Guns

[Yurt]

Libs favorite argument is that guns kill and that is really their only purpose. some cons like to use the doctor argument, the fact that doctors kill more people (we're talking the doctor actually caused the death) than guns a year. and on and on. so i have questions.

1. those opposed to guns - why?

2. have guns ever saved someone?

3. have guns ever saved many people?

4. have guns ever secured freedom?

5. if guns are for freedom, why do you need them to hunt?

explanation:

questions 2-5 of course need a human operating the gun, something many on the left forget, however, i leave it open for question 1.

i have operated a total of 5 guns in my life. apparently i have great skill at shooting things through a scope, at about 50 yards only, when the gun is safely propped. i have not mastered the pistol, but had a hell of time shooting a glock nine in college over in the wilderness in SE WA. my (soon to be FBI, probably now) friend - then - loved guns. pistol blew me away...he said watch out for the recoil, i did not believe him. haha, he loved that one, though i did not recoil as much he hoped :)

for me, guns have secured this country's freedom. they do not play a role in my life. i have shot them for fun and find them exciting. yet i have not become involved in guns, though i have many friends who are.

i remember seeing my first real rifle in college...not the 22s in summer camp:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v386/quickdtoo/30-06UltraComp.jpg

30-06 (don't remember the maker). i thought this thing would kick ya like the 22's, hell no, powerful kick, but apparently when the gun is on solid target shooting (blue mountains, back of truck) i aim well, then....

For those who hate guns outright, without ever firing a shot, i don't understand. you froth at how conservatives have never tried to understand your POV, yet you pronounce yours without ever trying theirs...un ending game of argument....hmmmm

MY OPINION: guns and arms are most likely and should be regulated under the second amendment. that regulations must ensure that a CIVILIAN population maintains arms ENOUGH to be a proper militia.

[gabosaurus]

Fair enough. A few good questions on your side. Let's examine the entire thing.


1. those opposed to guns - why?
Because too many fall in the wrong hands and are used for the wrong reason. And because gun nuts are not rational about registering their guns. We register everything else. Why not guns?
You can't drive a car without a license. What is wrong is licensing and background checks for potentially harmful weapons>

2. have guns ever saved someone?
Not as many as they have killed.

3. have guns ever saved many people?
See above

4. have guns ever secured freedom?
Perhaps 230 years ago. Or as part of the military. Neither one is valid together. No citizen in 21st Century America is threatened by Indian attacks, British revolutionaries or wild animals living on their doorstep. Why do you keep pretending it is

5. if guns are for freedom, why do you need them to hunt?
What does freedom have to do with hunting? That makes no sense at all. You don't drive a souped up stock car on the street. Why do you need a deer rifle in your truck?


MY OPINION: guns and arms are most likely and should be regulated under the second amendment. that regulations must ensure that a CIVILIAN population maintains arms ENOUGH to be a proper militia.

This part of the constitution was written before we had a well trained and organized military, and while living under conditions (which I described above) that do not prevail today.
For self defense, why do you need a large collection of guns? You can only use one at a time?

Now, for some of my questions. Feel free to avoid them if you must.

1. Why do you oppose registration and background checks for guns? All legitimate citizens would surely pass. Gun ownership would only be denied to those who are now allowed. Registration would aid law enforcement tracking stolen guns.

2. Why would any person need to own an Uzi, machine gun or any full automatic weapon? I doubt these are what the founding fathers were thinking of.

** For the record, my husband and I own a gun. A hand gun of some sort. We both know how to use it. If someone invaded our home and pose a threat to us or our daughter, I would not hesitate to use it.

[Hagbard Celine]

Libs favorite argument is that guns kill and that is really their only purpose. some cons like to use the doctor argument, the fact that doctors kill more people (we're talking the doctor actually caused the death) than guns a year. and on and on. so i have questions.

1. those opposed to guns - why?

2. have guns ever saved someone?

3. have guns ever saved many people?

4. have guns ever secured freedom?

5. if guns are for freedom, why do you need them to hunt?

explanation:

questions 2-5 of course need a human operating the gun, something many on the left forget, however, i leave it open for question 1.

i have operated a total of 5 guns in my life. apparently i have great skill at shooting things through a scope, at about 50 yards only, when the gun is safely propped. i have not mastered the pistol, but had a hell of time shooting a glock nine in college over in the wilderness in SE WA. my (soon to be FBI, probably now) friend - then - loved guns. pistol blew me away...he said watch out for the recoil, i did not believe him. haha, he loved that one, though i did not recoil as much he hoped :)

for me, guns have secured this country's freedom. they do not play a role in my life. i have shot them for fun and find them exciting. yet i have not become involved in guns, though i have many friends who are.

i remember seeing my first real rifle in college...not the 22s in summer camp:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v386/quickdtoo/30-06UltraComp.jpg

30-06 (don't remember the maker). i thought this thing would kick ya like the 22's, hell no, powerful kick, but apparently when the gun is on solid target shooting (blue mountains, back of truck) i aim well, then....

For those who hate guns outright, without ever firing a shot, i don't understand. you froth at how conservatives have never tried to understand your POV, yet you pronounce yours without ever trying theirs...un ending game of argument....hmmmm

MY OPINION: guns and arms are most likely and should be regulated under the second amendment. that regulations must ensure that a CIVILIAN population maintains arms ENOUGH to be a proper militia.

Let's be realistic here. Your camp chooses to ignore some pretty major points on this issue. Namely, that the number one use for guns is as a weapon. A lethal weapon. Guns are the number one lethal weapon used in the world. Above poison. Above blades. Above the rope, the candlestick, etc. Guns are how we kill each other.
Yes, guns can be used to acquire wild game. They are great to have around to protect your family and property. Even so, I don't think it's too much to ask for you to have to register them. You have to get a driver's license to operate a car. Why shouldn't you have to get a license to own and operate a lethal weapon?
I submit that doing so does not violate the second amendment one iota. It's an issue of public safety imo.

[DragonStryk72]

Fair enough. A few good questions on your side. Let's examine the entire thing.


1. those opposed to guns - why?
Because too many fall in the wrong hands and are used for the wrong reason. And because gun nuts are not rational about registering their guns. We register everything else. Why not guns?
You can't drive a car without a license. What is wrong is licensing and background checks for potentially harmful weapons>

The problem is that the ones that fall into the wrong hands are either illegally obtained, making registration only a problem for those who do follow the registration process, or much more rarely, someone who obtained a registered gun, legally.

2. have guns ever saved someone?
Not as many as they have killed.

Really, hm, I've never seen a fact on that one conclusively. The problem is that bad people will do bad things, and they won't care that you object to gun ownership, or worse, they'll be very happy because of it.

3. have guns ever saved many people?
See above

I see the problem here: You believe that the gun is the aggressor, when, in fact it is the human being behind that, and, were all guns, everywhere gone tomorrow, then we would be back to people killing one another with swords and bows. Were you to remove weapons entirely, people would kill one another with kitchen knives, drownings, strangulation, and big fucking rocks.

4. have guns ever secured freedom?
Perhaps 230 years ago. Or as part of the military. Neither one is valid together. No citizen in 21st Century America is threatened by Indian attacks, British revolutionaries or wild animals living on their doorstep. Why do you keep pretending it is.

Actually, they have never secured freedom for anyone. However, the people wielding the guns have done it throughout the history of the US. also during the Civil War, but again, that the people behind them. The gun is just a tool.

5. if guns are for freedom, why do you need them to hunt?
What does freedom have to do with hunting? That makes no sense at all. You don't drive a souped up stock car on the street. Why do you need a deer rifle in your truck?

Well, normally, people transport it for the same reason you put your kids in the car, because you're taking them somewhere.


MY OPINION: guns and arms are most likely and should be regulated under the second amendment. that regulations must ensure that a CIVILIAN population maintains arms ENOUGH to be a proper militia.

But who determines that? Also, in order to do that, the government would have to, in fact, keep a standing militia, which kind of defeats the purpose of the national guard. Also, Militias arm themselves, the government doesn't do it for them, hence why militias were called, "irregulars".

This part of the constitution was written before we had a well trained and organized military, and while living under conditions (which I described above) that do not prevail today.
For self defense, why do you need a large collection of guns? You can only use one at a time?

Actually, we did have one, not a huge one, but we had a standing regular military. they generally crapped on the militia, until the militia started actually winning battles.

Really, so there an NO fully automatic weapons in the hands of people who would use them to say, kill a guy by driving past in the car and just laying down spread fire till their target drops, or they get out of range to shoot? Do you really believe murderers care HOW they obtain their guns?

Now, for some of my questions. Feel free to avoid them if you must.

1. Why do you oppose registration and background checks for guns? All legitimate citizens would surely pass. Gun ownership would only be denied to those who are now allowed. Registration would aid law enforcement tracking stolen guns.

Because registration is a farce. It does not stop the bad guys from getting guns, it just adds one crime to their list, and when you get to the point of murder, buying an illegal gun is really knocked down a ways on your list of priorities.

2. Why would any person need to own an Uzi, machine gun or any full automatic weapon? I doubt these are what the founding fathers were thinking of.

Okay, there I agree, no one needs them, save for cops/military. However, were militias to make a comeback, I could see the point behind it. As of now, though, it's just not practical.

** For the record, my husband and I own a gun. A hand gun of some sort. We both know how to use it. If someone invaded our home and pose a threat to us or our daughter, I would not hesitate to use it.

;