"But guns were MADE for killing"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please tell me, without going to check, what does your second amendment say? I am almost certain, some will misquote it... if they are honest, and didnt check it first.

A well regulated milita being nessesary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

happy? The italized part took a few moments. I knew I was missing it, it just took a few moments.

Anyways, the only cases that I'm aware of where a criminal took a gun away from a civilian was when the civilian wasn't willing to fire.

Cops, believe it or not, have a worse retention statistic. By percent of encounters they're more likely to be shot with their own weapon than a civilian is to be killed by a criminal who's taken it away from them.

Now, this isn't to degenerate the police; Indeed, their job is far more difficult because they're expected to capture the criminal alive and unharmed as often as possible.

On the other hand, we have the case of an old woman, I can't remember her name at the moment. A man broke into her home, started beating her in a robbery type scenario. But he didn't stop. Somehow she got her hands onto an old revolver. I think it was a .22 or a .32. She shot him five times, including multiple times in the chest. However, he was a big dude, none of the shots were immediatly disabling and it took him 30 minutes to die from blood loss. The entire time he was beating her and trying to take the gun away. In the end it took the paramedics to get the empty gun out of her hand. I'm sure somebody on this board will be able to provide a link to the details.

So where's your story of a criminal taking a gun away from somebody ready to fire?
 
que said:
You lot are so blinkered by trying to justify firearms that you are blinded by everything else!

I don't need to justify anything. My Rights allow it. What we do get blinkered about is how people try to take away those rights. We fight to keep those rights. Its definately "If you are not with us, you are against us." Google Jim Zumbo, maybe you'll understand.


que said:
There are many children shot and killed by there parents weapons, but shot by another child... if a child can do it... how much more then, can an adult take the weapon and shot you?

You DO realise that for the sake of statistics they use "children" that are aged 18-20 as well correct?


que said:
Owning or not owning a firearm does not prevent you from being robbed... it just makes it easier for a person to shoot you with your own firearm.

Only if you are unwilling to defend yourself. Any weapon is a tool of force, Firearms are force multipliers. Or as the saying goes "God created man, Sam colt made them equal."

que said:
Hmmm, I wont even comtemplate rebutting that reply... gunfacts.info... I am almost certain that this is the Brady Campaign site you were referring to...

I've seen enough. You'll post
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/firearm_facts.pdf

in your list of sources and then go on to knock http://www.gunfacts.info/

Please let us know where you DO reside. It'll help in allowing comparisons as to crime rates and such. No its not to throw insults (though I'm sure some may) Right now the problem is you are listening to essentially propaganda.

Pull the wool from your eyes and stop being one of the sheeple. Our first amendment allows us (and you) to say what you will. If you think that you will change our opinions or do anything but anger us as a whole, YOU may just want to move on to a different forum.

This thread will get locked before too much name calling and anger driven words get out. This is, after all, THE HIGH ROAD.

hankdatank1362 said:
You're seriously beginning to reek of troll.
I'm starting to get that vibe as well.
 
Que -- ¿What?

Each of us here on THR has a different history concerning how and why he decided to learn and use firearms.

Some grew up with them, others were trained in the military, some went hunting with a friend, some had something really bad happen to them or to someone they knew.

Some of us just learn more slowly than others.

I am in that last camp.

I grew up in Northern California, and practically everyone I knew either had a gun of their own or got to use their dad's gun for hunting or targets. Over the nearly ten years I lived there, none of the kids got shot, none of the kids (or adults) shot up a school or restaurant.

Guns were just part of life. Just like knives are part of a kid's life in Northern Sweden/Norway/Finland. People mostly used them to get game, kill pests, and protect their orchards, farms, and ranches.

I didn't have a lot of exposure since we didn't have them in the family. I had an air gun or three, but no firearms.

I learned to shoot the AR-15/M16 in military basic training. I never had to use it beyond qualification. I shot well, but it was just holes in paper.

I got out of the service and put guns behind me; that was someone else's job now. I figured the military would protect the country and the police would protect the communities at home. I spent the next ten years doing volunteer work in U.K. and Europe.

I returned to the U.S. after cross-training myself in computer programming.

Somewhere in there I got married three times and had two kids twice.

Once I was permanently back in the U.S. I made new friends. Some of them had guns for one thing or another. I was always a little nervous around people who liked guns and even more so around those who had them. Those who hunted I could understand, but those who just had a weapon for self defense caused me some unease.

This was to be my relationship with guns for the next twenty years.

During this time there were a couple of incidents where people I knew personally were killed or harmed by robbers or thugs. A friend of mine, a dentist, explained to me why, after his wife was murdered, he bought a pistol for his own protection and one for the office -- and had the office staff trained to use it. A woman we knew, and her husband, bought large revolvers after she was assaulted.

It's hard to tell someone who has been directly victimized that they're being paranoid.

When, eventually, we moved to an area where hunting was popular and people were at ease with guns, I finally decided I should learn more.

Over the next year and a half I did research, read laws, asked questions of those more experienced than I. In this process I learned that almost all of my misgivings about guns had been based on denied information and false information from people who intend the complete disarmament of the U.S. citizens.

More than a year. Not a week. Not one evening online. More than a year. That's a lot of reading. That's a lot of questions. That's a lot of listening.

If you truly care about the answers to the questions you have posed, you will spend more than a few evenings online asking tired questions of people who hear those same questions asked daily by dishonest or ignorant people who mean harm or who can't be bothered to do their own research.

The people who founded the United States established its constitution, but couldn't get it ratified without certain amendments. These amendments enshrined certain recognized individual human rights, and forbade government from abridging, encroaching, or infringing them.

The Second Amendment was not a casual "good idea" the make the population "feel good" about the constitution. It was drafted and re-drafted until a wording was found that would make it clear that individuals should be armed and that government shall never disarm them.

Over the more than 200 years since, their wisdom has been demonstrated repeatedly as the peoples of other countries have been disarmed and then systematically exterminated.

Those who believe in socialism, despite its repeated failures all over the globe, believe that prosperity can only be attained by stealing the wealth created by free enterprise and forcibly re-distributing it. They are convinced that if they just get the chance to convert the United States to socialism they will finally succeed.

They just know that if they keep doing the same thing that has always failed before that they will succeed with it here.

Forcibly taking the wealth of a society that's armed will be met with force. This is very inconvenient, so they must first disarm the target society.

They are tireless. They are relentless. They have no scruples. They care not about the truth of their arguments. This is a religious quest to them, and anything at all that must be done is justified by the goal they mean to reach.

I didn't realize this for most of my life. I had to dig for it.

I eventually came to know:
  • guns are necessary to keep the freedoms of this nation;
  • guns are necessary to protect one's person and property from thieves, robbers, rapists, and murders;
  • guns are very useful in keeping down the ravages of certain pests;
  • guns are excellent recreation.
Guns are independence. Guns are freedom.

I worked hard for this knowledge.

I finally overcame my own fears and, after careful review, was able to choose the weapons most suitable for my self and my family.

It is easy to sit back at a distance, uninvolved, and ask academic questions from a plausible viewpoint.

It's more work to study the subject and learn real history and learn real statistics and learn the real mechanics of firearms.

I invite you to approach the subject with the seriousness that I, myself, did.

Many here know far more than I. Many here will be happy to provide guidance.

I invite you to walk this road to enlightenment.

There is much to know.
 
Last edited:
Addressing the "but guns are made for killing and killing is bad" argument with an anti, or even an ignorant but not really anti person is the heart of the matter. An anti has made up their mind that guns are bad, and so is all killing. For them to realize this is wrong would take a fundamental shift if how they view a lot of things. It's a big leap for a mind to make.
 
Some guns are made for launching plastic pellets, some for attaching price stickers to the top of a canned food item, some for flinging rubber bands, some for checking the speed of passing motorists, some for spraying a fine stream of water. So it's not true, all guns are not made for killing!!!:neener:
 
"but guns were MADE for killing" rebutal

IMHO the best counter to this is to play the percentages. How are guns used for killing? Via shooting with BULLETS OR SHOTSHELLS is the obvious answer. How many rounds of ammo (all calibers and gauges) are fired world wide each year? This may require a little research on your part but certainly hundreds of billions of rounds (probably into the trillions). How many of those rounds are used to kill people? For arguments sake lets say 5 million (probably a high estimate). What percentage of 500 Billion is 5 million? I ran out of digits on my calculator but I believe it's .001 % that is one thousanth of 1%. Thus if we accept these percentages as PROOF that "guns were MADE for killing" then we must accept the fact that ice picks, rope, knives, automobiles, alcohol, prescription drugs, vaccinations, human hands, etc were all MADE for killing.
 
ArfinGreebly: A reply

I read your reply... and you are making assumptions based on something I did not write.

1/. I do not and never did say I supported the disarmament or banning or removal of weapons - please point out where I said this?

2/. You are assuming I never owned a weapon, which I did, for a long time, I sold due to moving to country where the right to bear arms does not exist.

3/. You raise these points:
  • guns are necessary to keep the freedoms of this nation;
  • guns are necessary to protect one's person and property from thieves, robbers, rapists, and murders;
  • guns are very useful in keeping down the ravages of certain pests;
  • guns are excellent recreation.
I do not disagree with any of these points, nor did I say I did.

My intial post was simply that Guns were made for killing. What you or anyone does as an individual soley up to them. The gun does not need to be used to kill... however, a number have remarked that it is for self-protection... surely this alludes to killing? Because if you have time enough to wound, you have time enough to stop the person another way!

I love firearms, I always have. I am not campaigning to get them banned or removed or any of the like, no what any has written of me or perceived of me. They have perceived wrong. Research... I probably do more research than most people I know.
 
Mandirigma

May I ask you to actually go back and read my intial post? Because I can see that from your reply, you have not read what I actually wrote!

You mentioned about the bradycampaign.... well, go look on gun facts - if you check you will see that this site does not qualify as authoritative at all... but I am not disputing that... you raised brady... if you check, all the facts are sourced, and you can check them... I have seen those facts on a number of official sites... so be sure of what you write first.

As for threatening me with anger and post locking - this serves only to show that what I am writing is truth, or you would not reply in this way.

A scenario: Bill* and Bob* (*fictitious names)

Bill goes to Bob's house, and states to Bob, "I hear you are a wife-beater, Bob!" Bob replies by taking Bill outside, and promptly beating him up... Everyone in the street heard the accusation, and has seen Bob beat up Bill. The action of Bob has served only to add feul to fire and show that he is exactly what Bill said he was...

In the same way, your threatss of anger, and post locking are essentially the same, and they come AFTER you claim the right of free speech...

I think you need to re-evalutate your stand point.

I never once said I am against you!
I never once said I want guns removed!

Now I am telling you, go back, and show me where I suggested or said either! You wont, I didnt say it. If a site I posted, says it, it is the view of that site.

My initial post was simply, "Guns were invented by people for killing!" It is neither negative nor positive and can be interpreted both ways.
 
Firethorn

The woman needed a bigger gun... and I am not against it... unfortunately society has made it to be necessary to bear arms...

If a person is shooting at me, and I shoot them and they die, then they are reaping what they have sewn!
 
Second Amendment: A serious question

It was stated (and I checked...) that it says:

"A well regulated milita being nessesary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

However, I was under the impression that there is a part left out... and it should state:

"A well regulated milita being nessesary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms against a common enemy, shall not be infringed."

When did it change, or indeed, did it ever change? Please, I am genuinely curious...


And I am not a troll... I am not against guns... and public opinion counts... and you have made your views clear... My original statement still stands though... that guns were initially invented for killing... and so were other things, but I am not discussing them... and I do not want people to hand in their weapons, that is foolishness. To stop firearms mannufacture will also put many people out of work and cause major other problems too, I seen what happened in UK when they did that... I disagreed with that move then, and I still do.
 
Firethorn:

You wrote:
Anyways, the only cases that I'm aware of where a criminal took a gun away from a civilian was when the civilian wasn't willing to fire.

If anyone pulls a weapon of ANY sort, then they should be willing to use it! Or not pull it in the first place!
 
HonorsDaddy: Your question

Why should one be held responsible for the negligent and/or criminal actions of another who used his stolen property?

Did you read what was written? If the person, call him Jack, has several firearms, and they are not locked up or kept securely, and ONE is stolen from Jack by person or persons unknown, Jack is at this point, guilty of an offence! He has a duty of care to himself, and other people that requires him to ensure that his weapons are secure, and safe. If Jack has not done this, then he is guilty of breaching that duty. The the next part that will need to shown is there causation and/or remoteness. If the person(s) commits a felony act with that weapon, then but for Jack not locking up and securing his weapon, that felony act would not have occurred and Jack is guilty. If that weapon was then used to kill someone, then Jack has a serious offence to answer.

My statement stands... If Jack does not lock up his weapon and it is stolen and a felony act is committed where someone dies as a result of Jack's negligence in not locking up or securing his weapon, then Jack should be held responsible for his negligence, and Jack should be man enough to stand and take account for and responsibility of that negligence. This comes with the territory and right of owning a weapon. Everyone has the right to liberty, life etc... and by Jack not securing his weapon, that has been removed.

Jack, and the person committing the offence are guilty.
 
HonorsDaddy

You said:
By mentioning it the way you did, the implication is you believe killing is a negative.

The implication comes only by way of your perceptions on how you truly view things. If a man attacks me, or my family, and the only way to stop him is to remove his life, then his life will be removed!

I love guns... I have CZ-75 (not the one I wanted) but it sufficed. I wanted a 1911 .45 or a .44 but now I cannot own either. I live in UK.
 
Que:

Amendment II

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.
Just like it was written in 1791It may be my imagination but you seem to dismiss "Gun Facts" as a resource, but seem to refer to the Brady bunch as authority.

My Troll sense is tingling...

By the way, the Second Amendment was easy to validate, just Google it. No need to add your own words...
 
Mongo the Mutterer

Oh dear - I cited neither as authoratitive - I said the facts can be validated... and I quote:
You mentioned about the bradycampaign.... well, go look on gun facts - if you check you will see that this site does not qualify as authoritative at all... but I am not disputing that... you raised brady... if you check, all the facts are sourced, and you can check them... I have seen those facts on a number of official sites... so be sure of what you write first.
No where do I say its authoratitive... please read correctly.
 
Second Amendment Question

Please read what I have asked... if you are not going to give me an answer please refrain from answering. Your answer does NOT answer the question! I did NOT put words in, I asked about it.
 
If the person(s) commits a felony act with that weapon, then but for Jack not locking up and securing his weapon, that felony act would not have occurred and Jack is guilty. If that weapon was then used to kill someone, then Jack has a serious offence to answer.

Wrong... the criminal will just get a weapon some other way and the crime will still occur. Now, if Jack leaves his weapons leaning against trees in his front yard with lots of children around, that's different. But if someone breaks into his home and happens to see one resting on the coffee table, Jack cannot and must not be held liable, because the criminal had no business in his home to begin with. A man's home is his castle, and that means he can do whatever he damn well pleases, including leaving unsecured firearms lying around all over the place with a reasonable expectation of their security.

If someone stole Jack's car because he forgot to lock the door and ran over a small child, would it still be Jack's fault?

Or, more ridiculously, if Jack dropped a pencil, and a criminal picked up the pencil and used it to stab someone in the eye, is Jack still responsible?

In my opinion, that's just as bad as blaming the gun itself.
 
May I ask you to actually go back and read my intial post? Because I can see that from your reply, you have not read what I actually wrote!

Read it, and if YOU'LL note I'm not reply to that. I'm replying to the comments you have on other board members. You want to say that everyone here isn't reading what you are writing. But its looking like you are only reading what you want to.

You mentioned about the bradycampaign.... well, go look on gun facts - if you check you will see that this site does not qualify as authoritative at all... but I am not disputing that... you raised brady... if you check, all the facts are sourced, and you can check them... I have seen those facts on a number of official sites... so be sure of what you write first.

que said:
Hmmm, I wont even comtemplate rebutting that reply... gunfacts.info... I am almost certain that this is the Brady Campaign site you were referring to...

I don't need to read through the links you provided. I know they are false, and/or represented in a way to promote the Brady Campaign's agenda. I don't need to post them on a PRO-GUN board.

I posted the two links to show you that you were in error. if you need to, go to register.com and see who owns the sites you posted. The brady campaign would like nothing more than if gunfact.info and the information it represents were to disappear.

As for threatening me with anger and post locking - this serves only to show that what I am writing is truth, or you would not reply in this way.

In the same way, your threatss of anger, and post locking are essentially the same, and they come AFTER you claim the right of free speech...

First off, go back and read EXACTLY what I wrote, never mind I'll quote it myself

Mandirigma said:
Our first amendment allows us (and you) to say what you will. If you think that you will change our opinions or do anything but anger us as a whole, YOU may just want to move on to a different forum.

This thread will get locked before too much name calling and anger driven words get out. This is, after all, THE HIGH ROAD.

What threats? Do you see a "Moderator" under my handle? I am only a member. If you mean what I put into bold and underlined. Well read it again. There is no threat there, its simple fact. I've seen it happen. I've seen threads getting locked for being off topic, which is where I see this one going.

And since you bring up the First Amendment. It only protects against the Government procescution. It is not a shield to protect you from what citizens may do. What the moderators choose to do is of thier own opinions.

I think you need to re-evalutate your stand point.

I never once said I am against you!
I never once said I want guns removed!

Now I am telling you, go back, and show me where I suggested or said either! You wont, I didnt say it. If a site I posted, says it, it is the view of that site.

My initial post was simply, "Guns were invented by people for killing!" It is neither negative nor positive and can be interpreted both ways.

There's no need for me to re-evaluate anything. I know who I am, and I know where I stand.

que said:
There has been no sound argument to refute the original intent of a gun... unlike any other weapon, its sole purpose was for killing, be that in self-defence, murder, war or hunting!

This is not to say they should be banned... because banning them would not be a solution, it will just make the problem change colour... What is needed is a global control over them, and stricter controls in place.... not necessarily new legislation, but better enforcement of existing legislation.

And here in lie the rub. You may have not come out and directly type the words I am against you but your little bit in the bold. Thats what everyone here is working against.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ban

Main Entry: 1ban
Pronunciation: 'ban
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): banned; ban·ning
Etymology: Middle English bannen to summon, curse, from Old English bannan to summon; akin to Old High German bannan to command, Latin fari to speak, Greek phanai to say, phOnE sound, voice
transitive verb
1 archaic : CURSE
2 : to prohibit especially by legal means <ban discrimination>; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of <ban a book> <ban a pesticide>
3 : BAR 3c <banned from the U.N.>
intransitive verb, archaic : to utter curses or maledictions

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/control

Main Entry: 1con·trol
Pronunciation: k&n-'trOl
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·trolled; con·trol·ling
Etymology: Middle English countrollen, from Anglo-French contrerouler, from contreroule copy of an account, audit, from Medieval Latin contrarotulus, from Latin contra- + Medieval Latin rotulus roll -- more at ROLL
transitive verb
1 a archaic : to check, test, or verify by evidence or experiments b : to incorporate suitable controls in <a controlled experiment>
2 a : to exercise restraining or directing influence over : REGULATE b : to have power over : RULE c : to reduce the incidence or severity of especially to innocuous levels <control an insect population> <control a disease>
intransitive verb : to incorporate controls in an experiment or study -- used with for <control for socioeconomic differences>
synonym see CONDUCT
- con·trol·la·bil·i·ty /-"trO-l&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
- con·trol·la·ble /-'trO-l&-b&l/ adjective
- con·trol·ment /-'trOl-m&nt/ noun

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/legislation

Main Entry: leg·is·la·tion
Pronunciation: "le-j&s-'lA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the action of legislating; specifically : the exercise of the power and function of making rules (as laws) that have the force of authority by virtue of their promulgation by an official organ of a state or other organization
2 : the enactments of a legislator or a legislative body
3 : a matter of business for or under consideration by a legislative body


I haven't seen anyone refute what the original intent of guns were we are all on the same page here.

Here is the deal. A good percentage of the board members are highly educated (of which I'm not, I'm just a dumb grunt) We are used to not only reading what is written, but also interperating whats implied. Whats implied in that last post is that you do, in fact, want to control and legislate my gun rights. Read the BOLD portions.


Instead of answer questions directed at you, you go on to attack the person questioning you. With what boils down to "I didn't say that, where did I say that?" Well now its on you.






que said:
However, I was under the impression that there is a part left out... and it should state:

Quote:
"A well regulated milita being nessesary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms against a common enemy, shall not be infringed."

When did it change, or indeed, did it ever change? Please, I am genuinely curious...


ArfinGreebly said:
The Second Amendment was not a casual "good idea" the make the population "feel good" about the constitution. It was drafted and re-drafted until a wording was found that would make it clear that individuals should be armed and that government shall never disarm them.

Once it was ratified it never changed.
 
que said:
Please read what I have asked... if you are not going to give me an answer please refrain from answering. Your answer does NOT answer the question! I did NOT put words in, I asked about it.

State your source, show us where you found what you were under the impression. Since you didn't put it in who did?

que said:
However, I was under the impression that there is a part left out... and it should state:

Quote:
"A well regulated milita being nessesary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms against a common enemy, shall not be infringed."

When did it change, or indeed, did it ever change? Please, I am genuinely curious...

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/charters_downloads.html

Hard to read but there it is.
 
Mandirigma

I do not think that you are a "dumb grunt".

I dont have a source, that is why I was asking about it. I just wanted to know, as I had heard it... and I was not making claims - it was a serious question, and it really has not been answered, but yet it has. I just wanted to know if those extra words were ever in it, and apparantly they are not, and never were. Then that issue has been resolved. I was merely asking a question to gain some understanding.

Yes I wrote "Hmmm, I wont even comtemplate rebutting that reply... gunfacts.info... I am almost certain that this is the Brady Campaign site you were referring to..." However, this was a sarcastic comment.

My quote "What is needed is a global control over them, and stricter controls in place.... not necessarily new legislation, but better enforcement of existing legislation." and your reply "And here in lie the rub. You may have not come out and directly type the words I am against you but your little bit in the bold. Thats what everyone here is working against." This is not really aimed at legal gun owners at all - it aimed more at illegal trade, arms traffickers, and the like. I should have been more clear on that from the start.
 
Good points all. As Hankdatank states (very well I might add), what I do in my home (and/or property-?) is my business. It is not the Governments responsibility to regulate my activities if I am not threatening the public safety (although they seem to assume so at every turn). Please note, I said PUBLIC safety. That is fundamentally what law enforcement is for, protecting/maintaining the public safety in a general sense. They DO NOT have a responsibility to personally protect ME or my family. That, is MY job!!!!!! That is one of the beautiful things about living in the USA, my business is mine.
Que, research the Castle Doctrine. Simply stated, my home is my castle and therefore I may protect it and its occupants as well as any extension thereof as necessary. "As necessary" opens a new world for some folks, although probably not for most members here!!! If someone breaks into my home and steals a gun, they are already criminals before they leave. Why therefore, do you take the position I am now somehow liable for their misuse of my stolen property???? Was there negligence? Depends on a variety of circumstances, but making a blanket statement that someone is automatically guilty assumes you are omnipotent and know all about everything, which I am just guessing here guys, but you probably are not. I am certainly not trying to pick a fight, but I believe you are taking a position that most of us "gun folks" in THIS country oppose. We all see how well the banning and "global control" of firearms has worked in the UK (your country as stated), Australia, Russia, China, and the list goes on and on and on.
The original question of guns being designed to kill, once again makes the assumption that the questioner has total knowledge and an all seeing/understanding interpretation of the issue. Assumption is the mother of all @#$%-ups. Many arguments have been made to refute this claim.
Kill? Kill what? Is feeding my family evil? I think you get the point. I have "killed" many animals for food as did my father, and his father, and his father, ect. We've been around here for a long, long time. Are we then evil? At the risk of sounding PC, I prefer to think of this as harvesting, not killing. My issue not yours. Guns are TOOLS, made for a pupose. This purpose has many colors. It is up to the user to pick one of the multitude and use it. ANYTHING can be misused and made into a killing instrument. Some are simply put, more efficient than others.
How about this: we "globally" get rid of EVERYTHING that can kill, because we take the position that if it can kill, then it was meant to. In our new found caveman utopia, there is no more killing, right? WRONG!!!!!!!! As long as man walks the face of the earth, there will be killing as there always has been. Sticks, stones, guns, water (yes water, ever heard of murder by drowning). It DOES NOT matter. Man is the inherent problem in the formula, not the tool. If however, you disarm the entire planet, you have now made it easier for governments to continue the mass murder of innocents. And they WILL. See the above mentioned governments for a partial list. The United States is one of the last remaining places on earth where one has even a basic ability to remain free and safe. It is my contention that ANYONE who attempts to remove that God given right from me, is my enemy and therefore we shall fight until one of us is no longer a threat. Define "stop the threat". I have my definition, do you? Have a nice day everyone :D .
 
Que - Not a troll?

Lets see what ever could he have done to inflame people?:

1. Added words to the second ammendment and then said he didn't.

2. Advocated worldwide gun control and then said he didn't.

3. Claimed that lawful gun owners were responsible for third party acts of criminals and then claimed he didn't.

4. Made up a bunch of statistics and then claimed he didn't.

5. Claims repeatedly he is not a troll but actually is.

If it looks like a troll, sounds like a troll, smells like a troll, than it is a troll...

Let us send Mr. Que and his multiple posts back to the bradys where he absolutely did not come from I am sure..... And deny him the immense pleasure his illogical and dishonest arguments that serve to inflame the senses of everyone who is everything he is not.
 
Control

Que wrote:

>What is needed is a global control over them, and stricter controls in place.... not necessarily new legislation, but better enforcement of existing legislation." and your reply "And here in lie the rub.<
**************

The "rub." Exactly so. The problem with putting anything under "Global Control" is that it denies the sovereignty of the United States in deciding
what is good for their own, and places that same "control" in the hands of the UN, which...as we have thus far seen...is a pretty corrupt organization. Their hidden agenda may be likened to a Cockroach infestation. For every one that you see, there are a thousand that you don't see.

So...Other nations and leaders may feel comfortable in letting a "World Court" decide their respective fates...but Americans, as a whole, are decidedly not.
We tend to view anyone who would be so arrogant to presume that we neeed to be controlled with deep suspicion and resentment. Resisting control by committee is something that we have done very well in the past, and will continue to do so. It's a fine, old American tradition. You should try it sometime.

Finally...for the record...Even suggesting to most Americans that global control over ANY aspect of our lives isn't likely to win you any friends here, nor will it earn you very much civility in the progression of this thread. As I noted earlier...Man was designed to kill. The means at his disposal are limitless, and the only way to stop man from killing is to control men. Good luck on that. Homo Homilia Lupus. It's the nature of the beast...but the most dangerous wolf in the forest is the one who would rule all wolves...even those not in his pack. And there, my young friends...is the real rub.

The issue is not gun control. The issue is people control. As long as people have the means to reisist, absolute control can never be achieved. Power is the great seducer. Power is the great corrupter. And power...is the end game for the ones who would rule. So, while the corrupt among our politicos may well hand over our sovereignty one day...they probably shouldn't expect that it will be well met by the average American. I, for one...will NOT be controlled by a foreign entity...and don't care a damn who isn't comfortable with that notion. You may be comfortable with the prospect of global control over your possessions, and I wish you great peace and much prosperity in Shangri-La. Me? I'm a free man. I'll stick to it.

As a wise man noted:

"They may promise to govern well, but they mean to govern.
And, they may promise to be GOOD masters...but they mean to be masters."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top