Be Honest: There is only one real reason to need to carry a gun.

[The Infidel]

FEAR

Seriously. Think about it. If there was no FEAR of being robbed and/or assaulted there is no reason to carry a gun, right?

We buy auto insurance and wear seat belts because we FEAR that at some point in time we may be involved in an accident. (Ok, and in most cases the law requires it and we fear getting a ticket too.)

Hey!! I'm not knocking it. Illinois will soon finally join everyone else in passing a CC law. When we do that I will get one so I can carry it in any areas known for high crime rates. But since I don't FEAR being robbed and/or assaulted in my small hometown I don't feel the need to carry it around.

Now I also realize that there are those who simply want to carry one around like a playtoy. But I suspect that they are simply making up for other "shortcomings".

So if anyone disagrees that FEAR is the primary motivation to carry a gun please explain why it's not.

.

I guess you can say that, but I got my CHL to support the right to have one. I consider every day I have it as a vote, letting my state know that citizens consider the right important. Here in TX anyone eligible to own a firearm can have one in their vehicle, but you need a CHL to carry on your person. Rights are kind of like muscles, if you don't exercise them they tend to waste away.

Oh, brother. How corny can you get??

Rather than ridicule, how about proving him wrong?

Oh yeah, you can't.

 

[JustTheFacts]

If Ford was setting up a dealership right next to the Redneck bar and marketting directly to the drunks, they would be liable..

Of course, the first thing Ford dealers do when they sell you a car is make sure you have a valid license to DRIVE a car. They also insist you get insurance in most states. They do a background check to make sure you can afford it.

if the Gun dealers were as responsible as car dealers, you certainly wouldn't have them selling 8 guns to Nancy Lanza, who was kind of nuts.

You don't have to have a driver's licence to buy a car.

They don't care if you have insurance or not. The lienholder does.

They don't do "background checks". The lienholder does a credit check.

If you pay cash, the dealer doesn't care if you have insurance or not.

Your ignorance is astounding. Well, it would be, if you didn't display it every time you post.

You don't even, technically speaking, need a license to drive a car at all. You need the license to drive a car on publicly-owned roads. It's the use of the roads that's licensed, not the use of the car.

So if guns were licensed like cars, you'd only need a license to have one on public property, and all it would require is two forms of ID to verify that you're you to acquire one.

Untrue, at least initially one is required to prove that they are qualified to drive and upon renewing one must prove that they are still physically able to drive IE eye test.

I would argue that a driving test should be mandatory every 5 years to renew a DL.

Oh, and the OP is correct there IS only one reason to carry a gun.

That reason being that the person carrying it ******* chooses to carry it.

If that's illegal, fine a person can't just choose to ignore laws , well not without consequence, but if it's not illegal than those against carrying can just shut the **** up, or get the laws changed.

By the same token, those who are for carrying where it is illegal right now, can also shut the **** up or work to get the laws changed.

BOTH parties however have the right to try to change the law, and NO ONE is stupid or ignorant, or a ************, or a *****, or a coward, or fearful, or any of the other stupid ******* names you clowns are calling each other simply because they want to change a law they don't agree with. And that goes for BOTH sides.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

FEAR

Seriously. Think about it. If there was no FEAR of being robbed and/or assaulted there is no reason to carry a gun, right?

We buy auto insurance and wear seat belts because we FEAR that at some point in time we may be involved in an accident. (Ok, and in most cases the law requires it and we fear getting a ticket too.)

Hey!! I'm not knocking it. Illinois will soon finally join everyone else in passing a CC law. When we do that I will get one so I can carry it in any areas known for high crime rates. But since I don't FEAR being robbed and/or assaulted in my small hometown I don't feel the need to carry it around.

Now I also realize that there are those who simply want to carry one around like a playtoy. But I suspect that they are simply making up for other "shortcomings".

So if anyone disagrees that FEAR is the primary motivation to carry a gun please explain why it's not.

.

_______________________________________________________________

Boy Wounds Intruder With AR-15: R.C. Soles Anti-Gun Politician Shoots "Client" - More to Soles Story​

Maggie@MaggiesNotebook
1-10-13

The 15-year old boy is the son of a deputy "constable" in the Houston area. He and his 12 year old sister were alone in the home. He grabbed his father's AR-15 and pulled the trigger. The gun did not shoot by itself, contrary to the usual liberal screed. The gun was used to do what it is intended to do, protect the owner. In North Carolina, State Senator R. C. Soles, a Democrat and an attorney, with a long record of supporting anti-gun legislation, shot at two men, former clients, on his property, hitting one of them with his personally-owned weapon. A gun for me but not for thee. Soles has an ugly history beyond the story of shooting a man who clearly should not have been on his property. Read it below.

After the Houston-area break-in, where a window was broken, an adult and a juvenile showed up at a hospital. The adult had at least three gunshot wounds. Apparently, the juvenile was not wounded. He had a police-escorted walk through the property where his buddy was shot.

The deputy's home in a very attractive neighborhood, along with a next door neighbor's home, was recently burgarlized and according to the video below "they stole everything" in those robberies.

In Georgia, a woman was home with her nine-year-old twins. She was forced to take the children into an attic crawl space with her husband on the phone with her. He had just taught her how to operate the 38-caliber weapon. She shot the man 5 times, and came out of the crawl space screaming at him. The invader fled the scene, but is in-hospital in ICU, shot in the face among other wounds. The invader is identified as Paul Ali Slater.

In October 2012, a 12 year old Oklahoma girl (6th grade) was home alone. The girl called her mother to told her "go get the .40 caliber Glock and hide in a bathroom closet. She did so. The man kicked in the door. When she saw the closet door knob turn, she fired through the door and wounded Stacey Jones. Police were waiting for him as he exited the home, bleeding.

[Excerpt]

Readmore:
Boy Wounds Intruder with AR-15: R.C. Soles Anti-Gun Politician Shoots “Client” – More to Soles Story | Maggie's Notebook

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The only reason we have so many guns in our world is because the gun manufacturers are one powerful lobby and a very rich one at that. Guns do not need to be so prevalent in our society, but money talks. Owning a hunting rifle is ok and owning a handgun is ok too, only if kept in the home.

Eventually, guns will be taxed out of our lives as ammo is taxed at rates similar to how we tax cigarettes. When the ammo is so expensive as to make gun ownership a luxury, then will we see some respite from gun violence on our streets.

The rightwing types who feel we need guns to protect us from government, do not realize that in a war with our government, we stand no chance of winning. The government would not fight gun owners in the streets. Instead, the government would use other weapons, maybe even NBC warfare, to take out violent citizens who think they are defending their turf.

Then you should just surrender at the first sign of trouble.

Me? I'll go down fighting!

 

[JustTheFacts]

The only reason we have so many guns in our world is because the gun manufacturers are one powerful lobby and a very rich one at that. Guns do not need to be so prevalent in our society, but money talks. Owning a hunting rifle is ok and owning a handgun is ok too, only if kept in the home.

Eventually, guns will be taxed out of our lives as ammo is taxed at rates similar to how we tax cigarettes. When the ammo is so expensive as to make gun ownership a luxury, then will we see some respite from gun violence on our streets.

The rightwing types who feel we need guns to protect us from government, do not realize that in a war with our government, we stand no chance of winning. The government would not fight gun owners in the streets. Instead, the government would use other weapons, maybe even NBC warfare, to take out violent citizens who think they are defending their turf.

Then you should just surrender at the first sign of trouble.

Me? I'll go down fighting!

Good Lord, take off the tin hat, the government isn't going to come oppress you.

They don't have to, they have other ways of controlling you, and it's already done. You just seemingly aren't bright enough to see that.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The only reason we have so many guns in our world is because the gun manufacturers are one powerful lobby and a very rich one at that. Guns do not need to be so prevalent in our society, but money talks. Owning a hunting rifle is ok and owning a handgun is ok too, only if kept in the home.

Eventually, guns will be taxed out of our lives as ammo is taxed at rates similar to how we tax cigarettes. When the ammo is so expensive as to make gun ownership a luxury, then will we see some respite from gun violence on our streets.

The rightwing types who feel we need guns to protect us from government, do not realize that in a war with our government, we stand no chance of winning. The government would not fight gun owners in the streets. Instead, the government would use other weapons, maybe even NBC warfare, to take out violent citizens who think they are defending their turf.

Then you should just surrender at the first sign of trouble.

Me? I'll go down fighting!

Good Lord, take off the tin hat, the government isn't going to come oppress you.

They don't have to, they have other ways of controlling you, and it's already done. You just seemingly aren't bright enough to see that.

Oh wow an insult. Color me surprised!

Who is wearing the "tin hat"?

 

[Dr Grump]

No you're saying, "I live half way around the world, but I know better how to run your country than you do."

Sorry. No you don't.

Are there many Americans meddling on political discussion websites there?

I was meddling on this site long before you came along...

And the topic is an interesting one...shrug...

It's interesting that you evaded a direct question. It's interesting that you began a thread with the assumption that gun owners are dishonest and afraid.

I sir, am not afraid. I can put 15 rounds in you before you can empty your bladder in your pants.

1) I was not evading the question.
2) I didn't start the thread
3) I never said guns owners were dishonest or afraid, although I will admit that one of the reasons some gun owners are armed is because they are afraid.
4) Ah, yes, exhibit one - more macho bullshit to which I was alluding to with regard to gun lovers and their fascination with their peashooters.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah. How's the total ban on meth, cocaine, LSD, and heroin working out? Almost got it all off the street?

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

The illegal drug trade is a far cry from the legal gun trade. That aside, it seems to have worked in Europe, Australia and NZ (all have very low gun crime, while the drug trade is still the same) As I said, apples and oranges...

How many people died here last year as a direct or indirect result of drugs?
I would bet that 75% of gun deaths in the US can be tied to drugs.

No idea. You?

 

[Rinata]

I guess you can say that, but I got my CHL to support the right to have one. I consider every day I have it as a vote, letting my state know that citizens consider the right important. Here in TX anyone eligible to own a firearm can have one in their vehicle, but you need a CHL to carry on your person. Rights are kind of like muscles, if you don't exercise them they tend to waste away.

Oh, brother. How corny can you get??

Rather than ridicule, how about proving him wrong?

Oh yeah, you can't.

Thinking something is corny is subjective, you dope. It's what I think. It's not right or wrong. It's an opinion.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Actually, every other product, companies ARE held liable when their products kill or injure people.

And given the LAST FOUR recessions happened on Republican watches, I think you guys don't get to lecture anyone on who destroys economies.

I'd LOVE to have Clinton's economy back.

You're saying that if someone buys an F-150, gets drunk, and kills somebody, Ford is liable?

Dude, ARE YOU REALLY THAT ******* DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY?!?!

If Ford was setting up a dealership right next to the Redneck bar and marketting directly to the drunks, they would be liable..

Of course, the first thing Ford dealers do when they sell you a car is make sure you have a valid license to DRIVE a car. They also insist you get insurance in most states. They do a background check to make sure you can afford it.

if the Gun dealers were as responsible as car dealers, you certainly wouldn't have them selling 8 guns to Nancy Lanza, who was kind of nuts.

False. I could walk into a dealership right now and buy a car with no licence. (For that matter, I can tag a car in this state with no licence.) If I buy the car outright (no financing), the dealer doesn't give a damn if I insure it, unless they need insurance info to register it for me.

So, the short version is: yes, you ARE actually THAT ******* DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You're saying that if someone buys an F-150, gets drunk, and kills somebody, Ford is liable?

Dude, ARE YOU REALLY THAT ******* DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY?!?!

If Ford was setting up a dealership right next to the Redneck bar and marketting directly to the drunks, they would be liable..

Of course, the first thing Ford dealers do when they sell you a car is make sure you have a valid license to DRIVE a car. They also insist you get insurance in most states. They do a background check to make sure you can afford it.

if the Gun dealers were as responsible as car dealers, you certainly wouldn't have them selling 8 guns to Nancy Lanza, who was kind of nuts.

You don't have to have a driver's licence to buy a car.

They don't care if you have insurance or not. The lienholder does.

They don't do "background checks". The lienholder does a credit check.

If you pay cash, the dealer doesn't care if you have insurance or not.

Your ignorance is astounding. Well, it would be, if you didn't display it every time you post.

You give him too much credit. It is not ignorance...Joe is actually STUPID.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Actually, every other product, companies ARE held liable when their products kill or injure people.

And given the LAST FOUR recessions happened on Republican watches, I think you guys don't get to lecture anyone on who destroys economies.

I'd LOVE to have Clinton's economy back.

You're saying that if someone buys an F-150, gets drunk, and kills somebody, Ford is liable?

Dude, ARE YOU REALLY THAT ******* DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY?!?!

If Ford was setting up a dealership right next to the Redneck bar and marketting directly to the drunks, they would be liable..

This is the stupidest comment I've ever read. Your implication is that gun sellers are intentionally and knowingly marketing directly to known criminals, rather than law abiding American citizens. Further, explain how that would work. I mean, how are you going to prove Ford is marketing "directly to the drunks" and encouraging them to drive drunk. I mean, are they handing them the keys as they walk out of the bar, knowing full well they're drunk and saying, "Here, take this baby for a test drive"? Are gun sellers handing criminals guns as they walk out of prison, knowing full well they're criminals, and saying, "Here, take this baby for a test drive"? I mean, when you talk about "Redneck bar"? Is this opposed to the bar you were in, in which you got so inebriated as to write something as stupid as you wrote? You ought to be sued for being so stupid.

Of course, the first thing Ford dealers do when they sell you a car is make sure you have a valid license to DRIVE a car. They also insist you get insurance in most states. They do a background check to make sure you can afford it.

The first thing Ford does when they sell a car is make sure you have a valid license to DRIVE a car? Uhhhh...no they don't. You could be buying that Ford for your 14-year-old daughter to give her for her 16th birthday, for all they know. All they care about is an ID, whether it be a driver's license or state issued ID, for credit purposes. You implying an unlicensed driver can't buy a Ford? Really? That's the most laughable thing I've ever heard in my life. And, insurance? Those are state requirements and have nothing to do with federal law. And, that you even bring insurance into this? This seems more a demonstration of your concern for money, rather than saving anyone's life. And, if you plop down cash? There's no need to make sure one can afford it. My gawd man...are you a brainless wonder...or what?

if the Gun dealers were as responsible as car dealers, you certainly wouldn't have them selling 8 guns to Nancy Lanza, who was kind of nuts.

Where's your proof Nancy Lanza was in any way nuts?

 

[JoeB131]

[
And everyplace that has had CCW laws enacted has seen crime go down.

So it looks like you're wrong.

Crime has been going down for decades, because demagraphically, we are getting older as a nation. Has nothing to do with guns.

We still have the highest crime rates in the Industrialized world despite having not only the highest gun ownership rate, but the highest incarceration rate.

 

[JoeB131]

You're saying that if someone buys an F-150, gets drunk, and kills somebody, Ford is liable?

Dude, ARE YOU REALLY THAT ******* DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY?!?!

If Ford was setting up a dealership right next to the Redneck bar and marketting directly to the drunks, they would be liable..

Of course, the first thing Ford dealers do when they sell you a car is make sure you have a valid license to DRIVE a car. They also insist you get insurance in most states. They do a background check to make sure you can afford it.

if the Gun dealers were as responsible as car dealers, you certainly wouldn't have them selling 8 guns to Nancy Lanza, who was kind of nuts.

False. I could walk into a dealership right now and buy a car with no licence. (For that matter, I can tag a car in this state with no licence.) If I buy the car outright (no financing), the dealer doesn't give a damn if I insure it, unless they need insurance info to register it for me.

So, the short version is: yes, you ARE actually THAT ******* DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY.

Last time I bought a car, they checked my license, my license plate and whether I had insurance or not. Now, I'm not sure what part of the country you are in where they let people buy cars without doing all that stuff, but most of the country, that's how it works.

Again, let's treat guns like cars. You have to get a license, you have to get insurance, you have to get a background check.

 

[daveman]

The only reason we have so many guns in our world is because the gun manufacturers are one powerful lobby and a very rich one at that. Guns do not need to be so prevalent in our society, but money talks. Owning a hunting rifle is ok and owning a handgun is ok too, only if kept in the home.

Eventually, guns will be taxed out of our lives as ammo is taxed at rates similar to how we tax cigarettes. When the ammo is so expensive as to make gun ownership a luxury, then will we see some respite from gun violence on our streets.

The rightwing types who feel we need guns to protect us from government, do not realize that in a war with our government, we stand no chance of winning. The government would not fight gun owners in the streets. Instead, the government would use other weapons, maybe even NBC warfare, to take out violent citizens who think they are defending their turf.

Such an amazing depth of ignorance.

 

[JoeB131]

See? Once again, you're not holding criminals accountable. It's always THE MAN'S fault.

You pansy.

I actually like to address CAUSES of problems, not symptoms.

If we produce more criminals than any other industrialized country, I kind of want to ask "Why is that?"

What are we doing wrong?

But those questions are probably too scary for you. You'll just cling to your gun and your bible and live in fear.

"We" aren't doing anything wrong, you quivering *****. Criminals are.

How long before your boyfriend gets out?

You mean other than supporting a system that produces obscene wealth inequality and therefore obscene amounts of crime, no, you guys have nothing to do with the mess in this country.

The problem is, you're a dupe. They get you all upset about abortion, or guns or some other bullshit that you can live without, while you watch your middle class lifestyle drift away...

 

[daveman]

[
And everyplace that has had CCW laws enacted has seen crime go down.

So it looks like you're wrong.

Crime has been going down for decades, because demagraphically, we are getting older as a nation. Has nothing to do with guns.

We still have the highest crime rates in the Industrialized world despite having not only the highest gun ownership rate, but the highest incarceration rate.

You don't get to choose your own reality, Zippy.

 

[JoeB131]

The only reason we have so many guns in our world is because the gun manufacturers are one powerful lobby and a very rich one at that. Guns do not need to be so prevalent in our society, but money talks. Owning a hunting rifle is ok and owning a handgun is ok too, only if kept in the home.

Eventually, guns will be taxed out of our lives as ammo is taxed at rates similar to how we tax cigarettes. When the ammo is so expensive as to make gun ownership a luxury, then will we see some respite from gun violence on our streets.

The rightwing types who feel we need guns to protect us from government, do not realize that in a war with our government, we stand no chance of winning. The government would not fight gun owners in the streets. Instead, the government would use other weapons, maybe even NBC warfare, to take out violent citizens who think they are defending their turf.

Well said.

The ironic thing about this is that if you took the profits out of guns tomorrow, you'd see a lot less ranting about the "Second Amendment".

 

[daveman]

I actually like to address CAUSES of problems, not symptoms.

If we produce more criminals than any other industrialized country, I kind of want to ask "Why is that?"

What are we doing wrong?

But those questions are probably too scary for you. You'll just cling to your gun and your bible and live in fear.

"We" aren't doing anything wrong, you quivering *****. Criminals are.

How long before your boyfriend gets out?

You mean other than supporting a system that produces obscene wealth inequality and therefore obscene amounts of crime, no, you guys have nothing to do with the mess in this country.

The problem is, you're a dupe. They get you all upset about abortion, or guns or some other bullshit that you can live without, while you watch your middle class lifestyle drift away...

...says the fear-mongering ***** who repeats what he's told.

There's a key difference between us, Joe -- I can think for myself.

 

[JoeB131]

[
And everyplace that has had CCW laws enacted has seen crime go down.

So it looks like you're wrong.

Crime has been going down for decades, because demagraphically, we are getting older as a nation. Has nothing to do with guns.

We still have the highest crime rates in the Industrialized world despite having not only the highest gun ownership rate, but the highest incarceration rate.

You don't get to choose your own reality, Zippy.

No, I just point out the facts.

Your logic is that we need more guns and more prisons... even though we have more than any country in the world.

If your "reality" was correct, we'd have the lowest crime rate in the industrialized world, not the highest.