Glory, I agree there should be gun Control, because some people don't deserve to have one. But statistics on gun deaths doesn't mean everyone should have theirs taken away . And finally, a study on people in Philly (the ghetto) doesn't really apply to normal cities and towns that most of us live in. Bigger cities have more poverty and crime to begin with.

It's an unalienable right. How one "feels" doesn't matter.

For It. "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will own guns..." now, I presume that old bumper sticker slogan can be interpreted differently, but I always took it to mean 'If guns are outlawed, the law abiding citizens who use guns for protection will go without, and become defensless against the criminals who will possess guns, against the law'.

I say f**k the regisrtation and liscense to conceal billshit. I want to be able protect myself against the criminals who are carrying illegally. I don't carry a concealed weapon b/c of the bs you have to go through to be legal.

If everyone on the premises is packing, some nutjob is going to think twice about walking in and unloading. And if he does, he won't get very far.

Also, is it true that in certain states, of which Ohio is one, that if someone breaks into your house you are only legally permitted to defend yourself with what ever weapon the intruder is carrying??? A knife if he has a knife, a gun if he has a gun???

Strapping Young Lad wrote:
Also, is it true that in certain states, of which Ohio is one, that if someone breaks into your house you are only legally permitted to defend yourself with what ever weapon the intruder is carrying??? A knife if he has a knife, a gun if he has a gun???

I don't know if that is true.

But if someone comes into my house with a knife, bat, stick whatever I guarantee they leave with lead poisoning!

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: Definitely in favor of the 2nd amendment...I won two guns and would like to buy another one.

If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I'm not going to ask him what his intentions are. Also, like many others, I live in the country and it would be a while before the police got here. Shoot first, ask questions later.

I own guns for hunting and personal protection. I'm not going to stop a government takeover with my 12 gauge shotgun and .22 pistol.

You are correct. You alone with your 12 gauge and .22 pistol will not stop a government takeover. You and 50 million of your fellow armed citizens however can. Don't forget many of your fellow citizens own more than just a 12 guage and .22 pistol. Also the two weapons you mentioned can be more effective than an M-60 machine gun in certain situations.

burt07 wrote:

hahahaha this is just what i was about to post. hilarious

ernest_t_bass wrote: If it is common sense, why is (some in) our government trying to take it away?

who?

believer wrote: Homicides per 100,000 pop
Australia 1.3
England 1.6
Switzerland 2.9
USA 5.9

^^^^^All caused by gunshot wounds are were these figures a tally of a combination of reasons? I only scanned down through your link.

No i am pretty sure they werent caused by guns. but like the poster who said switzerland had the lowerst crime rate, not all crimes are committed with guns or against people.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: I own guns for hunting and personal protection. I'm not going to stop a government takeover with my 12 gauge shotgun and .22 pistol.

i agree with this, the government(assuming they have the backing of the military) has tanks, artillery, bombers. might as well take a knife to a gun fight. and plus, government isnt a physical thing that can take over. if the government did something so wrong to piss off the country into taking up arms against them, why would the same people who are in the all volunteer military stay with the military? if you dont think you could beat up nancy pelosi without a gun, you might want to re-evaluate. its almost like using the excuse of government take over gives people like McVeigh an excuse to do what he did.

Con_Alma wrote: It's an unalienable right. How one "feels" doesn't matter.

an unalienable right made my man, far from perfect man. its not like God spoke to the founding fathers when writing the Bill of Rights.

ernest_t_bass wrote: If it is common sense, why is (some in) our government trying to take it away?

Who is trying to do this?

And is it just one person, or a large group?

I could make a very good argument that the Founding Fathers have done more for liberty and freedom and the common good than God ever has, but I'll save that for another topic.

I'm pretty sure I said Switzerland had one of the lowest, not the lowest, but I could be wrong. Regardless, they are a whole 3 homicides per 100k below us, that's nothing to write off. I would imagine a good % of those are people defending their homes as well.

The most important thing people need to remember is criminals don't buy guns at gun stores, they buy off the black market so their guns can't be traced. Getting rid of the 2nd amendment or making every gun be registered hurts no one but the people who are trying to defend themselves.

Glory Days wrote:i agree with this, the government(assuming they have the backing of the military) has tanks, artillery, bombers. might as well take a knife to a gun fight. and plus, government isnt a physical thing that can take over. if the government did something so wrong to piss off the country into taking up arms against them, why would the same people who are in the all volunteer military stay with the military? if you dont think you could beat up nancy pelosi without a gun, you might want to re-evaluate. its almost like using the excuse of government take over gives people like McVeigh an excuse to do what he did.

There are a couple of well known cases in modern military history since the developement of tanks, bombers, and other modern military equiptment. Both in Afghanistan. For ten years the Soviet Army equipped with tanks, bombers, helicopters, artillary, etc. could not defeat 10's of thousands of peasants with guns and crude booby traps.

And now for eight years the US Military, equipped with tanks, bombers, helicopters, artillary, etc. have yet to defeat 10's of thousands of peasants with guns and crude booby traps.

Glory Days wrote: an unalienable right made my man, far from perfect man. its not like God spoke to the founding fathers when writing the Bill of Rights.

No one is saying God spoke to the authors of the bill of rights. It just means it is a right than man can not take from man.

Glory Days wrote:
an unalienable right made my man, far from perfect man. its not like God spoke to the founding fathers when writing the Bill of Rights.

It's not like that at all. No one suggested it was.

You need to leave the other sentence in my quote for context. Feelings were the main point of my quote. Feelings should not be the issue when determining the merits of an unalienable right.

When asked how does one feel about gun control I was stating that I don't believe feelings should be the focus.

Is that more clear,....my man?

majorspark wrote: There are a couple of well known cases in modern military history since the developement of tanks, bombers, and other modern military equiptment. Both in Afghanistan. For ten years the Soviet Army equipped with tanks, bombers, helicopters, artillary, etc. could not defeat 10's of thousands of peasants with guns and crude booby traps.

And now for eight years the US Military, equipped with tanks, bombers, helicopters, artillary, etc. have yet to defeat 10's of thousands of peasants with guns and crude booby traps.

defeated in political terms, not military terms. i dont recall losing any battles in iraq or afghanistan. and i would say freedom of speech is more effective against a modern day government take over than guns.

majorspark wrote: No one is saying God spoke to the authors of the bill of rights. It just means it is a right than man can not take from man.

yeah, but what makes that so perfect.

derek bomar wrote:

ernest_t_bass wrote: If it is common sense, why is (some in) our government trying to take it away?

who?

Don't play this game. I'm not going to sit here and dig up and list exact names of people who are trying to take away gun freedom. You KNOW that there are people in the government who are.

Con_Alma wrote:

Glory Days wrote:
an unalienable right made my man, A far from perfect man(or a man that is far from perfect). its not like God spoke to the founding fathers when writing the Bill of Rights.

It's not like that at all. No one suggested it was.

You need to leave the other sentence in my quote for context. Feelings were the main point of my quote. Feelings should not be the issue when determining the merits of an unalienable right.

When asked how does one feel about gun control I was stating that I don't believe feelings should be the focus.

Is that more clear,....my man?

haha didnt mean it to sound that way, does this sound better in the qoute above?

Glory Days wrote:

majorspark wrote: There are a couple of well known cases in modern military history since the developement of tanks, bombers, and other modern military equiptment. Both in Afghanistan. For ten years the Soviet Army equipped with tanks, bombers, helicopters, artillary, etc. could not defeat 10's of thousands of peasants with guns and crude booby traps.

And now for eight years the US Military, equipped with tanks, bombers, helicopters, artillary, etc. have yet to defeat 10's of thousands of peasants with guns and crude booby traps.

defeated in political terms, not military terms. i dont recall losing any battles in iraq or afghanistan.

True, but remember wars waged by governments will by default involve politics. You cannot separate the two. What do you think propoganda is? If a governments political will to fight is broken than the war is lost.

ernest_t_bass wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

ernest_t_bass wrote: If it is common sense, why is (some in) our government trying to take it away?

who?

Don't play this game. I'm not going to sit here and dig up and list exact names of people who are trying to take away gun freedom. You KNOW that there are people in the government who are.

well than its just your opinion then if you arent going to back up what you said with facts. many people perceive that their rights might be being taken away, but what really is the truth? unless you can show us, why should believe it?

majorspark wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

majorspark wrote: There are a couple of well known cases in modern military history since the developement of tanks, bombers, and other modern military equiptment. Both in Afghanistan. For ten years the Soviet Army equipped with tanks, bombers, helicopters, artillary, etc. could not defeat 10's of thousands of peasants with guns and crude booby traps.

And now for eight years the US Military, equipped with tanks, bombers, helicopters, artillary, etc. have yet to defeat 10's of thousands of peasants with guns and crude booby traps.

defeated in political terms, not military terms. i dont recall losing any battles in iraq or afghanistan.

True, but remember wars waged by governments will by default involve politics. You cannot separate the two. What do you think propoganda is? If a governments political will to fight is broken than the war is lost.

and that goes back to the pen being mightier than the sword.

Glory Days wrote: yeah, but what makes that so perfect.

Does not make it perfect. It just says government can not take it from its individual citizens. If you feel it should be perfected by some type of regulation by all means petition your congressman to push to pass an amendement to the constitution.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

- Adolf Hitler

Why shouldn't I be allowed to hang a set of bear arms in my house?

yeah but some people do think its perfect. they think that no matter what it should never ever be changed or amended and should be followed to the word. yet this right was written by the same people who thought blacks and women were not equal and that only men who owned land could vote.

i guess i pose this question, had the 2nd amendment not been written in the bill of rights, would we still feel the same way and eventually have wrote it in? i really dont know if we can get an unbiased answer to that question since we have been believing in that right now for 200 years.

Glory Days wrote:

majorspark wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

majorspark wrote: There are a couple of well known cases in modern military history since the developement of tanks, bombers, and other modern military equiptment. Both in Afghanistan. For ten years the Soviet Army equipped with tanks, bombers, helicopters, artillary, etc. could not defeat 10's of thousands of peasants with guns and crude booby traps.

And now for eight years the US Military, equipped with tanks, bombers, helicopters, artillary, etc. have yet to defeat 10's of thousands of peasants with guns and crude booby traps.

defeated in political terms, not military terms. i dont recall losing any battles in iraq or afghanistan.

True, but remember wars waged by governments will by default involve politics. You cannot separate the two. What do you think propoganda is? If a governments political will to fight is broken than the war is lost.

and that goes back to the pen being mightier than the sword.

But what "force" was used to get a the politician to pick up the pen.

It basically comes down to what price in blood and treasure a governments citizens, or an "inferior" group combating them is willing to pay to exert their political will.

In the years leading up to the Revolutionary war many thought it suicide to take on the most powerful empire of the time. Who possesed the lagest army. Largest naval forces. At the time we had only groups of citizens (militia) and no navy.

Glory Days wrote: yeah but some people do think its perfect. they think that no matter what it should never ever be changed or amended and should be followed to the word. yet this right was written by the same people who thought blacks and women were not equal and that only men who owned land could vote.

i guess i pose this question, had the 2nd amendment not been written in the bill of rights, would we still feel the same way and eventually have wrote it in? i really dont know if we can get an unbiased answer to that question since we have been believing in that right now for 200 years.

There is a process in place to change the Constitution. Lobby your elected representative to propose an Amendment.

You are also going out on a limb by suggesting all the Founders thought slavery was alright. There was far more that went into that decision.

Glory Days wrote: and that goes back to the pen being mightier than the sword.

It is a nice cliche but hardly true. Try defending yourself with a pen.

Ideas are extremely important to inspire people to take up arms, but weapons are needed when it comes time to fight.

The Iranian riots showed what happens to a disarmed populace. How do you think that would have turned out if the people had the ability to fight off the government?

Even Gandhi recognized the importance of owning weapons. There is a reason every dictator has disarmed the population.