Stabby: If the gun is concealed, they can't see it, can they?

I think it's definitely worth a try.

You're right, there ARE times where you should just give them what they want.

If they want money or jewelery, whatever. They can have it. I keep most of it on my cards anyway - and those I can just report them stolen and have them shut down. Life > money. Even a car; If I have no other reasonable option, they can have it - I'll just go report it stolen and have a chance of getting it back. Phone? I have theft insurance on that too.

I'd risk my life in a quick-draw to avoid being *****. With the chance of how many people have HIV or hep, if I get that I'm dead anyway.

Guns or no guns...people will find a way of killing other people and living things.
[/thread]

There is such a thing as open carry. and is easier to get a license for than concealed carry in many states.

In a number of states you don't even need a permit for Open Carry.

Yes, but this thread is about whether you should have no problem supplying people with a weapon intended for that purpose. Clearly people will always steal, if someone started a thread saying "Should we give all U.S. citizens lessons on how to pick locks, deactivate burglar alarms and enter houses in unorthodox ways so as to pilfer people's shit", would you say "Yeah, whatever, official lessons on how to pilfer people's shit or no official lessons on how to pilfer people's shit, people will find a way of pilfering people's shit"?

This is a pretty shitty analogy, seeing as how I'm reasonably certain such information is available for free on the internet, and saying "OH YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT THAT ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB" is roughly seventy times more unconstitutional and a far greater trespass against personal freedom than any gun control law ever.

Fine, it's like saying that [something bad] will always happen so it doesn't matter whether [item that facilitates doing something bad] is legal or not. Well, that's not an analogy as such, since that it is what zerademark was saying.

Fuck it, I don't need an analogy, zerademark is wrong.

My thing is that guns aren't necessarily to be used as method of killing other people. To think that that is all they're good for is fallacy. Not being able to own and shoot firearms would suck. It would effectively kill a great sport. It would ruin lots of factory jobs in the united states. It would ruin the lively hood of gun collectors. This whole discussion has become what the minority of the country is doing with firearms. You should be asking, instead, will removing guns solve more problems than it causes. I think that removing guns would cause more problems and, in fact, turn many law abiding citizens into criminals because they would refuse to give up their firearms. If you look at prohibition it becomes obvious that forbidding someone from doing something doesn't stop it. It just turns the average citizen into a criminal.

The point behind the second amendment is that a citizen's army can be erected so that they can defend themselves and (presumably) overthrow the government if they deem it necessary. Unfortunately that's been perverted so that our "militia" is, in fact, the National Guard. The problem is all the National Guards signed a contract with the U.S. Army so that the Army would train them, but the National Guard is able to be sent into war. This bypasses the necessity of getting an act of congress and is ridiculous. The National Guard should have been helping out with Katrina and the fires in California instead of fucking around in Iraq.

We need more lenient gun laws. The citizenry is supposed to be the ultimate check and balance for the Government. Unfortunately, no one gives a fuck that our system is corrupt, and no one notices the government taking away our rights. It's just a matter of time before the government takes away firearms and knives. It will happen if no one starts fighting back.

The current logistics of the country makes the second amendment useless. Sure, back when it was written, a well armed people could rise up and overthrow the government. What would happen now? The military would come in and, with superior training/logistics/execution/information, would trample even a better armed group.

And this is exactly what those wanting to do away with the second amendment is asking for. A police and military action against the people. You're talking about the second amendment as if it's as simple as saying "Do away with it and everyone will be cool with it." The second amendment is not just some silly allowance the government has given the people and can as easily be taken away, it's nearly a cultural thing. It's not as easy as taking it away and everyone calmly dealing with it or they would have done it already. What you're asking for is a violent fight between the police and every gun owner in America.

That is very un-specific Mr JCC. (besides, thats or Zera, or de Mark)

About the gun matter, please note why you want to have a gun? For offensive purposes? Thats only allowed for the police and military. Defensive purposes? Someone breaks in your home and you pull a gun to defend yourself. But its not that easy though. Be aware that most of the time the burglar wil also be armed and just shoot your head off before you have the time to aim. Its safer for people if the (american) goverment bans gun-ownership outside the police or military force. But ya what do I care, we have six billion people on this Earth, does it even matter if lesses a bit? Yes it does, Mother Nature would be relieved.

Why Mr JCC, people will always find a way to pilfer someones shit. Isn't that obvious?

The best reason to have a firearm is in case a home invader is armed while inside your home,if they are armed,they are a threat,the job then is simple.

Call the cops try to get a loved one to stay on the phone with them (Letting the police know that the homeowner is armed and securing the house) while you go to clear and sweep the home,if the threat is encountered neutralize the threat.

Deadman, what would you say is your political ideology?

Same question to you Jill.

And be honest.

I will be.

Me too, this isn't to fight or anything, I'm curious so yeah I'll do it too.

I'm an anarchist. There's a lot of branches of anarchism but I doubt any fit just one category. I relate more than anything with syndicalists, but also believe neighborhoods should work together in the manner of council communism and the only centralized institution ought to be the mutualist people's bank to encourage individual economic initiative.
From my beliefs, to link it with this thread, I am strongly against any regulation on firearms and actually wouldn't mind that everyone had a means of protecting themselves, and guns happen to be the most effective at this.

Okay then.

Here goes.

I am for the United States Constitution and support all the amendments in the bill of rights.

I am of the belief that everyone has the same rights as everyone else,no matter the elected office,political affiliation,or Amount of money.

I am also of the idea that if anyone that messes with those rights (Example: Robbery= Illegal search and seizure),has by default negated their own rights to life,liberty, and the pursuit of happyness.

I also like the idea of a fair trial with a jury of your peers.


I am a Constitutionalist pure and simple.

You aren't really in a position to understand what a firearm is to the majority of America. Guns are as engraved in our history as tea is to Britain. Owning a firearm is a way to get further in touch with our history. I own a civil war original carbine that I frequently shoot in Skirmishes.

If an armed robber is in your house and you know how to use a gun there's little to no chance he'll get the jump on you. It's probably going to be dark and he's probably not going to have his gun drawn and hes not going to have a clue how to get around in your house. Also, if he suspects that the owner of the house is likely to have a gun he'll target a different house because stealing shit isn't worth getting shot over.

Another Important issue is that a populace that can do nothing to stop its government is a sheep. Gun control has long been paired with atrocities such as genocide (http://www.jpfo.org/pdf02/genocide-chart.pdf) Granted there are some places where strict gun enforcement has been used with moderate success. Such as England, however, since the ban gun crimes have risen and for the first time Police Officers have needed to carry firearms.
(http://www.newsmax.com/inside_cover/.../26/27556.html)
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2069400.stm)
(http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/...gun_crime.html)
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/1156341.stm)

Seconded

With one exception. I don't agree with the strength of the central government that we see today. I follow the opinions of the anti-federalists from back when the constitution was written. (Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, etc.)

I would also like to add that the Colonists that defeated the most well trained military force in the world at that time (With respect to Former enemies and countrymen) they did it with muzzle loading,smooth bore muskets.

The equipment might not be on par with what the current Government may have,but the American people will stand and fight if that time comes,and it may not be too far off.

Plus we have what Washington's men didn't have at the time,Weapons that can accurately hit small targets many times before reloading and at greater distances than an old Brown Bess.

I feel compelled to add that the last time the U.S. had a civil war, large portions of the military sided with the Rebels. If Americans felt the need for a second revoltion (say, because a wildly oppressive government suddenly did away with the second amendment) That would probably happen again.

Onyx is an idiot.

Onyx has shown he can make a good argument even if I disagree with him, so no, he's not an idiot. Also, those military sided with the 'rebels' because they were Americans, not British, and were some of the biggest stakeholders in initiating the fight while in the general populace only a third wanted to actually secede. I really doubt a sizable portion of the military of the United States would side against the States. Not even I am that idealistic.

Well the way things are looking with youth groups like City Year they may just have enough brainwashed youngsters that will grow up to do that very thing Jillian.


And that is when the true War on Terror will begin.

A Large portion of the U.S. Population are on "Terror Watch" lists (Gun Owners,Ron Paul Supporters,Veteran Military&Police members that didn't drink the Government koolaid and anyone that supports the Constitution).

There is a fairly large group called Oath Keepers

These are former/active duty Military and Police,and these would be the people that would back the citizens if all hell should suddenly break loose.

Not the same situation at all. The British military didn't have things like long range communications for coordinating, infrared/nightvision imaging or satellites.

As for the army joining in the rebellion, what army? The army that the fledgling US put together or the militias that formed? Be real, today the government and media would quickly brand any uprising as home grown terrorism and the population would believe it all the way. An insergant army is doomed without the support of the local population and they'd all cheer as the military swooped in to brutally smash the uprising.