Gordon
Member
WHEN Jesus asks for them THEN and ONLY THEN I'll be beating them into plows and disc harrows!
Would you turn in your guns if...
- Thread starter JCF
- Start date
- Status
ShootAndHunt
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 241
You already state that you are assuming an impossible situation, but you still ask us such a question. Are you a gun owner or ...?
toivo
Member
Let me answer that with a question: If you knew that by committing suicide you could bring everlasting peace, freedom, prosperity, and health to the entire world, would you do it?
Here's another: If you hadn't been born you, would you regret what you missed out on by being someone else?
And another: If Superman punches himself in the arm, does he get a bruise?
MTMilitiaman
Member
The Second Amendment isn't about crime rates.
My firearms and I refuse to be punished until we actually break the law. And until such point, I happen to derive a good deal of pleasure and entertainment value from them.
My firearms and I refuse to be punished until we actually break the law. And until such point, I happen to derive a good deal of pleasure and entertainment value from them.
no doubt...
It is a stupid and pointless question posted by someone who is trying to lure people into answering questions to add to statistics of the anti-gun agenda.
"Now that firearms are in posession of the police and Military only, we have the safest country in the world". Adolph Hitler, 1936 (not an exact quote, but close I'm sure).
" I could dump a thousand guns in Centeral Park and walk by them all day long, not one of them will get up out of the pile by it's self and shoot me".
By a prominate minister (name unknown by me) during the "Klinton Occupation".
Even the founders of this country knew it wasn't about public safety, it was about opressive and corrupt governments. If I remember right, some of the muskets had been stamped to the affect of "public safety commitee" that came from England.
Crime and public safety are NOT a reason, they are a ploy to relieve you of means to resist opression. In that light, the law abiding citizens of this country should be allowed to own any type machine gun or destructive device they wish short of nuclear or biological weapons (IMO). Using any weapon in the comission of a crime should be punished severely (baseball bat/knife/power tools/whatever). Since it is NOT against the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country to arm themselves and ovethrow the government if the need arised, it is not a crime ( it most certianly would be to government officials of course ). The ironey is...government officials are supposed to be sworn to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" but are bent on gutting it through the legislative process. Me...I call it TREASON (I wonder what the punishment for treason is?). Anyone at any level of government who would submit legislation to opress the law abiding citizens of this country the means to carry out the mission to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", should be tried for treason as well as barred from public service or holding positions in the government forever. The answer to the question posed...NO, I will NEVER willingly turn in my guns for ANY reason other than I am physically or mentally unable to prevent it. :banghead:
It is a stupid and pointless question posted by someone who is trying to lure people into answering questions to add to statistics of the anti-gun agenda.
"Now that firearms are in posession of the police and Military only, we have the safest country in the world". Adolph Hitler, 1936 (not an exact quote, but close I'm sure).
" I could dump a thousand guns in Centeral Park and walk by them all day long, not one of them will get up out of the pile by it's self and shoot me".
By a prominate minister (name unknown by me) during the "Klinton Occupation".
Even the founders of this country knew it wasn't about public safety, it was about opressive and corrupt governments. If I remember right, some of the muskets had been stamped to the affect of "public safety commitee" that came from England.
Crime and public safety are NOT a reason, they are a ploy to relieve you of means to resist opression. In that light, the law abiding citizens of this country should be allowed to own any type machine gun or destructive device they wish short of nuclear or biological weapons (IMO). Using any weapon in the comission of a crime should be punished severely (baseball bat/knife/power tools/whatever). Since it is NOT against the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country to arm themselves and ovethrow the government if the need arised, it is not a crime ( it most certianly would be to government officials of course ). The ironey is...government officials are supposed to be sworn to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" but are bent on gutting it through the legislative process. Me...I call it TREASON (I wonder what the punishment for treason is?). Anyone at any level of government who would submit legislation to opress the law abiding citizens of this country the means to carry out the mission to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", should be tried for treason as well as barred from public service or holding positions in the government forever. The answer to the question posed...NO, I will NEVER willingly turn in my guns for ANY reason other than I am physically or mentally unable to prevent it. :banghead:
Autolycus
Member
Well I would keep them due to the fact that there is still 5% of crime. The Bill of Rights guarantees my right to have them and should they disarm me the crime rate will go up.
The majority does not have the right to oppress the minority. The government was designed with the Bill of Rights to prevent that from happening. That is precisely why we have it, so that no matter what the minority still had their rights protected.
The majority does not have the right to oppress the minority. The government was designed with the Bill of Rights to prevent that from happening. That is precisely why we have it, so that no matter what the minority still had their rights protected.
Fn-P9
Member
No, Because the root of crime is in the individual. Not the tools that they use to accomplish said crimes.
Valkman
Member
3 people voted Yes - now that IS disturbing.
Husker1911
Member
Well, we've accepted our collective OK that the gov't thugs will water-board me, will have their way with a middle-aged non-conformist. What I ask is that you (YOU!) don't turn a blind eye to my dilemma. Don't believe what your government tells you, and SEEK THE TRUTH! Oh, I gave up my personal firearms willingly................
redneck2
Member
Since far, far more people are killed in auto accidents than by firearms in the US each year, you need to turn in your car and ride a bike everywhere. After all, it'd make you a lot safer.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Holy crap. Every crop of sophomores sitting around the dorm commons has discussed this type of question since the written word was invented.
Whence cometh the word "sophomoric."
I remember from 1959 AD:
(High nasal voice) "If you could press a button and it would create world peace, but it would kill 10,000 (Chinese, Russians, children, Mongolians --take your pick) would you do it?"
There was even a philosophy prof who was guaranteed to bring this one up in the early Ethics section of the 101 course (required).
I, along with about ten others, cut* that class and went to the Roslyn Grill to swill beer and dance the polka --a much more profitable pursuit.
Feh! Feh! say I !
( * I guess nowadays, you'd say "ditched" instead of "cut.")
Whence cometh the word "sophomoric."
I remember from 1959 AD:
(High nasal voice) "If you could press a button and it would create world peace, but it would kill 10,000 (Chinese, Russians, children, Mongolians --take your pick) would you do it?"
There was even a philosophy prof who was guaranteed to bring this one up in the early Ethics section of the 101 course (required).
I, along with about ten others, cut* that class and went to the Roslyn Grill to swill beer and dance the polka --a much more profitable pursuit.
Feh! Feh! say I !
( * I guess nowadays, you'd say "ditched" instead of "cut.")
Rem700SD
Member
Your question is a bit misguided. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is multifold. Your question assumes that the government can protect us from the criminals. Who would then protect us from our government?
dragongoddess
member
What does Crime got to do with owning a gun? Guns don't cause crime. Stupid people do and like Ron White said you can't fix stupid. Well you can but its kinda of messy and some people would not like it.
Thin Black Line
Member
I voted yes because suddenly a perfect world has been created
where it's always sunny outside, everyone is happy, and the lamb
and the lion are resting together......oh, good, now I can relax.....
where it's always sunny outside, everyone is happy, and the lamb
and the lion are resting together......oh, good, now I can relax.....
Working Man
Member
The only way I can be assured that my firearms will not be involved in any
crime is to not allow them in the hands of others. If I turn them in who knows
what would happen to them.
As of today there have been no safe escapes or unauthorized entrances, no
lost or misplaced items, no intentional misuse of resources, no rabblerousing
of any sort. I can't say the same for the government.
crime is to not allow them in the hands of others. If I turn them in who knows
what would happen to them.
As of today there have been no safe escapes or unauthorized entrances, no
lost or misplaced items, no intentional misuse of resources, no rabblerousing
of any sort. I can't say the same for the government.
U.S.SFC_RET
Member
If you are Antigun and you feel strongly about your cause post this sign on the front of your house. Maybe it will promote your cause. Chances are you will become an easy target.
THIS IS A GUN FREE HOME
If you believe that the police in this country are duty bound by law to rescue you, protect the individual you, go ahead and sue that particular munincipality responsible for your grief brought on by bad people who don't give a D@%$ about you or your right to life. You will lose that lawsuit.
Law Enforcement Officers are not paid enough for the long hours that they work. They are taken for granted. Despised for upholding the law and get into trouble for overlooking some of the idiotic, can't pass the common sense test laws.
You have a duty and responsibility to protect your family and your property.
There is a thin blue line between our established socety and anarchy, that thin blue line can snap. Witness Hurricane Katrina.
The two questions posed on this poll are weak.
THIS IS A GUN FREE HOME
If you believe that the police in this country are duty bound by law to rescue you, protect the individual you, go ahead and sue that particular munincipality responsible for your grief brought on by bad people who don't give a D@%$ about you or your right to life. You will lose that lawsuit.
Law Enforcement Officers are not paid enough for the long hours that they work. They are taken for granted. Despised for upholding the law and get into trouble for overlooking some of the idiotic, can't pass the common sense test laws.
You have a duty and responsibility to protect your family and your property.
There is a thin blue line between our established socety and anarchy, that thin blue line can snap. Witness Hurricane Katrina.
The two questions posed on this poll are weak.
+1.
When your guns are gone because you gave them up "for a better soceity",explain it to the thug that is able to walk through your front door and shoots you with their gun.Even if through some chance that the remaining 5% were elimated as a threat, there are still outside influences and govt intrusion.
When your guns are gone because you gave them up "for a better soceity",explain it to the thug that is able to walk through your front door and shoots you with their gun.Even if through some chance that the remaining 5% were elimated as a threat, there are still outside influences and govt intrusion.
David904
Member
Not a chance. I cannot see any reason whatsoever to disarm myself and my family.
None
None
Harry Tuttle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,093
every time someone asks this question i am compelled to buy another gun
ReadyontheRight
Member
I couldn't care less about statistics. Statistics do not protect me or my family when we are in need. Statistics like this are for politicians and social engineering. Freedom and LIberty fly in the face of statistics. You cannot share success equally, you can only share misery equally.
The only statistics I like to site are the 2000+ deaths of disarmed non-combatants at the hands of their own government for every single day in the 20th century.
The only statistics I like to site are the 2000+ deaths of disarmed non-combatants at the hands of their own government for every single day in the 20th century.
- Status
