrat politician. And the Newton shooter - not sure what were his political beliefs but he obtained the gun from his mom's collection and used it on her - she was an avid gun nut and presumably a conservative (as a "whacked out liberal" would not likely be a gun nut). By most standards the nuts at Waco would be considered conservative and not liberal. It does seem kind of pointless for me or you to ascetrain the political leanings of pyschos, but since you brought it up it would seem that most of them should be regarded as conservatives and not liberals if you want to play that game.
Gun Free Zone wrote:
Unless of course you are a student or patron at a facility that is a "Gun Free Zone" and a whacked out liberal (They always are) decides to go on a shooting spree. But hey that never happens.
People without a gun get shot all the time. More often than not in so called "gun free zones."
I guarantee those teachers in Conn needed a gun one December Morning.
L L wrote:First, a minority of people in the US feel the need to have guns. And much fewer even feel the need to carry them around.
I'm not one of them and can't speak for them but they are passionate about it.
This "need" only really becomes strong when there is talk about taking away their right or even limiting it.
Ironically, if gun regulations get relaxed, fewer guns will be purchased.
When a gun restriction bill is introduced or even when talked about after a mass shooting, gun nuts go and buy as many guns as they can.
There was a recent announcement about banning Russian AK-47s as a sanction on Russia and sales of AK-47s have now gone through the roof.
Outside of the crazy mass shootings, most people that get shot are those that have guns. People that do not have guns are much less likely to get shot.
WHY DO (sic) THE US FEEL THE NEED FOR WATER. Thousands of Americans drown every year. Water kills people! Nobody should have access to more than 2 gallons of water a day!
Guns are really fun to shoot. A lot of really responsible people own them and use them as a tool to hunt animals for food or for fun (or both). Other responsible people shoot them just for fun. Sometimes people just feel better having one around. I live in a city where they are basically banned, otherwise I would have several.
People "carry them around" usually because they are going somewhere they might need it. Some people carry them around generally, but this isn't typical.
Really... wrote:
Protect and Serve wrote:[quote]EnglandWantsYou wrote:
if you're afraid of big bad guns
Right. No need to fear guns. They never hurt anyone
Not in the country. And big guns aren't the problem.
Unfortunately, it's easier for liberals to use scare-tactics to make people afraid of big guns (looking at you, Kevin De Leon) than to pay attention to the real problem (handguns).
http://www.slate.com/bullpen/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_finding.html
Funny how people pass up actual studies.
PB85 wrote:
Guns are really fun to shoot. A lot of really responsible people own them and use them as a tool to hunt animals for food or for fun (or both). Other responsible people shoot them just for fun. Sometimes people just feel better having one around. I live in a city where they are basically banned, otherwise I would have several.
People "carry them around" usually because they are going somewhere they might need it. Some people carry them around generally, but this isn't typical.
This is a solid description of the general American attitude toward guns. Some people grew up hunting/fishing, others own or carry for safety reasons, some for recreation. Most people are pretty chill with these types of reasonable responsible ownership.
Wander into the political sphere though and gun ownership becomes this comically over-aggressive fetish. It has morphed into a highly important political signifier of patriotism, anti-government attitudes, Christianism (oddly enough), and most importantly non-liberalism and anti-intellectualism. This last part means that owning just one gun is insufficient to owning many guns, and larger guns are more preferable than sidearms. There's a lot of paranoia and apocalyptic sympathies mixed in there as well. In any case, the political importance of gun ownership is fairly apparent in this thread.