What kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed?

[Blues Man]

You carry pepper spray, a knife, and a pistol.
Paranoia is a hell of a thing huh?

If gun violence doesn't rise to a level where the average person is paranoid for carrying a firearm for self-defense, why do we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?

Because I don't want to be around you..when you have a gun on you and you had a bad day...or too much to drink...or your wife kicked you out

No one wants to be around you either so you've got nothing to worry about

 

[Crepitus]

Maybe you should read that again, I put that premise in the hole and covered it up.

Premise:
The state cannot have a monopoly on force, so long as the citizenry remains armed.
You:
If they try to disarm you, your AR15 won't stop them.

Premise confirmed. Thank you.

Now tell us:
If gun violence doesn't rise to a level where the average person is paranoid for carrying a firearm for self-defense, why do we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?

The posted I directly responded to. Not your ridiculous straw man OP.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

Guns may be a good thing. Up to a point. But when it reaches the saturation point like it did sometime after 1866 then the communities need to do some serious regulations and enforcement to bring it back to check. And yes, the cure is extreme. But so is the disease. When the saturation level is dealt with, you can lessen the regulations to a level to deal with things a bit better. "More Guns" is not the answer since we were headed for the Saturation Level for awhile.

You avoided the question. That's OK -- I knew you would.

"Saturation level?
Meaningfully define this and then show how are there.
Then show how being there necessitates further restrictions on the law abiding and their right to keep and bear arms.

 

[hadit]

I never leave home without my ninja throwing star belt buckle !

That sounds realistic.

 

[hadit]

How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?
Still waiting for an answer...

And not likely to get a substantive one.

 

[bendog]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

Astonishing that you cant go for a walk without taking your gun.Its like living in a prison.

You have to wonder what kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed.

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

You should avoid conversations with yourself. No one wants your guns, and I can carry a pistol anywhere I want .... except in my office where there are armed guards and metal detectors

 

[M14 Shooter]

The posted I directly responded to.

Yes. Where you confirmed my premise. Thank you

Not your ridiculous straw man OP.

Still waiting for you to show how gun violence doesn't rise to a level where the average person is justified carrying a firearm for self-defense, but DOES rise to a level where we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You should avoid conversations with yourself. No one wants your guns...

This is patently false.
How do you not know this?

 

[hadit]

How many kids at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida would be alive right now if just one or two of the teachers who were near the shooter had been carrying a gun?

Nowadays you never know where you might encounter an armed criminal.

I'm so sick of this argument.
Teachers sign up to get a degree to teach.
Not be the fastest gun in classroom shoot out.
GFY
.

.
.

And those teachers should not carry. Teachers who, however, want to be the last defense their students have when a shooter comes through the door, should be allowed to carry after proper training.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Democrats, Media and Education have brainwashed many people into thinking all guns are bad and that they cause violence on their own.
The end game is purely to disarm the law abiding to create more dependency on government and hence more government control.

The state cannot have a monopoly on force, so long as the citizenry remains armed.

I'm so tired of hearing that line of bullshit. You and your AR are not a match for a single squad of semi-retired national gaurdsmen. If the big evil government decides to come for you you are done, and it doesn't matter haw many semiautomatic rifles you have.

So you think people in the military wouldn't rebel against the government for any reason?

You've watched too many movies.

No not really

It's a serious question

Could the government overstep its authority to such a degree that the people will rebel and if that happens will the military support the people or the government?

There is more of a chance where the Government does so little that it threatens the livelihoods of the citizens (Depressions and Recessions) that could cause something like that. There are just too many safeguards built in to prevent the Government from doing too much to cause an armed revolt. If that were the case, we are closer to that today than ever before. If you are depending on the US Military to back your hands, don't. Even a President has his hands tied trying to use the Federal Military for his own ends. The most that can happen is that Military will do exactly nothing unless you attack a federal agency, on federal lands, the US Military can and will defend it. The US Military (and me) swears to uphold and protect the United States Constitution above all things. The Armed Ressurection you keep bringing up is something out of a B movie scifi flix that the US Military would never allow to happen.

 

[Pilot1]

Cars, swimming pools and ladders kill more than guns. Your argument is beyond ridiculous but that's normal for you, right?

 

[Wry Catcher]

[
People still die for your supposed right to carry a gun. Possession of a firearm isn't an absolute right.

Since you avoided the issue at hand...
If gun violence doesn't rise to a level where the average person needs a firearm for self-defense, why do we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?

Q. If gun violence doesn't rise to a level where the average person needs a firearm for self-defense, why do we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?

A. Because no one can predict when the law abiding becomes a law breaker. Regulations, such as requiring a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is a minor restriction, as can be seen by the numbers of people licensed to drive, to perform surgery, represent others in court, etc.

Registration of all firearms, focus on the word arms, seems reasonable. Gravity knives, push button knives & nunchucks are illegal in many states; thus, why can't each state decide on licensing to own or possess them and other arms (guns) for them to be registered (see the 10th Amendment)?

As for arms, do you support the right to own your personal stash of fragmentation grenades?

 

[iceberg]

[
People still die for your supposed right to carry a gun. Possession of a firearm isn't an absolute right.

Since you avoided the issue at hand...
If gun violence doesn't rise to a level where the average person needs a firearm for self-defense, why do we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?

Q. If gun violence doesn't rise to a level where the average person needs a firearm for self-defense, why do we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?

A. Because no one can predict when the law abiding becomes a law breaker. Regulations, such as requiring a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is a minor restriction, as can be seen by the numbers of people licensed to drive, to perform surgery, represent others in court, etc.

Registration of all firearms, focus on the word arms, seems reasonable. Gravity knives, push button knives,
nunchucks are illegal in many states; thus, why can't each state decide on licensing to own or possess them and for them to be registered?

As for arms, do you support the right to your own fragmentation grenade?

i think you mean *IF* the law abiding citizen becomes a law breaker.

or do you think every gun owner is going to break the laws now?

 

[Edgetho]

I carry because the laws of my country and state say I have the right to.

Sorry, but if you think you need to be armed at a little girl's soft ball game, you're nuts.

dimocrap scum would be the experts on little girls

 

[M14 Shooter]

Q. If gun violence doesn't rise to a level where the average person needs a firearm for self-defense, why do we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?
A. Because no one can predict when the law abiding becomes a law breaker.

I'm sorry -- you actually believe we should restrict the rights of the law abiding because they might commit a crime?
All people? All rights? Or just the people/rights you don't like?

How does your belief support the position that gun violence is at the level where we need to restrict the rights of the law abiding, but not to the level where the law abiding need a gun for self-defense?

 

[M14 Shooter]

or do you think every gun owner is going to break the laws now?

All women can turn tricks; we should restrict their rights, just in case.

 

[hadit]

How many kids at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida would be alive right now if just one or two of the teachers who were near the shooter had been carrying a gun?

Nowadays you never know where you might encounter an armed criminal.

I'm so sick of this argument.
Teachers sign up to get a degree to teach.
Not be the fastest gun in classroom shoot out.
GFY
.

.
.

You can't teach six foot under. I would think it's the responsibility of the school to protect their students from harm. A teacher gets a degree to teach, but will breakup a fist fight if that's what's needed.

They should pull the gun on kids fighting ?

That's stupid. The gun is for the teacher being the last line of defense the kids have when a shooter walls through the door.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Or they know that if they ever need help the cops are too far away to respond in time that is if they respond at all.

That's a dumb excuse. What are the chances of getting into deadly trouble a gun can save you from in suburban America? Especially if you are untrained in it's use? I'd be willing to bet you are more likely to be struck by lighting or hit by a bus.

It only takes one time.

Better to be prepared than not.

There is little or no chance my house will burn down but that doesn't mean I let my insurance lapse.

...and The country is getting more and more socialist. That brings out desperate fucked up people

Gun nuts are generally desperate fucked up people.

Actually the reverse is true. We need them to protect ourselves, our families, and our property from desperate fucked up people who refuse to accept the results of an election. And for druggies, muggers, rapists, car-jackers, home-invaders, robbers, terrorists, and other left-wingers.

Criminals are neither right nor left wing. They are criminals. They use whatever tools they need to be criminals. To say that they are one or the other is to justify them to being criminals. The Majority of the Criminals around here are Right wing because the majority of the people around here are right wing. In the end, left of right, they are still criminals. The firs step is to remove the excuses of being a criminal.

 

[iceberg]

or do you think every gun owner is going to break the laws now?

All women can turn tricks; we should restrict their rights, just in case.

some men rape women, we need to now remove the penis from all men "just in case".

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I much prefer open carry

Not me. The guy openly carrying the gun is the first target in a shooting.

I always carry concealed.

Now, if more people were carrying in the open, I would feel a little less like a target.



.