Be Honest: There is only one real reason to need to carry a gun.

[CrotchetyGeezer]

So you're saying the military, police, FBI, CIA, etc., etc., etc., are all going to be disarmed...too? Or, at least, all those in those entities of whom are liberals?

No, I'm not....

No you're saying, "I live half way around the world, but I know better how to run your country than you do."

Sorry. No you don't.

Are there many Americans meddling on political discussion websites there?

So am I understanding this right? That, Dr Grump isn't even in America? If that's the case, I'll bet he has the gall to whine about the United States meddling in the affairs of others.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

If every person that we encounter on a daily basis were, indeed, carrying....this would be a rational fear.

The beauty of it is neither you or the bad guys know for sure, who is, or who is not carrying and you get a proven benefit form that.

I really don't want everyone carrying a gun on them. Too many hot heads and idiots who can't take an insult. The idea that we would have less mass shootings if everyone was armed is probably true, but we'd lose more people to gun deaths because there are just too many stupid people out there who are unable to control their tempers.

You got any actual statistics to back up this fear? How many so-called "hot heads and idiots who can't take an insult" have been shooting people because they're hot heads and idiots who can't take an insult?

 

[JoeB131]

Why don't we do the same with every product made in America?

Then no product will ever be made in America.

Liberals destroy economies.

Actually, every other product, companies ARE held liable when their products kill or injure people.

And given the LAST FOUR recessions happened on Republican watches, I think you guys don't get to lecture anyone on who destroys economies.

I'd LOVE to have Clinton's economy back.

You're saying that if someone buys an F-150, gets drunk, and kills somebody, Ford is liable?

Dude, ARE YOU REALLY THAT FUCKING DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY?!?!

If Ford was setting up a dealership right next to the Redneck bar and marketting directly to the drunks, they would be liable..

Of course, the first thing Ford dealers do when they sell you a car is make sure you have a valid license to DRIVE a car. They also insist you get insurance in most states. They do a background check to make sure you can afford it.

if the Gun dealers were as responsible as car dealers, you certainly wouldn't have them selling 8 guns to Nancy Lanza, who was kind of nuts.

 

[JoeB131]

[
I think Joe has a boyfriend in prison, because he never wants to hold criminals accountable for their crimes.

NO, I'd actually like us to have an economic system that doesn't produce criminals.

Oh, hey, you know, Germany only locks up 78,000 prisoners, their police only had to fire their guns 89 times last year, and they only had 248 gun murders...

Oh, wait, they're not americans, let's pretend they don't exist.

Criminals without guns are a lot less harmful than criminals with guns.

See? Once again, you're not holding criminals accountable. It's always THE MAN'S fault.

You pansy.

I actually like to address CAUSES of problems, not symptoms.

If we produce more criminals than any other industrialized country, I kind of want to ask "Why is that?"

What are we doing wrong?

But those questions are probably too scary for you. You'll just cling to your gun and your bible and live in fear.

 

[mudwhistle]

You forgot about hunting. In this day and age, people don't hunt out of fear of starvation.

As for personal security, yes; that's fear-based. Nevertheless, fear can still be healthy, up to a point. It's only excessive fear and paranoia that bring on problems.

The right to bare arms has nothing to do with hunting.

If they want to take away my right to hunt they can try. I don't believe in killing animals as long as I can buy food at a store.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama has been planning to grab guns since before he took the oath of office. It is what Fast & Furious was all about. If he tries it will be the biggest mistake he ever made. I think he will try to tax us instead of grab our guns. Looking at this prick's history he doesn't seem to believe in following the same rules as other presidents. He'll get what he wants regardless if it gets the result he wanted. He'll say that he did it whether it works or not. His goal is to cause us to fight amongst ourselves over a stupid issue that wasn't as important before he made it important.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama has been planning to grab guns since before he took the oath of office. It is what Fast & Furious was all about. If he tries it will be the biggest mistake he ever made. I think he will try to tax us instead of grab our guns. Looking at this prick's history he doesn't seem to believe in following the same rules as other presidents. He'll get what he wants regardless if it gets the result he wanted. He'll say that he did it whether it works or not. His goal is to cause us to fight amongst ourselves over a stupid issue that wasn't as important before he made it important.

Ah, yes, it's all a conspiracy...

Not that the Republicans have repeated exposed themselves as shills for business.

While I doubt Obama will try to ban guns (which would be a great idea, because most Americans don't need themand can't be trusted with them), we will finally have a common sense discussion about the issue.

Which we should have had about 20 mass shootings ago.

It's just that Sandy Hook was sufficiently horrific to get people to finally talk about it.

 

[daveman]

Your point is a valid one. The uber pro-gunners argument seems to be that because there are so many guns out there already that it is a pointless task. Not really. Sure, it will take a decade or two to get the plethora of guns off the streets that shouldn't be there, but eventually it would happen...

Yeah. How's the total ban on meth, cocaine, LSD, and heroin working out? Almost got it all off the street?

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

The illegal drug trade is a far cry from the legal gun trade. That aside, it seems to have worked in Europe, Australia and NZ (all have very low gun crime, while the drug trade is still the same) As I said, apples and oranges...

Criminals get most of their guns illegally.

So, no, it's not apples and oranges.

 

[daveman]

I was meddling on this site long before you came along...

And the topic is an interesting one...shrug...

It's interesting that you evaded a direct question. It's interesting that you began a thread with the assumption that gun owners are dishonest and afraid.

I sir, am not afraid. I can put 15 rounds in you before you can empty your bladder in your pants.

Tough talk right there. Meanwhile people who actually have respect for guns and experience in situations were they need them know that fear is always part of the equation.



On another note I find it hilarious that's some liberals are now saying that just because collecting all the guns in the United States would be tough that is no reason not too do it. Couldnt the same logic be applied2 illegal aliens?

Guns don't vote Democrat.

 

[daveman]

If every person that we encounter on a daily basis were, indeed, carrying....this would be a rational fear.

The beauty of it is neither you or the bad guys know for sure, who is, or who is not carrying and you get a proven benefit form that.

I really don't want everyone carrying a gun on them. Too many hot heads and idiots who can't take an insult. The idea that we would have less mass shootings if everyone was armed is probably true, but we'd lose more people to gun deaths because there are just too many stupid people out there who are unable to control their tempers.

And everyplace that has had CCW laws enacted has seen crime go down.

So it looks like you're wrong.

 

[daveman]

I find it fascinating that every single one of the leftists on this thread wants to keep attacking the masculinity of the guys on the thread, and going on about scary nutjobs, and not a one of them has the stones to direct their bluster and bullshit toward a female who represents the reality of crime in this country and the need for self-defense.

What you're telling me is that you know as well as I do that your arguments don't really have a leg to stand on, and you're all just too chickenshit and dishonest to admit it. Otherwise, why am I not hearing all the same crap you're directing at the guys, how I'm just a pussy who's letting my fear control me and carrying a gun to compensate for something and I can't be trusted because I'm more of a danger to society with my gun than the criminals are?

Come on, assholes. If you think these are such valid, brilliant arguments when directed against the men, surely they should be JUST as valid and brilliant directed at me. So why are you so diligently and obviously avoiding addressing ME on this subject?

Remember, you're talking about alleged men who have been programmed by the Democratic Party that women are nothing more than vaginas.

They don't even see you as a human being.

 

[daveman]

Actually, every other product, companies ARE held liable when their products kill or injure people.

And given the LAST FOUR recessions happened on Republican watches, I think you guys don't get to lecture anyone on who destroys economies.

I'd LOVE to have Clinton's economy back.

You're saying that if someone buys an F-150, gets drunk, and kills somebody, Ford is liable?

Dude, ARE YOU REALLY THAT FUCKING DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY?!?!

If Ford was setting up a dealership right next to the Redneck bar and marketting directly to the drunks, they would be liable..

Of course, the first thing Ford dealers do when they sell you a car is make sure you have a valid license to DRIVE a car. They also insist you get insurance in most states. They do a background check to make sure you can afford it.

if the Gun dealers were as responsible as car dealers, you certainly wouldn't have them selling 8 guns to Nancy Lanza, who was kind of nuts.

You don't have to have a driver's licence to buy a car.

They don't care if you have insurance or not. The lienholder does.

They don't do "background checks". The lienholder does a credit check.

If you pay cash, the dealer doesn't care if you have insurance or not.

Your ignorance is astounding. Well, it would be, if you didn't display it every time you post.

 

[daveman]

NO, I'd actually like us to have an economic system that doesn't produce criminals.

Oh, hey, you know, Germany only locks up 78,000 prisoners, their police only had to fire their guns 89 times last year, and they only had 248 gun murders...

Oh, wait, they're not americans, let's pretend they don't exist.

Criminals without guns are a lot less harmful than criminals with guns.

See? Once again, you're not holding criminals accountable. It's always THE MAN'S fault.

You pansy.

I actually like to address CAUSES of problems, not symptoms.

If we produce more criminals than any other industrialized country, I kind of want to ask "Why is that?"

What are we doing wrong?

But those questions are probably too scary for you. You'll just cling to your gun and your bible and live in fear.

"We" aren't doing anything wrong, you quivering pussy. Criminals are.

How long before your boyfriend gets out?

 

[Rinata]

FEAR

Seriously. Think about it. If there was no FEAR of being robbed and/or assaulted there is no reason to carry a gun, right?

We buy auto insurance and wear seat belts because we FEAR that at some point in time we may be involved in an accident. (Ok, and in most cases the law requires it and we fear getting a ticket too.)

Hey!! I'm not knocking it. Illinois will soon finally join everyone else in passing a CC law. When we do that I will get one so I can carry it in any areas known for high crime rates. But since I don't FEAR being robbed and/or assaulted in my small hometown I don't feel the need to carry it around.

Now I also realize that there are those who simply want to carry one around like a playtoy. But I suspect that they are simply making up for other "shortcomings".

So if anyone disagrees that FEAR is the primary motivation to carry a gun please explain why it's not.

.

I guess you can say that, but I got my CHL to support the right to have one. I consider every day I have it as a vote, letting my state know that citizens consider the right important. Here in TX anyone eligible to own a firearm can have one in their vehicle, but you need a CHL to carry on your person. Rights are kind of like muscles, if you don't exercise them they tend to waste away.

Oh, brother. How corny can you get??

 

[USSNJ]

The only reason we have so many guns in our world is because the gun manufacturers are one powerful lobby and a very rich one at that. Guns do not need to be so prevalent in our society, but money talks. Owning a hunting rifle is ok and owning a handgun is ok too, only if kept in the home.

Eventually, guns will be taxed out of our lives as ammo is taxed at rates similar to how we tax cigarettes. When the ammo is so expensive as to make gun ownership a luxury, then will we see some respite from gun violence on our streets.

The rightwing types who feel we need guns to protect us from government, do not realize that in a war with our government, we stand no chance of winning. The government would not fight gun owners in the streets. Instead, the government would use other weapons, maybe even NBC warfare, to take out violent citizens who think they are defending their turf.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The only reason we have so many guns in our world is because the gun manufacturers are one powerful lobby and a very rich one at that. Guns do not need to be so prevalent in our society, but money talks. Owning a hunting rifle is ok and owning a handgun is ok too, only if kept in the home.

Thank you for pronouncing your acceptance of our right.
What you fail to understand is that the right to keep and bear arms was not protected by the constitution so that we could hunt or protect ourselves only when at home.

Eventually, guns will be taxed out of our lives as ammo is taxed at rates similar to how we tax cigarettes.

This will be struck as the taxation of the exercise of a right intended to reatrict said exercise violates the constittion.

The rightwing types who feel we need guns to protect us from government, do not realize that in a war with our government, we stand no chance of winning.

Much like the Iraqis stood no chance.

The government would not fight gun owners in the streets. Instead, the government would use other weapons, maybe even NBC warfare, to take out violent citizens who think they are defending their turf.

Thusly justifying the resistance to same, and proving sound the argument of those who feel we need guns to protect us from government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're saying that if someone buys an F-150, gets drunk, and kills somebody, Ford is liable?

Dude, ARE YOU REALLY THAT FUCKING DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY?!?!

If Ford was setting up a dealership right next to the Redneck bar and marketting directly to the drunks, they would be liable..

Of course, the first thing Ford dealers do when they sell you a car is make sure you have a valid license to DRIVE a car. They also insist you get insurance in most states. They do a background check to make sure you can afford it.

if the Gun dealers were as responsible as car dealers, you certainly wouldn't have them selling 8 guns to Nancy Lanza, who was kind of nuts.

You don't have to have a driver's licence to buy a car.

Or to own one.
Or to drive it on private property.
Or to transport it on public property.
And when you lose your license to drive, you still own your car(s).

 

[saveusfromnazis]

Alex Jones "...the 2nd amendment isn't in place for duck hunting. It's to ensure that the republic can rise against a tyrannical leadership if the need exists..." Yes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The beauty of it is neither you or the bad guys know for sure, who is, or who is not carrying and you get a proven benefit form that.

I really don't want everyone carrying a gun on them. Too many hot heads and idiots who can't take an insult. The idea that we would have less mass shootings if everyone was armed is probably true, but we'd lose more people to gun deaths because there are just too many stupid people out there who are unable to control their tempers.

And everyplace that has had CCW laws enacted has seen crime go down.

So it looks like you're wrong.

Seems he thinks his own stupidity level is the norm for everyone else.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're saying that if someone buys an F-150, gets drunk, and kills somebody, Ford is liable?

Dude, ARE YOU REALLY THAT FUCKING DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY?!?!

If Ford was setting up a dealership right next to the Redneck bar and marketting directly to the drunks, they would be liable..

Of course, the first thing Ford dealers do when they sell you a car is make sure you have a valid license to DRIVE a car. They also insist you get insurance in most states. They do a background check to make sure you can afford it.

if the Gun dealers were as responsible as car dealers, you certainly wouldn't have them selling 8 guns to Nancy Lanza, who was kind of nuts.

You don't have to have a driver's licence to buy a car.

They don't care if you have insurance or not. The lienholder does.

They don't do "background checks". The lienholder does a credit check.

If you pay cash, the dealer doesn't care if you have insurance or not.

Your ignorance is astounding. Well, it would be, if you didn't display it every time you post.

You don't even, technically speaking, need a license to drive a car at all. You need the license to drive a car on publicly-owned roads. It's the use of the roads that's licensed, not the use of the car.

So if guns were licensed like cars, you'd only need a license to have one on public property, and all it would require is two forms of ID to verify that you're you to acquire one.