why guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Without a gun, there is nothing you can do to protect yourself and your loved ones from being raped, tortured, mutilated, robbed, imprisoned, and executed at the whims of others. A gun forces your enemy to take you seriously. Even if you have no chance of victory, a gun forces them to kill you quick and clean, because you pose an imminent threat. Otherwise you become their plaything. That’s why I will never, never surrender my right to bear arms, nor compromise on the lethality of weapons at my disposal."
Well said.
 
except universal background checks and waiting periods are unacceptable. But everything else he said is right on.
For sure. I imagine he would reconsider that If you told him the mob with cork screws was coming for his family tonight and he suddenly felt like he needed a gun but wait... the gov wants you to wait a week before you can protect yourself because they don’t know if you’re buying the gun in anger to shoot your wife or fear to protect her.
 
For sure. I imagine he would reconsider that If you told him the mob with cork screws was coming for his family tonight and he suddenly felt like he needed a gun but wait... the gov wants you to wait a week before you can protect yourself because they don’t know if you’re buying the gun in anger to shoot your wife or fear to protect her.
Absolutely, the waiting period when you must be armed is the one after you've called the police when your door frame is splintering.
 
I read it rather hurriedly but it's seemed relatively well reasoned. I find his mistrust of police curious considering his confidence they will show up to protect him if needed almost immediately.
Just because they’re paid to show up doesn’t mean
-they will protect you
-that they’re good/moral/ethical
-they’re on your side
-they’re not going to personally benefit from arresting you or confiscating your stuff
-that they won’t twist what you say in court
 
With all respect, I thought the article was all over the place and kind of a jumbled mess.
 
I am surprised and troubled by your attitude towards law enforcement officers.​
I'm quite certain our moderator is just postulating on the thoughts of the author. I'm friends with a few LEO's great guys doing a very hard job, sometimes they make mistakes and of course the mainstream media will always highlight the mistakes, especially the occasional bad cop. And I suspect the attitudes of the author are skewed by the mainstream media even though much of his article is relatively well reasoned.
 
Last edited:
the police angle seems like a thread detour but it's really not. a common anti-gun response is that we should trust the police to protect us. and the response to that is important. i believe the reason that doesn't work is not just because they're not capable of being everywhere at once, but for many many other reasons, including the ones i quickly listed above.

there's a big difference in being pro-law enforcement (as I am), and supporting the police (as I do) and trusting the police (which I most certainly do not) despite being friends with many of them in my small town

Most people that mistrust law enforcement are criminals or people that don’t really know someone in law enforcement.

i agree because EVERY adult in the entire nation has broken laws. most of us (highly moral and ethical people) break them every day. it's impossible not to. and sometimes we break them because they're unjust laws. we're not advocating that here, but fear of being prosecuted for breaking an unknown or unjust law is probably pretty common reason for people not to go to the police to seek protection. fear of being hassled certainly is.

also, ask any competent lawyer why you shouldn't trust the police and you'll probably get an answer like this:
https://larryformanlaw.com/why-you-should-never-talk-to-the-police-period/

also, SCROTUS ruled the police do not have a duty to protect you from harm ("even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation")
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

also, they occasionally become disinclined to help. e.g. baltimore

also, the 2A is about resisting tyranny, and while a lot of police are pro-2A, it seems most unwise to rely on them to protect us from their employer who controls their pensions, etc

also, as i mentioned earlier, they can confiscate your stuff, for no good reason. just google "civil asset forfeiture abuse" for thousands of stories like this https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/1/16686014/phillip-parhamovich-civil-forfeiture and this https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-...nessee-legally-steal-veterans-car-because-his

i could go on for pages listing reasons reasonable "innocent" people should not trust the police, and therefore, should take responsibility for their own safety, but let's PLEASE not turn this into a cop bashing thread. that's certainly not my intent.
 
Last edited:
So, from reading this it seems that the author supports the right but personally declines the responsibility to rely on others,(the police), for his families safety..?
seems that way. guess we all make our own decisions. knowing the right thing to do and doing it aren't the same thing, eh? possibly, someone living in a place like DC might reach that conclusion because the gov has made it so difficult.
 
Two words:

Self Reliance.

Whether putting food on the table or simply keeping the table safe..... Self Reliance.

When viewed as an all encompassing concept, it is likely nigh on IMPOSSIBLE for folk raised in near zero-accountability or zero-responsibility (as far as personal welfare and safe-keeping) environments to understand.

Doesn't mean one gives up on advancing the concept but starting there has always been the most successful tack for me.

The excessive brain-washing and exponential effect thereof of the *public education system* in America has been deliberately trying to erode the concept here as well.

Todd.
 
Most people that mistrust law enforcement are criminals or people that don’t really know someone in law enforcement.

I've got several friends that are cops. One took a bullet in a shootout last year and was almost killed. I respect the heck out of those guys. However, I've also had several interactions with police that were not so pleasant. Power hungry control freaks are just itching for a reason to give you a ticket or arrest you. I think it really comes down to the person. Some (most I hope) are great people, some are not. Remember that jerk in Canton Ohio a few years ago? he ended up getting his job back. I have no idea how.

 
This is the line that perplexed me "As a white middle class American male, I don’t really need a gun, and don’t own one, because I’m reasonably sure the police would show up in a hurry if I were in trouble." Followed by all the anti cop rhetoric. He does certainly need to rethink that one, as Taliv pointed out the police cannot protect us nor do they have the duty to, they can't that's our job.
 
PLEASE not turn this into a cop bashing thread.

I wholeheartedly agree on that.
My statement in #9 stands.

a common anti-gun response is that we should trust the police to protect us.

Ideally that would be nice , but any rational person can determine that a total umbrella of protection is not possible. That alone is a sound reason for exercising 2nd amendment rights. That said , I maintain that the harsh assessment in #8 , not really put in any context other than the bare bones statement that it is , paints an unfair picture.

Self Reliance.

YES! "Trust thyself , every heart vibrates to that iron string." Ralph Waldo Emerson
 
Most people that mistrust law enforcement are criminals or people that don’t really know someone in law enforcement.
I don't mistrust law enforcement, I just understand they they are under no obligation to protect me from harm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren...ct_of_Columbia

The trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual plaintiffs and dismissed the complaints

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim..._New_York_City

In the spring of 2012, Joseph Lozito, who was brutally stabbed and "grievously wounded, deeply slashed around the head and neck", sued police for negligence in failing to render assistance to him as he was being attacked by Gelman. Lozito told reporters that he decided to file the lawsuit after allegedly learning from "a grand-jury member" that NYPD officer Terrance Howell testified that he hid from Gelman before and while Lozito was being attacked because Howell thought Gelman had a gun.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...o-protect.html

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

I also it interesting that the reverse is not true, you the average Joe on the street, is supposed to provide aid to law enforcement, theoretically regardless of personal risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusi...police_officer
 
That said , I maintain that the harsh assessment in #8 , not really put in any context other than the bare bones statement that it is , paints an unfair picture.
that's fair. it does sound harsh without context.
 
For sure. I imagine he would reconsider that If you told him the mob with cork screws was coming for his family tonight and he suddenly felt like he needed a gun

Waiting periods are especially absurd when you not only already own a gun, but the government KNOWS you own a gun because they forced you to register it. (And no, please don't get me started on what I think about firearm registration.)

Tim
 
I have been in some aspect of law enforcement since 1979, before my military career, during it, and since. I can honestly say that most of the folks I've served with do so because they genuinely desire to help people in need.

When I saw the video of all the NYPD officers rushing back INTO the WTC as the towers were burning, it reaffirmed what I already knew.
 
Most people who are familiar with firearms use them wisely. Those who will misuse firearms will also misuse knives, rocks, cars, explosives, influence and money to do what they want. Firearms are optional for them regardless of the law, but not for many who by obeying the law, have no right to defend themselves effectively.

As to police and service members, they share the same faults as the rest of us. I believe we have some of the most principled and dedicated police in the world, but all organisms and organizations are subject to rot unless reasonable precautions are taken. Meanwhile, my locals know I respect them and what they do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top