I agree with the others about Freedom, 2th Amendment, up holding my Rights, Self protection, Preparedness.

Shooting just make me feel good. The power, potential devastation, explosiveness, mechanics of the weapon, testing my physical skills is all within my control. It a rush, stimulation of the senses and in the end the feeling of accomplishment. The tight grouping at 18 feet brings me confidence that I can. That I can still be as proficient as I was in my prime.

For me it about the thrill, danger and rush at the pull of the trigger. Yes I’m that same guy that put the pedal to the metal on an open road, skies as fast as the boat can go, pushes the ski -do and ski jet to the max, what the hell lets try it… for that few seconds of thrill, danger and adrenalin sensation.

To have ownership of those weapons that bring me satisfaction and pride is a extension of who I am.

It not that we are fascinated with guns. We are fascinated what ownership mean to us.

Thanks for the answers. I understand where you guys are coming from. I didn't grow up around guns, so they were just never part of my life. But I see why you guys feel the way you do.

like_that;1859819 wrote:Again, easy question. They like to demonstrate their passion for freedom and the 2nd amendment by purchasing guns and shooting them. Freedom, the 2nd amendment, and guns are all tied very closely together.

In other words, gun owners with a lot of "passion for freedom" also have large ego's. Gun and 2nd amendment are tied very closely together. Freedom is a state which can be achieved in a lot of ways, even by peace.

salto;1859868 wrote:In other words, gun owners with a lot of "passion for freedom" also have large ego's. Gun and 2nd amendment are tied very closely together. Freedom is a state which can be achieved in a lot of ways, even by peace.

Indeed. Freedom allows people to do whatever the fuck they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Thus many people enjoy expressing freedom by exercising their 2nd amendment rights. Can't help that you and others get butt hurt over egos.

If you don't see how freedom and the 2nd amendment are tied together, then clearly you don't understand the 2nd amendment.

like_that;1859872 wrote:Indeed. Freedom allows people to do whatever the fuck they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Thus many people enjoy expressing freedom by exercising their 2nd amendment rights. Can't help that you and others get butt hurt over egos.

If you don't see how freedom and the 2nd amendment are tied together, then clearly you don't understand the 2nd amendment.

Well if we are going to keep it old school as in pre-constitution times and using musket loaders, OK.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Yup, you and Belly with your fire arms vs. our Military/police. Good luck with your militia. Tell me how your freedom turns out.

salto;1859876 wrote:Well if we are going to keep it old school as in pre-constitution times and using musket loaders, OK.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Yup, you and Belly with your fire arms vs. our Military/police. Good luck with your militia. Tell me how your freedom turns out.

The idea that we the people have guns does keep us free. The government can't control us because there is 300,000,000 find floating around

salto;1859876 wrote:Well if we are going to keep it old school as in pre-constitution times and using musket loaders, OK.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Yup, you and Belly with your fire arms vs. our Military/police. Good luck with your militia. Tell me how your freedom turns out.

Nice meme argument.

Where in the constitution does it say muskets? I'll wait.

Also using your logic, it should be easy to stabilize the Middle East and their insurgents. A military/police attempt to take over this country would be utter chaos and destroy this country. The Government or anybody with the dream of becoming a tyrant knows this. Why? Because of the 2nd amendment. Like I said, you obviously don't know the true purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Leave it to CC to educate said.

Spock;1859890 wrote:The idea that we the people have guns does keep us free. The government can't control us because there is 300,000,000 find floating around

I'll never understand this mindset.

friendfromlowry;1859899 wrote:I'll never understand this mindset.

What do you mean?

If you were a tyrant-in-training looking to subjugate a people, which scenario would you choose?

A. 300+ million people, completely unarmed, or very restricted in what they can own.

B. 300+ million free people, a large number of them heavily armed and well trained.

As for the silly argument of the militia going up against the US Armed Forces and police, the majority of them would be fighting for the people (they did take an oath to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic...) and they'd be bringing heavy artillery with them. It's also a numbers game. There are 300+ million people living in the US. If just 1% of them take up the fight (it would be more), that's over 3 million heavily armed citizens. That's more than twice the number of currently enlisted military members. Take away half to fight on the side of the people (at least, probably more than 75% would jump ship) and you're looking at ~4 million vs ~750k.

Still, this scenario has about a zero point zero percent chance of ever playing out. And a not insignificant part of that is the fact that we are a heavily armed free people.

Good post. I'll also add that the majority of normal military and police aren't that much better trained than Joe Schmo that actually shoots each weekend or whenever. Sometimes people have a skewed view of how well trained police or the military are. (Obviously there are special forces to both, and as a group they would be able to work together better than a rag tag combination of citizens, but I'd still concur w/ Justin that the hoorah guys in the military would side with "free ideals" then a gov takeover).

And the dumbass musket argument is so stupid. The constitution didn't know Twitter would exist either but its' free speech still exists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

This gun existed, Thomas Jefferson apparently owned one, before the 2nd amendment came into existence. The musket argument isn't even worth acknowledging.

justincredible;1859913 wrote:If you were a tyrant-in-training looking to subjugate a people, which scenario would you choose?

A. 300+ million people, completely unarmed, or very restricted in what they can own.

B. 300+ million free people, a large number of them heavily armed and well trained.

As for the silly argument of the militia going up against the US Armed Forces and police, the majority of them would be fighting for the people (they did take an oath to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic...) and they'd be bringing heavy artillery with them. It's also a numbers game. There are 300+ million people living in the US. If just 1% of them take up the fight (it would be more), that's over 3 million heavily armed citizens. That's more than twice the number of currently enlisted military members. Take away half to fight on the side of the people (at least, probably more than 75% would jump ship) and you're looking at ~4 million vs ~750k.

Still, this scenario has about a zero point zero percent chance of ever playing out. And a not insignificant part of that is the fact that we are a heavily armed free people.

+1 that is what I am getting to. Even if they don't jump ship, if the military/police want to attempt a take over they would have to resort to total destruction of our own country and at that point the US as we know it is over. So, wtf would be the point of a total take over? The 2nd amendment will always keep any power hungry politician honest, that's what it was designed for.

You have to look no further than Venezuela a month ago. They have been a gun free country since 2012 (they were banned) and now that socialism isn't working out for them, the people are out on the streets calling for the "president" to step down. What is his response? Oh, just arm 400K of his supporters. THAT is how you exercise tyranny.

iclfan2;1859915 wrote:
And the dumbass musket argument is so stupid. The constitution didn't know Twitter would exist either but its' free speech still exists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's what I was alluding to when I asked little said where does it say "musket" in the constitution. There is a reason the amendment's language is not specific.

friendfromlowry;1859899 wrote:I'll never understand this mindset.

If guns were illegal here, our country would of had numerous invasions and ground wars and the US land would be owned by about 5 different countries. Our 300,000,000 private guns keep other countries from invading us

friendfromlowry;1859899 wrote:I'll never understand this mindset.

"mindset" ....lol. It is not a mindset. The constitution and bill of rights are the wall that protects the rights of The People from government tyranny. The right to bear arms is a part of that wall, a most necessary part.

Get in the game.

Friend doesnt understand that we would be North Korea or Syria if the people werent or couldnt arm themselves.

Neither gun ownership nor the 2nd Amendment can secure freedom. Having destructive capabilities does not make you free.

Spock;1859890 wrote:The idea that we the people have guns does keep us free. The government can't control us because there is 300,000,000 find floating around

No idea how you and others believe the idea that guns mean freedom. Granted, I doubt the Government would ever attempt to control us and take our weapons. That sounds like NRA gun fanatic talk, like when Obama was elected. All the gun fanatics believed they'd lose their weapons......
Point is; to believe civilians could organize a militia and fight "for freedom" against our Government, and actually stand a chance, is hilarious.

like_that;1859898 wrote:Leave it to CC to educate said.

He didn't even make sense.

like_that;1859910 wrote:What do you mean?

lol

Spock;1859925 wrote:Friend doesnt understand that we would be North Korea or Syria if the people werent or couldnt arm themselves.

Another statement by our resident gym teacher which makes zero sense.

Spock;1859925 wrote:Friend doesnt understand that we would be North Korea or Syria if the people werent or couldnt arm themselves.

Another statement by our resident gym teacher which makes zero sense.

salto;1859962 wrote:No idea how you and others believe the idea that guns mean freedom. Granted, I doubt the Government would ever attempt to control us and take our weapons. That sounds like NRA gun fanatic talk, like when Obama was elected. All the gun fanatics believed they'd lose their weapons......
Point is; to believe civilians could organize a militia and fight for freedom against our Government, and actually stand a chance, is hilarious.

It's not NRA fanatic speak, it's literally the foundation of our country coming straight from our founding fathers. The funny part is I am not even a gun owner and you are trying too hard to paint me as some gun nut job. Do yourself a favor, next time you are out delivering packages, go deliver yourself a US history book. You clearly were too busy living in your brother's shadow to pay attention in history class.

Nobody is saying the Government right now would attempt to take over the country (even though leftists tell us half of our country are fascist while trump is the next hitler), however nobody knows what will happen 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, etc years from now. The amendment is in place to protect the people from it ever happening. Just like 228 years ago our founding fathers had no idea what would be happening at this present time, but they setup the constitution and provided the 2nd amendment to protect this nation's freedom. It's easy to say now you can't see the government turning into tyranny, because you take the 2nd amendment for granted.
As i said earlier, any power hungry regime is well aware if they tried to force tyranny, the country would be destroyed. What part of that can't you comprehend? I also notice you have no legitimate reply to situation in the middle east. Using your "derp the people cant stop the military/police" logic, please explain to me why the same logic has failed miserably in the middle east. Why hasn't our far superior military stabilized all the insurgencies in the middle east?

You don't even need to fucking pick up a history book to find an example. Once again, instead of spewing memes you read from Occupy Democrats, take a look a Venezuela. Things were going really well in that country. They allowed their elected president to ban all guns. "Why not, clearly we don't see our leader turning into a tyrant " they thought. Fast forward to 5 years later and the succeeding president arms 400K of his supporters to "protect" him from those who oppose his leadership. Would you be ok with that? If yes, you are a bigger moron than I thought.

salto;1859962 wrote:He didn't even make sense.

I'll give you that. He used redneck gym teacher grammar, but the main point I gathered from it was the 2nd amendment protects us from tyranny, which is what the purpose of the amendment is. If that is not what he meant, then I take back my comment about him educating you. You still need to pick up a US history book regardless.

salto;1859962 wrote:lol Dumb ass.

How rich, said is calling me a dumbass, while he can't comprehend the 2nd amendment and US History. I had a solid idea what cc was trying to say and I was trying to get a clarification from FFL to see what exact mindset he was referring to since it was pretty easy to interpret CC's post in different ways. Try harder.

like_that;1859897 wrote:

Where in the constitution does it say muskets? I'll wait.

Also using your logic, it should be easy to stabilize the Middle East and their insurgents. A military/police attempt to take over this country would be utter chaos and destroy this country. The Government or anybody with the dream of becoming a tyrant knows this. Why? Because of the 2nd amendment. Like I said, you obviously don't know the true purpose of the 2nd amendment.

As for my musket comment, I was referring to the times when the constitution was written, as in the 200+ years ago. Back when Militias were important, like fighting off the Queen. Like back during the Revolution war.....keep up junior.
Don't get side tracked and somehow try relating freedom in America to stabilizing the Middle East. That's just stupid talk...
Funny how now Drumpf is POTUS people say " A military/police attempt to take over this country would be utter chaos and destroy this country. " yet when Obama was POTUS all the NRA fanatics were screaming he was going to take our weapons, "Jade helm" and containment camps, etc.....

salto;1859966 wrote:Funny how now Drumpf is POTUS people say " A military/police attempt to take over this country would be utter chaos and destroy this country. " yet when Obama was POTUS all the NRA fanatics were screaming he was going to take our weapons, "Jade helm" and containment camps, etc.....

"Trump is literally Hitler." Both sides have plenty of vocal morons.

salto;1859966 wrote:As for my musket comment, I was referring to the times when the constitution was written, as in the 200+ years ago. Keep up junior.
Don't get side tracked and somehow try relating freedom in America to stabilizing the Middle East. That's just stupid talk...
Funny how now Drumpf is POTUS people say " A military/police attempt to take over this country would be utter chaos and destroy this country. " yet when Obama was POTUS all the NRA fanatics were screaming he was going to take our weapons, "Jade helm" and containment camps, etc.....

1. I know where you were going with the musket. It's a go to fallacy for those who oppose the 2nd amendment and normally people who use memes as their arguments resort to the musket argument. That's why I asked you where in the constitution does it say musket. There is a reason why they didn't specify what type of "arms." Use your head said. Think about it, just like the 1st amendment. When they wrote it, tv/internet/twitter/facebook/etc did not exist. So does that mean the first amendment shouldn't apply to anything except your words, a pen, and a piece of paper? Try to keep up junior.

2. I am not relating freedom to the middle east. I am relating their inferior weapons to our superior military. Research what an insurgency is and then tell me why our superior military with all of it's superior weapons cannot stabilize these people. Your logic is flawed when you think our military and police could easily tyrannize our country. The insurgencies in the middle east prove that. There are several other examples in world history that prove this logic to be flawed as well.

3. You don't need to tie me to Trump, I didn't vote for him. I am well aware of the purpose of the the 2nd amendment and I have always been well aware that if the Government tried to take over the country it would be utter chaos. You are getting way too worked up by the NRA a lobbyist firm that gets both republicans and democrats elected. Obama and the dems started to attack gun rights, so the NRA riled up their base to receive more $$$. No different than feminist groups, ACLU, etc riling up their base to receive more donations. It's called lobbying. You are trying too hard to delegitimize the 2nd amendment, because you don't like the NRA. Again, pick up a history book and learn why the 2nd amendment exists. Thanks.

like_that;1859968 wrote:

2. I am not relating freedom to the middle east. I am relating their inferior weapons to our superior military. Research what an insurgency is and then tell me why our superior military with all of it's superior weapons cannot stabilize these people. Your logic is flawed when you think our military and police could easily tyrannize our country. The insurgencies in the middle east prove that. There are several other examples in world history that prove this logic to be flawed as well.

3. You don't need to tie me to Trump, I didn't vote for him. I am well aware of the purpose of the the 2nd amendment and I have always been well aware that if the Government tried to take over the country it would be utter chaos. You are getting way too worked up by the NRA a lobbyist firm that gets both republicans and democrats elected. Obama and the dems started to attack gun rights, so the NRA riled up their base to receive more $$$. No different than feminist groups, ACLU, etc riling up their base to receive more donations. It's called lobbying. You are trying too hard to delegitimize the 2nd amendment, because you don't like the NRA. Again, pick up a history book and learn why the 2nd amendment exists. Thanks.

We are going too many different directions. As for the Middle East/Syria, they have so many different armed groups who are only loyal to certain leaders, different Islamic groups (some good some bad) with each group having alliances, etc......then we get to the crooked "President" al-Asaad, who Trump bombed.....
Again, I don't think our Military on home ground becoming a police force is comparable to the Middle East and its inability to be stabilized.


Apologize for the dumb ass comment. First impulse reactions sometimes are a mistake, which could lead to another discussion on why guns need more control. Sometimes people are having a bad day and do stupid things. If they have guns it can escalate. Ya hear about people getting fired then immediately going out and getting a gun out of their car....shit like that happens a lot.

salto;1859969 wrote:Apologize for the dumb ass comment. First impulse reactions sometimes are a mistake, which could lead to another discussion on why guns need more control. Sometimes people are having a bad day and do stupid things. If they have guns it can escalate. Ya hear about people getting fired then immediately going out and getting a gun out of their car....shit like that happens a lot.

What would you consider a viable gun control solution to prevent someone from "going postal" after a bad day?