Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: I Fully Support Firearms Ownership
  • Subject: I Fully Support Firearms Ownership
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: I Fully Support Firearms Ownership

'Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν.'

I support the right of civilians to be able to own any firearm they wish to own provided that they meet a certain criteria to own them. If the people in question do not have a criminal history, have taken the proper safety courses and/or training and can store the weapon (s) in a safe location where criminals cannot steal them, then I see no reason at all why we should prohibit them from owning firearms--in fact, I see no reason why we should prohibit them from owning ANY type of firearm provided they meet the criteria. Really, why would you allow a person with a clean criminal record and who has endured the proper training to own one type of firearm but to not own another type? If they were going to do damage then they would have done it anyway with whatever type of firearm they owned.

Likewise--to clear up a red herring--there is no such thing as an "assault weapon"--that's just a derogatory term invented by anti-gun folks. Mechanically, an "assault weapon" is just a 'select-fire' rifle that fires rifle cartridges--oftentimes no different than a semi-automatic hunting rifle. The only difference lies in their cosmetic appearance.

Secondly, owning firearms is beneficial for several reasons. The first and most obvious reason is that it gives us citizens a way of defending ourselves, our loved ones and our property from violent criminals. A firearm is oftentimes the great "equalizer" that gives us a chance against a hardened, tough criminal. Learning a martial art may not be affective if you are a small person, obese, old or have some health concern. Plus, it takes years of practice to master a martial art. A taser admittedly may work to stop one criminal, but it falls short. It is a single-person weapon. What if there are more than one perpetrators involved? Your taser will only take down one of them before you have to recoil it and prepare it for another shot, and by that time, you could already have been harmed, killed or constrained by the other perpetrators, whereas with a firearm you could have shot them in quick succession.

Likewise, while the police force may work in some cases to protect us from criminals, they may not work in all cases. It still takes at the very least 1 minute for them to arrive on scene. And in that 1 minute, the person could have already attacked you. Or, what if you do not own a cellphone? Or you do not get reception? Or, even worse, what if you live in a rural area where it would take at the very least like half an hour for the police to arrive on scene? Likewise, we would also save money if the majority of the mature civilian population owned a firearm because we would not have to spend as much money funding such a large police force.

Firearms are also important for our lifestyle in many cases. Farmers depend on firearms to get rid of pests and to protect their livestock from predators. Some people in isolated areas hunt their meat and thus rely on firearms to keep food on the table (literally) and some professional hunters rely on firearms to get paid. Ever watch the show Swamp People? Those people rely on the alligators that they themselves hunt with their firearms to make a living. Likewise, firearms are also a fun source of recreation for many people.

Finally, having a civilian population that owns firearms is also good because it will save the nation money by not having to spend as much money to fund a National Arm and/or Military, since any possible enemies who would try invading or occupying US soil via military force would have a VERY hard time due to the constant civilian uprisings and armed revolts. While an armed civilian population may not be able to truly engage a trained military force in conventional combat, they CAN engage them via guerilla warfare and make occupation of an area EXTREMELY difficult. That alone will either a) prevent a nation from trying to invade since they will not want to go through the trouble, or b) if they do decide to invade anyway, it would spread out their invading force too thin and keep them busy and exhausted, making them more vulnerable for a primary military defense force to come in and finish them off via conventional fighting. Anyone who denies the power of an armed civilian population is obviously unfamiliar with the Revolutionary War in which an army of untrained, underequipped misfits took on the most powerful conventional army in the world at the time, or in Vietnam when a group of rice peasants with rifles were able to take on the most powerful military in the world and win, or in modern times, even the Middle East right now, where terrorists with outdated AK rifles are still exhausting the United States military.

I believe that outlawing guns will only cause more damage than good, and is illogical. First and foremost, why should mature and responsible citizens have to suffer just because a few criminals and/or idiots who misuse firearms? That's like outlawing alcohol because stupid people can become impaired and potentially harm another person, or outlawing cars because some people may run other people over or even outlawing pencils, pens and other writing devices because mobsters use them to fill out checks for assassinations and because politicians use them to sign declarations of war. The whole "But guns are solely designed to destroy whatever they are fired at," argument is faulty in my mind, because destroying something is not always necessarily bad. What is wrong with destroying a violent offender trying to harm you, or destroying a predator trying to eat your livestock or destroying a paper/clay target at the shooting range? It all depends upon the owner. Cars are made with the sole purpose of moving the driver to another location--which would also include such locations that would lead to people getting ran over and dying. Should we outlaw them as well? No, it all depends on the driver. And firearms are no different.

Instead of outlawing something entirely, we should just work to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of criminals and/or idiots who would misuse them. In fact, outlawing something entirely has never worked well in the past. Just look at the war on drugs--that has not stopped drugs from soaring into impoverished neighborhoods or stopped addicts from getting their drugs. Look at the Prohibition, that did not stop people from consuming alcohol--it only gave violent criminals a fertile market to sell the illegal product and gain more power. So why should firearms be any different? Outlawing firearms will only deprive good law-abiding citizens from possessing a way to defend themselves and criminals--who've never followed laws in the past--will probably not obey this law either, and just get them from the underground black market--just how people illegally got alcohol from the black market during Prohibition. I think a better approach is to just regulate who can and cannot purchase firearms, that way proper citizens will be able to own them and we will be able to prosecute bad citizens who attain them illegally and/or misuse them.

Debate/Discuss

  • 11.27.2012 6:27 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Member

Don't judge a book by its cover, unless it has bacon on the cover, then it is a good book.

-Me

I'll just agree with you based off your title.

BUT HOLY -blam!- MAN WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO TL;DR

  • 11.27.2012 6:29 PM PDT

_____ ____(˜˜˜||˜˜˜˜||˜˜˜˜˜)_∏______
--------____.`=====.-.~:_______\___|==============[oo
|_|||___/___/_/~```|_|_|_|``(o)----------<)
Have Fai7h

My old Halo account: karsttheninja99

TL;DR please, I read the first few but stopped at after 3

  • 11.27.2012 6:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

deej pls

All weapons should be available to law abiding citizens.

  • 11.27.2012 6:32 PM PDT

~Thread-killer~

ACME called, they want their lifetime supply of brick and mortar back.


OT; I agree.... at least with the first few paragraphs. The last few could have been excerpts from Mein Kampf for all I know. Daggum son, a TLDR is applicable here.

  • 11.27.2012 6:33 PM PDT

Studies show that men think about sex every 7 seconds. I do my best to eat hotdogs in under 6, just so things don't get weird.

Please allow me to introduce Myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith

That's nice dear

*continues watching television*

  • 11.27.2012 6:34 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Guns for self defence are unnecessary in countries where there are no guns are around, like mine, so they would only increase the murder rate.

I support a total gun ban for all citizens.

  • 11.27.2012 6:39 PM PDT

The human element always mucks things up.

Posted by: Heisenburg
Guns for self defence are unnecessary in countries where there are no guns are around, like mine, so they would only increase the murder rate.

I support a total gun ban for all citizens.


Good to know there are still freedom haters in this world.

  • 11.27.2012 6:41 PM PDT

Xbox LIVE gamertag: Dat3lessNutella
Steam username: TopWargamer
To look up my Halo stats...search for the gamertag TopWargamer.
SAVED THREAD PAGES: 283
One does not simply get rid of TopWargamer so easily.
You know this to be true.
ALL HAIL GABEN


Posted by: T1d3
I'll just agree with you based off your title.

BUT HOLY -blam!- MAN WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO TL;DR

  • 11.27.2012 6:41 PM PDT

*scrolls past to read replies*

  • 11.27.2012 6:42 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX

I hate the GUNS FOR EVEARYONE mentality put forth by the NRA.

I agree fully with responsible gun ownership, and obscene punishments for illegal possession.


However the South would try and rise again if such a thing were imposed.

  • 11.27.2012 6:46 PM PDT

'Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν.'


Posted by: Heisenburg
Guns for self defence are unnecessary in countries where there are no guns are around, like mine, so they would only increase the murder rate.

I support a total gun ban for all citizens.


The United States is not a country like that though. Firearms are an engrained part in American society where nothing short of a total door-by-door search of everyone's home would remove them from our society. And that would be the act of a total police state on a level comparable to Naz1 Germny. We shouldn't allow our government to go that far--look how badly it has turned out all throughout the past when civilian populations gave their government that much power.

  • 11.27.2012 6:50 PM PDT

so you want a source?


try this

true story

i read that all, OP.

TLDR people need to see a doctor bout their inability to read/focus.

"Asssalt Weapon are selectfire"
NOPE! WRONG. AWs are semi autos hippies think look scary. AssSalt Raffles are selectfire, regulated as Machineguns. since the NFA in 1934, Only 5 crimes have been committed with legally owned MGs, TWO OF WHICH WERE COMMITTED BY POLICE OFFICERS.

yet newly produced MGs are only availible to the Police/Gov't since 1986, even though Hinckley used a .22 Revolver.

  • 11.27.2012 6:52 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX


Posted by: ShotgunTroll
i read that all, OP.

TLDR people need to see a doctor bout their inability to read/focus.

"Asssalt Weapon are selectfire"
NOPE! WRONG. AWs are semi autos hippies think look scary. AssSalt Raffles are selectfire, regulated as Machineguns. since the NFA in 1934, Only 5 crimes have been committed with legally owned MGs, TWO OF WHICH WERE COMMITTED BY POLICE OFFICERS.

yet newly produced MGs are only availible to the Police/Gov't since 1986, even though Hinckley used a .22 Revolver.


Wait but if no one had the MGs because they were restricted you can hardly use the lack of crimes committed as support for their unfettered legilization.

/may have misunderstood.

  • 11.27.2012 6:54 PM PDT

"There's this theory that if there were an infinite number of monkeys pecking away at typewriters, they would eventually write the great works of Shakespeare, but thanks to the internet we now know that's not true." -Adam Savage

"Time is not made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round." -Caboose

NOTE: This is my new primary account. My old account was AgentCOPP1, and I changed it because it was linked to a gamertag that I no longer use.

Posted by: Heisenburg
Guns for self defence are unnecessary in countries where there are no guns are around, like mine, so they would only increase the murder rate.

I support a total gun ban for all citizens.

^^^stupid^^^

  • 11.27.2012 6:54 PM PDT

)Gifted Monkey(

The weapons we can get should be based on grades on our transcript and gamerscore.

  • 11.27.2012 6:56 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX


Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: Heisenburg
Guns for self defence are unnecessary in countries where there are no guns are around, like mine, so they would only increase the murder rate.

I support a total gun ban for all citizens.

^^^stupid^^^


No hes not, in those countries it is very hard to justify killing, even in self defense, no castle laws etc.

If guns were introduced then the amount of unlawful deaths (murders) would sky rocket.

But please come across as hateful and ignorant.

  • 11.27.2012 6:57 PM PDT

Sometimes I am tempted to quit gaming. I can no longer play without seeing ponyphags, horrendously bad teammates and mexicans.

Gaming community, I want you to know that you suck.

I don't come here to read essays.

  • 11.27.2012 6:57 PM PDT

so you want a source?


try this

true story


Posted by: Makko Mace

Posted by: ShotgunTroll
i read that all, OP.

TLDR people need to see a doctor bout their inability to read/focus.

"Asssalt Weapon are selectfire"
NOPE! WRONG. AWs are semi autos hippies think look scary. AssSalt Raffles are selectfire, regulated as Machineguns. since the NFA in 1934, Only 5 crimes have been committed with legally owned MGs, TWO OF WHICH WERE COMMITTED BY POLICE OFFICERS.

yet newly produced MGs are only availible to the Police/Gov't since 1986, even though Hinckley used a .22 Revolver.


Wait but if no one had the MGs because they were restricted you can hardly use the lack of crimes committed as support for their unfettered legilization.

/may have misunderstood.
You did. See they ARE legal to own since 1934 but you have to get a special tax stamp/registration. But 1986 Regulation that was created for no legitimate reason artificially raises prices by tens of thousands of USD because they must be from before ban of new manufacture. Why should only the very wealthy and Government be the only legal MG owners under the law? the registration fee is/was only 200USD btw.

a US army M4 made by Remington costs only 700USD a rifle.

A preban M16 lower reciever costs atleast 10,000-15,000 USD because no reason but the 1986 law.

  • 11.27.2012 7:17 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX


Posted by: ShotgunTroll

Posted by: Makko Mace

Posted by: ShotgunTroll
i read that all, OP.

TLDR people need to see a doctor bout their inability to read/focus.

"Asssalt Weapon are selectfire"
NOPE! WRONG. AWs are semi autos hippies think look scary. AssSalt Raffles are selectfire, regulated as Machineguns. since the NFA in 1934, Only 5 crimes have been committed with legally owned MGs, TWO OF WHICH WERE COMMITTED BY POLICE OFFICERS.

yet newly produced MGs are only availible to the Police/Gov't since 1986, even though Hinckley used a .22 Revolver.


Wait but if no one had the MGs because they were restricted you can hardly use the lack of crimes committed as support for their unfettered legilization.

/may have misunderstood.
You did. See they ARE legal to own since 1934 but you have to get a special tax stamp/registration. But 1986 Regulation that was created for no legitimate reason artificially raises prices by tens of thousands of USD because they must be from before ban of new manufacture. Why should only the very wealthy and Government be the only legal MG owners under the law? the registration fee is/was only 200USD btw.

a US army M4 made by Remington costs only 700USD a rifle.

A preban M16 lower reciever costs atleast 10,000-15,000 USD because no reason but the 1986 law.


Well saying that since the (relatively) poor people who use guns for crimes haven't killed anyone with automatic weapons that they can't afford, they should be legal" doesn't really make sense.

  • 11.27.2012 7:20 PM PDT

"There's this theory that if there were an infinite number of monkeys pecking away at typewriters, they would eventually write the great works of Shakespeare, but thanks to the internet we now know that's not true." -Adam Savage

"Time is not made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round." -Caboose

NOTE: This is my new primary account. My old account was AgentCOPP1, and I changed it because it was linked to a gamertag that I no longer use.

Posted by: Makko Mace

Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: Heisenburg
Guns for self defence are unnecessary in countries where there are no guns are around, like mine, so they would only increase the murder rate.

I support a total gun ban for all citizens.

^^^stupid^^^


No hes not, in those countries it is very hard to justify killing, even in self defense, no castle laws etc.

If guns were introduced then the amount of unlawful deaths (murders) would sky rocket.

But please come across as hateful and ignorant.

I support a total gun ban for all citizens.
total gun ban for all citizens.
all citizens.
Yeah... no.

Do you realize what that would create here in America? There is this thing called a black market you know.

[Edited on 11.27.2012 7:20 PM PST]

  • 11.27.2012 7:20 PM PDT

so you want a source?


try this

true story


Posted by: Makko Mace

Posted by: ShotgunTroll

Posted by: Makko Mace

Posted by: ShotgunTroll
i read that all, OP.

TLDR people need to see a doctor bout their inability to read/focus.

"Asssalt Weapon are selectfire"
NOPE! WRONG. AWs are semi autos hippies think look scary. AssSalt Raffles are selectfire, regulated as Machineguns. since the NFA in 1934, Only 5 crimes have been committed with legally owned MGs, TWO OF WHICH WERE COMMITTED BY POLICE OFFICERS.

yet newly produced MGs are only availible to the Police/Gov't since 1986, even though Hinckley used a .22 Revolver.


Wait but if no one had the MGs because they were restricted you can hardly use the lack of crimes committed as support for their unfettered legilization.

/may have misunderstood.
You did. See they ARE legal to own since 1934 but you have to get a special tax stamp/registration. But 1986 Regulation that was created for no legitimate reason artificially raises prices by tens of thousands of USD because they must be from before ban of new manufacture. Why should only the very wealthy and Government be the only legal MG owners under the law? the registration fee is/was only 200USD btw.

a US army M4 made by Remington costs only 700USD a rifle.

A preban M16 lower reciever costs atleast 10,000-15,000 USD because no reason but the 1986 law.


Well saying that since the (relatively) poor people who use guns for crimes haven't killed anyone with automatic weapons that they can't afford, they should be legal" doesn't really make sense.
See thats Rich uninfomed elitism talking. Kid,Criminals can not legally buy a gun muchless a MG. neither can junkies. you speak as though wealth determines ability to follow laws which is false.

These are law abiding gun owners who due to arbitrary legislation are de facto banned from a certain class of firearms.

  • 11.27.2012 7:37 PM PDT

*´¨)---––•(-• Dutchy •-)•–--–-(¨´*
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)••(¨*•.¸ (¨´*•.¸´•.¸
(¸.•´ (¸.•Everything fails•.¸) ´•.¸)

Captain Richards.

You have a tendency to make REALLY long posts.

You need to learn by now that most people will not read it, including me.

Love, Dutchy, a user with ADD.

  • 11.27.2012 7:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: ShotgunTroll
i read that all, OP.

TLDR people need to see a doctor bout their inability to read/focus.


I don't have an inability to read. I have the inability to care enough to read an essay written by some random person about gun rights.

  • 11.27.2012 7:40 PM PDT


Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: Makko Mace

Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: Heisenburg
Guns for self defence are unnecessary in countries where there are no guns are around, like mine, so they would only increase the murder rate.

I support a total gun ban for all citizens.

^^^stupid^^^


No hes not, in those countries it is very hard to justify killing, even in self defense, no castle laws etc.

If guns were introduced then the amount of unlawful deaths (murders) would sky rocket.

But please come across as hateful and ignorant.

I support a total gun ban for all citizens.
total gun ban for all citizens.
all citizens.
Yeah... no.

Do you realize what that would create here in America? There is this thing called a black market you know.

Not that they could, but even if they did completly ban guns people would still find ways to kill like they have for thousands of years. Look at something like black friday. Hundreds of people in a tight space where someone can easily plant an explosive or suicide bomb in the crowd taking out probably 10+ people. If they wanted they could go on a splatter spree too. Guns killed less people in 2010 (excluding suicides) than texting and driving. In a country of nearly 400 million people, there will always be a few bad apples, but what you gotta do is compare the pros and the cons. In this case, the pros heavily out way the cons. I would write more but I don't want to bore with some massive wall o'text.

  • 11.27.2012 7:41 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2