Thank you!Rooster Cogburn said:tsb247 brings up good points, and I have several things to add. First, as he says, a gun is a practical self-defense tool just like a fire extinguisher. Also, total blind reliance on the state in the form of law enforcement is impractical and complacent. It violates the founding precepts of our country. If a corporation fails to defend its copyrights, it will lose them on that basis alone. If you fail to defend your liberty, you will lose it, as we have consistently been losing it for almost one hundred and fifty years. And the domino effect does apply, no matter what politicians say at any particular moment.tsb247 said:Most law enforcement in my state is very much in tune with cnoceal and carry laws and do not mind a civilian stepping in if need be. The idea is not to be a cop yourself, but rather to use judgement on whether or not you should step into a situation or not.chaser[phoenix said:]Because now, in 99% of everywhere in America, it warrants you no good to carry a gun on you.Rooster Cogburn said:Why is it outdated?chaser[phoenix said:]Even then, "right to bear arms" is outdated and, in my opinion, stupid now *is a silly American*.
Most establishments don't allow guns inside their premises anyway so carrying a pistol at your hip would do you no good.
Most everywhere has relatively responsible law enforcement and there is very little to no need to go all George Washington and disrupt their job by your firing a weapon.
Hell, if you pulled out a gun to "help" the situation they would probably either tell you to put it away or pull weapons on you due to the fact that absolutely no one is used to normal citizens first of all carrying guns and second, climbing into danger to help with a situation they likely don't belong in anyway.
Either way, citizens jumping into the fray is dangerous to the establishment they're in or to the law enforcement they are helping. If they're killed, Americans love to sue more than almost anything so undoubtedly relatives would do just that.
Ultimately, citizens taking the law into their own hands = outdated, so
"right to bear arms" = outdated
If two drunk guys were slugging it out on a street corner, it would be a bad idea to intervene. The one that's left standing will likely go to jail, and the one that goes down will win a trip to the hospital.
If a guy is beating someone with a crowbar and that someone could likely die, then there is plenty of cause (both morally and legally) to step in and stop the situation if possible.
A concealed weapon permit holder is immune to criminal and civil penalties if they are acting within the laws laid down by their state (at least in my state).
Lots of people ask, "Why do you carry a gun?" My response is, "because I can't fit a cop in my pocket."
The second amendment is far from outdated. In fact, it promotes a safer environment if interpreted the way it was meant to. There is nothing wrong with gun ownership. People are the real danger, not the weapons.
Just look up some cases where a concealed weapon carrier has done good, or look up a case where a civilian with a gun has been able to defend themselves or their family. Would you really want to take that ability away?
This video also does a decent job of explaining things and/or putting things into perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiz__JEcpzA
I would also like to point out that this:
"Ultimately, citizens taking the law into their own hands = outdated, so
'right to bear arms' = outdated"
is not a logical argument, nor is it true.
Almost nowhere has responsible law enforcement. Responsible law enforcement is as paradoxical as military intelligence. I can only chalk this one up to naivete, and although I hope you learn different, I hope it doesn't come the hard way to you as it did to me. The situation you describe is not relevant because it is not consistent with the laws governing the use of firearms. Citizens do not and should not intervene with law enforcement, but that isn't what we're talking about.
Causing strife for the establishment causes me no worry. American government is supposed to exist for the benefit and convenience of the people, not the other way around.
And besides all that, you've hardly answered the question. The right to bear arms has many intended purposes, but the one expressly stated in The Constitution (God rest its bones) is to maintain the people's sovereignty over the state. That basic precept is hardly outdated. We need it now more than ever. Our government has grown far beyond its lawful limits. It is nothing short of authoritarian in scope and thoroughly undemocratic. It is an ugly beast of an empire which fails to provide for the needs of its citizens across the board.
Finally, and most importantly, one does not ban things simply because they are unnecessary. A free society does not impose its will on others without damn good reason, and "you can do without" doesn't make the cut.
dude, why would i even want do do something to your family?wwjdftw said:yes i have many guns, i like them i enjoy shooting them, cleaning/disassmebelming them and just handling them. But if push can to shove, i would more than likely gun your ass down with my MAK-47 (modified automatik kalishnakof= semi auto AK47= totally legal) i have alot of guns
pistols.
kimber modle 1911 45. ACP
kimber modle 1911 45. ACP PRO CARRY II
PHENIX ARMS 22.
taurus JUDGE 45 long colt/410 shotgun shell
ruger 22.
ruger 357 magnum
rifles
remington 30-06
savage .270
MAK-47 7.62x39
shotguns
browning 12 gauge shotgun
browning 12 guage shot gun youth
coast to coast 12 gauge model 367
remmington 1100 20 guage trap gun
old 20 guage bolt action shot gun
and those are just what i can name off the top of my head
and hopefully that is enough to detor all of you from deciding to fuck with me or my family
i've got a demon from the fourth layer of hell, for free!Crowghast said:No. It requires money.
Besides, I have sharp kitchen utensils, power tools, and rusty gardening equipment.
I demand to know your supplyer! All I have is this Hellhound that sleeps and eats my slippers.sebar nl said:i've got a demon from the fourth layer of hell, for free!Crowghast said:No. It requires money.
Besides, I have sharp kitchen utensils, power tools, and rusty gardening equipment.
Agreed! I took a class when I was 11 because I just read the zombie survival guide and I now keep a crowbar and a M1 carbine near the back door! Thank god I don't live in Cook county (Chicago), they don't allow those kind of guns up there. God, I'm too paranoid about zombies...conquerworm said:Survival, and for the impending Zombie apocalypse... You could be my next head shot, so stay human.
Yeah I know...I was hoping that I could buy the full-auto version of the P90 and not the semi-auto civilian version.tsb247 said:You would be surprised how cheap a decent firearm can be. I am a simple college student, and I manage to be able to buy guns every once in a while. It's all about knowing what you want, and finding something in your price range.KissofKetchup said:I do not own a gun, however not by choice. My meager income as a college student prevents me from owning firearms. However I do plan on purchasing a firearm in the near future. My hopes are that I might be able to obtain a P90 or MP7 as a PDW when I get commissioned in the Air Force
However, it is unlikely the Air Force will issue a P90 or an MP7. They would most likely toss you a Beretta and/or an M16 just like they do to everyone else. Police forces occasionally get issued P90s, but for the most part, those weapons are widely used.
WOW, now that is one gun I would have, not with ammo of course, I can't believe that it would be cheaper than an SG replica though.Matronadena said:have a " civilian friendly" p-90 as a real one was cheaper than a Stargate replica one.. so it's on a fan girl shrine, no ammo