Reasons he carries a gun, why do you carry?

[cc-hangfire]

This one I just heard and I really like:

"When seconds count, law enforcement is only minutes away."

Remember folks, responsible citizens ARE the first responders (medical, fire, & protection). The honorable, paid professionals are the second responders.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Yea, I've always thought it existed for that singular purpose-resisting a tyrannical government. That's why we should be able to possess what they possess. Hopefully the gap between what we can have and what they have wont widen any further in the future than it already has. I guess there's a limit, where should that line be? I don't know. Should it be ok for your neighbor to have a drone in his garage? It's a bit off topic but what do you think?

There's a simple test -- can the people defeat the government? If the answer is "no," then we haven't reached the line.

The Founding Fathers' idea was that we have security and stability when people LOVE their government, not when they fear it.

 

[Warp]

I'm a little surprised in this statement from the link:

"That’s why we have a Second Amendment, not for hunting, not for self-defense, but to allow the common man–if necessary–to resist a tyrannical government and always to deter tyranny"

The 2nd amendment doesn't speak of tyrannical governments or deterring tyranny?

...a check against tyrannical government is the single most important reason for having the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

 

[19-3Ben]

My exercise of a fundamental right does not need to be justified for anyone's gratification.

Absolutely true. It does not NEED to be justified.
But being able to debate it and discuss it, and corner someone in an argument such that, without being condescending, you can get them to second guess their own anti-2A beliefs is a way to break up the ranks of the other side.
I've done it. When you use a debate as an opportunity to educate rather than dismiss people with "cuz i said so" you are grasping an opportunity to help our cause. if at the end of the debate you have not made a break through, you've at least broken their stereotypes of us as ignorant rednecks who can't formulate a sentence never mind a cogent argument.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Absolutely true. It does not NEED to be justified.
But being able to debate it and discuss it, and corner someone in an argument such that, without being condescending, you can get them to second guess their own anti-2A beliefs is a way to break up the ranks of the other side.

That's called "begging the question." It's an underhanded technique where one debater tries to get the other side to accept his argument in order to prove it.

When you abandon the argument that you have a RIGHT, you have allowed your opponent to trap you.

The proper argument is to point to the Constitution and say, "If you don't agree with it, you're free to see if you can repeal it."

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Warp wrote:

"Because I can" is a good way to keep -silly people- from trying to bog you down in endless pointless argument as they attempt to convince you that your reason(s) are no good.

RetiredUSNChief wrote:

Hence my answer: "Because I said so", which is an assertion of my authority as a parent over a rebellious child.

This is actually an abdication of argument. It's used when you've run out of compelling counterarguments to the assertions put forth by your debate opponent. It's finally a resort to raw power and authority -- in one case, parental authority, and in the other case, the authority of the Bill of Rights. (In the debate field, it's like running up the flag of surrender.) And it disrespects your opponent by treating him as a "rebellious child" or as a "silly person." In the long run, this is not a good strategy. Children grow up, and "silly people" vote. They'll remember how you disrespected them.

I never cease to be amazed at the tone-deaf sense of public relations exhibited by pro-gun advocates (Wayne LaPierre being a prime example).

Respectfully, I disagree.

There is a world of difference between a rebellious child who is questioning "why" and a confused child or a child who does not understand and asks "why". The former is challenging the authority of the parent and has absolutely no interest in any response unless it is in compliance with his own desires. The latter is truely in need of clarification.

Likewise for hardcore, belligerant pro-gun control fanatics who issue a challenge to me by questioning "why". Such a question posed in such a manner isn't about the personal reasons why I carry. It's a direct challenge to my RIGHT to carry and I do NOT have to justify a right which I am guaranteed by law.

The moment I allow myself to submit to having to justify a right I already have is the moment it becomes a privilege for the few and not a right for all.


This is NOT an "abdication" argument at all. I have no problems DISCUSSING my personal reasons why I carry with anybody who wishes to do so intelligently and respectfully. And that includes pro-gun control people (not all of whom are rabid fanatics).

There is a distinct difference between close-minded fanatics of the pro-gun control crowd who have already made up my mind for me and who outright question MY RIGHT...and those who are pro-gun control who will talk about such matters intelligently and respectfully. Respect goes both ways.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Because while pushing my wife in a wheelchair, I always felt a target or victim, rather than a citizen.

Sure, retreat is an option, but not for everyone. And when your only option is stand and fight, you want to be as prepared as possible.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Likewise for hardcore, belligerant pro-gun control fanatics who issue a challenge to me by questioning "why". Such a question posed in such a manner isn't about the personal reasons why I carry. It's a direct challenge to my RIGHT to carry and I do NOT have to justify a right which I am guaranteed by law.

Exactly. And when you begin giving him reasons, you are validating his specious argument that you can't exercise a Constitutional right unless you can PROVE you need it.

Next, they'd be demanding you prove you need to vote, read a newspaper, or speak your mind.

 

[GBExpat]

Quite frankly, I stopped wasting my time on such people long ago.

 

[Potatohead]

There's a simple test -- can the people defeat the government? If the answer is "no," then we haven't reached the line.

The Founding Fathers' idea was that we have security and stability when people LOVE their government, not when they fear it.

I hear you Vern. What do you think the answer is at this moment? Because of sheer numbers at least, I'd have to say yea we could. I think I better veer off this course though, or we'll get closed down.

 

[Potatohead]

That's called "begging the question." It's an underhanded technique where one debater tries to get the other side to accept his argument in order to prove it.

When you abandon the argument that you have a RIGHT, you have allowed your opponent to trap you.

The proper argument is to point to the Constitution and say, "If you don't agree with it, you're free to see if you can repeal it."

Agree. Ive just never been real excited about trying to change somebody's mind (or enlighten them) by conversation. Mostly a waste of time IMO. Do you often get "debated" or talked into changing your views on serious topics such as 2A or your religion, for example? I think not.

Now taking someone to the range, and showing them how fun it is, that may work. But debates/conversations/essays/paragraphs? Naaa.

 

[AlexanderA]

I'd like to remind everyone that this thread is about reasons to carry. It's not about reasons for the general right to own guns, under the Second Amendment. Even after the Heller and McDonald cases, the Supreme Court has not recognized any right to carry outside the home. That issue remains for further litigation. (And we can't rely on only the words of the Second Amendment, because "bear arms" was a term of art in the 18th century, meaning going armed in a military context.)

A lot of the "reasons" listed in the OP's referenced article actually have to do with the general Second Amendment right, and not specifically about the act of carrying. Therefore, reasons having to do with resisting tyranny, "because I can," etc. are off the mark.

 

[preachnhunt]

I carry because I did field work in seminary as a chaplain in the state prison. I have interviewed some of the people who commit the hideous crimes. Some out there will take whatever advantage they can , whenever they can, of whomever they can.
I vowed to try my best to NEVER allow myself or my loved ones to be at these people's mercy. They have none.

 

[Tirod]

To reiterate the Chief's point: Because I Can - which means my Rights are superior to any other authority, regardless.

Argumentation and debate have no place in the conversation, that is itself just an attempt to undermine the Constitutional Right. My Right is absolute - inalienable - and it cannot be changed by law. It supercedes law. It exists regardless of who's learned dissertation and how they attempt to restrict it.

It exists as a Higher Authority than they. It cannot be limited unless thru my cooperation, and at the present time, if and when I choose to exercise it, the result won't be a discussion that I didn't have that Right, it would be whether it was appropriately exercised.

That's why I find it so revealing that gun owners seem to bend the knee and pull their forelock whenever judicial review of their actions might be necessary - and that they predominantly expouse the opinion you should restrict your exercise of your Right to prevent something Horrible! happening in your life. I guess they think that might be something even worse than death, dismemberment, or deliberate maiming. Gee, I could die painfully at the hands of a criminal, or suffer three meals a day, free, medical care, free, a supervised atmosphere of total control, like the military I served in, and a free lawyer, too.

I didn't ask to be put into the circumstance where I had to make a decision, but if it looks like me or the other person has to die, what do most people do? Shoot first. In the larger perspective of life, the persecution for doing so is largely to be considered acting in my self defense. As long as I don't show up at the other person's funeral, things will settle down.

I carry "Because I Can." I can only conclude that for others, it's just a permission slip and they can't accept that it has an overriding authority beyond their comprehension. I can vote, too, and if someone attempts to restrict one or the other, it's justifiable to defend it by exercising the appropriate Right. As that has already happened in America at Athens, Tennessee in 1946, there is precedent. Americans can and will go to the necessary means to protect both.

Because they can.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I hear you Vern. What do you think the answer is at this moment? Because of sheer numbers at least, I'd have to say yea we could. I think I better veer off this course though, or we'll get closed down.

Well, nuclear "weapons" are not weapons -- that it, they do not have a realistic battle-winning capability. You can destroy all life on earth with nuclear weapons, but that's not "winning."

Chemical and biological "weapons" are illegal under international law and the United States has no offensive capability with either.

So I'd say that's the line.

Otherwise, I agree with Tench Coxe, "All the terrible implements of the soldier."

 

[Averageman]

Because everywhere I go someone is going to be armed, in all cases I would prefer that someone to be me.

 

[Potatohead]

Thanks for your input Vern.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I carry to protect my life from the dangerous people who want to harm me in this world.

 

[JRH6856]

I carry because I want to and I can, and neither the fact that I want to or can is subject for debate. If anyone wants to debate why I should be able to do either, we can have that discussion, but that is a different subject.

 

[SlayerOfBunnies]

I carry because I am a free man and not a slave.

 

[Frankl03]

I carry for the protection of my self and loved ones.

I would hope more and more law abiding citizens choose to carry for an armed society is a polite society. I believe it has been documented that as more lawful citizens carry crime goes down.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If someone wants to debate why I carry, I want to debate his right to question me.

 

[Potatohead]

Vern, I like your style-

 

[Ed Ames]

I thought the purpose of articles like the one that started this thread was to recruit people to our side by stating reasons to carry that cause non-carriers to think, "gee yeah that makes sense and applies to my situation, maybe I should carry too."

Lotta people in this thread are throwing off big-time defensive vibes, which seem like they would be counterproductive. You don't win new people by saying that if you don't already know why a person might carry you are like a rebellious child. Gotta say to some of the folks on this thread: either you lost the context or you are actively harming the effort to get the public to perceive carry as a normal and rational choice.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I thought the purpose of articles like the one that started this thread was to recruit people to our side by stating reasons to carry that cause non-carriers to think, "gee yeah that makes sense and applies to my situation, maybe I should carry too."

If a person is interested in guns, hunting, self-defense, whatever, I'll gladly help them.

But when a holier-than-thou type who doesn't know a bourellet from a butt plate gets snotty with me, I see no reason to be humble.