CDZ Why do you own a gun?

[Mad Scientist]

Haha! OP is a Dolt!

Thread is full of Win!

 

[Roadrunner]

Thinking about getting a gun. Be nice to have the option of blowing my brains out if any of the GOP clowns win in 2016

What do you need?

I am way overstocked.

 

[HenryBHough]

Gun ownership is a great hedge against economic instablility.

But they have to be obtained "around the system".

As rights are eroded firearms - and ammunition - will increase in value more than precious metals.

 

[Adiodato]

I own a .308 rifle to hunt, which is both enjoyable, cathardic, and saves me a good deal on unproccesed as-whole-foods-as-it-gets meals for 2 months out of the year.

I also have a twelve gauge shotgun which the sole purpose of is to put a very large whole into any entity that might try to enter my home unlawfully so as to protect my wife and children.

And I carry a high capacity handgun. Because police response to a robbery/wacko shooting is a lot longer than it takes for said wacko to murder a lot of people. In an ideal world no one would need guns. I own forearms because the world we live in climbs farther and farther from being ideal every single day.

 

[D Truth]

Firearms are a true investment. Very simple commodity. Ammunition as well, very easy to make for anyone who is industriousness enough.
While the moneychangers may make up "money" out of imagination and forced indoctrination, the firearm is much more real, much more tangible.... who wins in a competition of shiny make believe cash vs. 9 grams of high velocity lead?

Ya know, considering the fact that money changers hire people with firearms to enforce their make believe "money" and "debts"... heck, even those lowly parasites know the score.
Invest in firearms, not money.

 

[Roadrunner]

Gun ownership is a great hedge against economic instablility.

But they have to be obtained "around the system".

As rights are eroded firearms - and ammunition - will increase in value more than precious metals.

I found 1,000 rounds of Tula .223 at Wally World today, good price.

Split it with another guy, cuz that is how I roll.

Not greedy, though I was there first.

 

[|electric|foxy|]

 

[M14 Shooter]

< inane anti-gun loon cartoon deleted >

Please let us know when you can make some sort of substantive argument on this issue,
Until then,.. don't skin your knees when falling off the swing set.

 

[Nutz]

Why do I own a gun...

To defend myself and my famly from terrorist teapers who call for race wars and revolution on a daily basis because of their hate for black people. I look forward to the day they act on ther threats... have a nice little arsenal.

 

[lake avenue]

people own guns so that they can defend themselves from other people and hunt.

criminals own guns so that they can harm other people. and maybe hunt.

 

[Josf]

I have a standard question used to find the true colors of people on the subject of deciding to defend the innocent victims from the guilty criminals.

The power to decide as an individual, to defend innocent victims from guilty criminals, is one thing, while the POWER required to do so (after the decision is made) is another thing entirely. So...before I can get to the standard question that time versus ability in time and in place ought to be understood BEFORE the "friend or foe" question is asked by anyone to anyone.

Before the decision is made to effectively defend an innocent victim from a guilty criminal the decision to do so has not yet been made, as a matter of demonstrable fact, in time, and in place, and then, after the decision is made there are, beyond a reasonable doubt, two opposite, possible, choices, and a third choice that is possibly neutral as such:

1. Yes, I will, if humanly possible, effectively defend an innocent victim from a guilty criminal, especially if I am the innocent victim, or if someone I love is the innocent victim, and the decision I make now includes an understanding of basic human nature that includes the power known as instinct, such as the instinctual responses a living being will instinctually perform when their life is threated by an attacker who attacks; so the instinct response is to defend, as a matter of well established fact.

2. No, I will not, even if it is humanly possible, defend an innocent victim from a guilty criminal, because I have been conditioned to respond to threats to life with passive acceptance of my inevitable doom at the hands of criminals who perpetrate crimes under the color of law, in other words I have accepted my fate as a victim as I have been told to do since birth, and so I am figuratively bent over, ripe, and ready, for anyone to do anything to me, that they care to do, and I won't resist in any way.

3. Maybe. I prefer not to focus any of my power of will on this subject matter, not in the past, not now, not at any time I the foreseeable future, the whole idea of defense of innocent victims from guilty criminals is not my job, not my concern, I do not care about it, never have, never will, so buzz off, I have important things to do.

Here is the question put to anyone by me, and the answer clues me in on which side (moral, immoral, or amoral) anyone is on, once their responses, or lack of responses are reported back in some way.

In your State, in this Federation called America, also known as The United States, where the Statute known as The Bill of Rights is a commonly understood written version of the idea of effective defense of the innocent victims from the guilty criminals, also known as law, there is a new invention, and everyone who is alive in that State is asked politely to carry and use this new device, under certain obvious limitations. It is therefore known, in this State, that it is the duty of free people to own this device, to use this device, and to be accountable for any misuse of this device in time and place.

The device is an effective defense of the innocent victims device, as guilty criminals WILL injure innocent victims without this device in use, in time, and in places, that WILL be crime scenes if this device is not employed.

Now, as to the device itself, the test question can be offered as a free market competition, where there are 50 States, and each State offers 50 competitive devices, so as to afford each individual 50 choices, so that each individual can select the highest quality, and lowest cost, device that works best at reaching for, and arriving at, the goal of effectively defending individual victims, who are presumed to be innocent, defending those innocent victims, from guilty criminals, even in crimes scenes whereby the guilty criminal is perpetrating a crime upon the innocent victim under the color of law.

I can try to fill in some choices myself, later, but the list can be blank for now:

1.
2.
3.
So on and so forth

 

[jasonnfree]

I own a gun for the same reason as dick cheney. Get drunk, shoot a few birds for fun etc. Maybe accidentally shoot someone that gets in the way but hey! So what!

 

[boedicca]

Yes, I own a gun, and I am under no obligation to anyone to provide a reason "why".

 

[hortysir]

For the same reason I want to pray
For the same reason I want to be able to say what I want wherever I want
For the same reason I want the authorities to have a warrant to search my property

I am afforded these things as a law-abiding American.

You, as a European, however......not so much

You are more than welcome to fly to Mexico and walk to America and become a citizen at any time your heart desires

 

[boedicca]

For the same reason I want to pray
For the same reason I want to be able to say what I want wherever I want
For the same reason I want the authorities to have a warrant to search my property

I am afforded these things as a law-abiding American.

You, as a European, however......not so much

You are more than welcome to fly to Mexico and walk to America and become a citizen at any time your heart desires

Correction. People are not given rights as law-abiding Americans. Rights are inalienable. Nobody can give them or take them away. Others may have the power to violate one's rights, but one still possesses said rights.

 

[PratchettFan]

For the same reason I want to pray
For the same reason I want to be able to say what I want wherever I want
For the same reason I want the authorities to have a warrant to search my property

I am afforded these things as a law-abiding American.

You, as a European, however......not so much

You are more than welcome to fly to Mexico and walk to America and become a citizen at any time your heart desires

Correction. People are not given rights as law-abiding Americans. Rights are inalienable. Nobody can give them or take them away. Others may have the power to violate one's rights, but one still possesses said rights.

A convicted bank robber, sitting in a cell in prison, has the right to a gun?

 

[boedicca]

For the same reason I want to pray
For the same reason I want to be able to say what I want wherever I want
For the same reason I want the authorities to have a warrant to search my property

I am afforded these things as a law-abiding American.

You, as a European, however......not so much

You are more than welcome to fly to Mexico and walk to America and become a citizen at any time your heart desires

Correction. People are not given rights as law-abiding Americans. Rights are inalienable. Nobody can give them or take them away. Others may have the power to violate one's rights, but one still possesses said rights.

A convicted bank robber, sitting in a cell in prison, has the right to a gun?

For the same reason I want to pray
For the same reason I want to be able to say what I want wherever I want
For the same reason I want the authorities to have a warrant to search my property

I am afforded these things as a law-abiding American.

You, as a European, however......not so much

You are more than welcome to fly to Mexico and walk to America and become a citizen at any time your heart desires

Correction. People are not given rights as law-abiding Americans. Rights are inalienable. Nobody can give them or take them away. Others may have the power to violate one's rights, but one still possesses said rights.

A convicted bank robber, sitting in a cell in prison, has the right to a gun?

You're confusing Liberty and Individual Rights with Anarchy.

Check your premises, bub.

 

[hortysir]

Our inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

 

[hortysir]

The rights enumerated in the Bill of rights can be forfeited

 

[Josf]

"A convicted bank robber, sitting in a cell in prison, has the right to a gun?"

Failing to understand how natural rights work, or failing to understand how criminals create criminal RULES (not natural laws) to be enforced by guilty criminals on innocent victims, is never going to change how natural rights still work, so long as nature enforces natural laws.

At the time when people recognized natural laws there was an idea called voluntary, agreeable, law, where people agreed to volunteer to recognized natural law, and if someone stepped outside of that voluntary agreement then those people volunteered to be criminals, by their actions, and if they refused an offer to return, to remedy, to trial by jury, or to any process by which restitution, remedy, regaining voluntary association with other volunteers, then said individual was considered outside the law, or an outlaw, and was therefore no longer volunteering to be defended by other people, so other people were not obligated (by other people) to defend the outlaw.

That may not be easy to understand, but it is the way it was, at least according to some information, such as the information assembled by Lysander Spooner in his Essay titled Trial by Jury. An outlaw was considered to be as people might consider a mad dog, or a wild man eating animal, or as a criminally insane, sociopathic, psychopath, and anyone who may kill or HOLD/CAPTURE/DETAIN said mad dog, or natural catastrophe, was not considered guilty of any crime, such as murder in cases where the outlaw was killed by someone agreeing to recognized natural laws, and not guilty of kidnapping (holding someone against their will) the insane, wild, animal, since someone inside the law cannot "kidnap" a natural catastrophe no more than someone inside the law can kidnap a wild, man eating, animal.

If a jury EVER decided to put someone in a prison of some kind, there would have to be a prison to put someone in. A cage, for outlaws, for wild animals, for the insane, for sociopaths, for psychopaths, or any other natural threat to innocent victims costs a lot of loot to maintain; so why build one? That only happens when the criminals take over government, and the criminals never run out of competitors who try to take over their TURF, and so when the criminals take over their first order of business is to cage all the competitors, and they (the criminals) set about doing what criminals always do, which is to inflict cruel and unusual (unnatural) punishment on those who threaten to compete (replace) their form of criminal take over of government.

Back to the question:

"A convicted bank robber, sitting in a cell in prison, has the right to a gun?"

In a land where the criminals took over at least as far back as 1787, those criminals who took over government (defensive, and according to natural laws agreed upon by volunteers) robbed the idea of banking, they are the bank robbers, they did so with The First Bank of the United States, which was a fraudulent extortion pyramid scheme, a method of counterfeiting the idea of money, along side their counterfeit version of defensive government. Convicting those bank robbers is not possible when the victims still believe the lie that the bank robbers themselves are our one and only source of defense against harm done by criminals who are always ready to volunteer to be criminals if you let them.

Back to the question:
"A convicted bank robber, sitting in a cell in prison, has the right to a gun?"

Next is a free lesson from someone who is an authority on this type of TOPIC. The author of the following words is Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn. Pay attention, this is a free lesson to other people, but the author learned this lesson the hard way.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”