"Why do you need a gun?"
Posted by Non_mooching_artist 9 years, 2 months ago to Pics
I really like these answers! Use logic on the grabbers. It gets them foaming at the mouth. Highly entertaining! 🔫
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Previous comments...
appreciate the eloquence with which people have
expressed them. But the proper answer to the
government (not that it would accept it) is,"It is my
right, and it's none of your **** business."
The above came up in more than one form from more than one individual in more than one discussion. All of which occurred outside the US.
The two questions from other countries invariably go like this.
Q. What happed to the US it's such a fascist police state anymore?
A. The majority of the public voted for it.
Q. Any chance of a revolution?
A. No that already took place the other side won.
Q. But isn't your military supposed to keep that from happening as a last resort?
A. That was the theory. Yes they did take that oath. But I don't believe they think the public is worth the effort. If so sit would be a counter revolution. You see the majority keep voting to live in a fascist police state because - we are told - after 9/11 they want to feel safe.
Q. You mean the terrorists won?
A. To which terrorists are you referring?
Criminals with always have access to weapons including firearms. Police aren't usually present when violent crime occurs. The usually come after the crime has been committed.
I reserve my rational right to self protection. I choose to have a gun. Who has the right to deny me this?
My gun(s) would have to be pried from my cold hands, ammunition depleted, for me to stop protecting what is most precious to me.
At two points in my life an unexpected visitor came in the back door to my house during the night. In one case it was someone I did not know, in the other it was my brother. Both had the same response in me. I reached over under the edge of my bed, grabbed my pump action shot gun with an extension on it, pumped one shell into the chamber and had two very different responses.
In the case of brother he immediately called out and identified himself. I greeted him and told him I would be in the living room in a minute. I removed the shell from the chamber, and put it back in the gun ready to be loaded into the firing chamber again when needed. I went in and talked with my brother.
The other case resulted in nearly immediate departure of the would be robber from my home. I have no idea who he or she was. I do not need to. They had the good sense not to make me fire the weapon.
The third was a instance where a group of three people thought they should mug me, I let my coat open to show the holster under my arm and they left.
The vast majority of reason to have a gun will not require the firing of the gun. Its presence and the knowledge of its presence is enough to change the course of the person who would otherwise be interested in initiating some kind of force upon me, you or a country.
Thanks for the post. I like it.
By nature most robbers, muggers and rapist are cowards. They go where there is the likelihood of resistance is lowest. If they cannot find a place the gives them the confidence to commit the crime they will simply not commit the crime. Making it very difficult to put empirical data behind just how much guns in good hands help.
I could cite what you just said, as the more reason to let the people arm themselves. If you want to stop crime, harden the targets.
I could cite that, but I won't. Because the right of the people to keep and bear arms, exists and continues *independently* of any consideration of crime-stopping by any agency of the state.
For example, go to California and tell them that those rebels in Texas want to succeed from the union or take away their nearly free college that is subsidized by the federal government (worded differently) and you would have an army from California willing to shoot Texans. Apply the same logic to any two states with opposing views and its not a stretch to have some willing to shoot those left wing nuts or right wing nuts.
If the government can divide us into groups and get us to hate the other group they can get us to do whatever they want through that hate. Hate is nearly always irrational, and as an irrational emotion it can get people to do things they would not normally ever do.
As to socialists, I don't expect to change their minds. All brains aren't wired the same way and I think their processor is overwhelmed with emotional data and reason is filtered out. They think I am a inhuman machine and not worthy of their consideration. I don't think I can change them but believe that left on their own, they would starve. I think that evidence is on my side because everywhere they have dominated they have nearly perished but for the few that have been rational even though they were considered criminals in their society.
Does that mean some of us will not die in defense of our "Lives, Fortunes and Sacred Honor"? Well, yeah, some of us will. But better a dead MAN than a live slave.
"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who would attempt to abuse them. Which would include their own government." George Washington
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
Both Federalists and Antifederalists believed that the main danger to the republic was tyrannical government and the ultimate check on tyrannical government was an armed population. Both sides not only agreed that the people had a right to be armed, both sides assumed the existence of an armed population as an essential element to preserving liberty.
Valparaiso University Law Professor David E. Vandercoy, puts it this way in his piece on the history of the second amendment, "English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers...
"...These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population...The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says."
Clearly, this had nothing to do with muskets or guns of one size or another, and everything to do with citizens' ability to fend off tyranny.
This is why so-called "progressives" favor disarming the citizenry; so that they can't fight back against the progressive dissolution of individual liberty.
Wow, sounds a lot like 2015...
If it was set aside illegally then run a legal counter revolution as a sworn duty.
If it was set aside legally then make you own individual choice on where and how you choose to live.
Setting it aside either way absolves all members of the military from any further duty except in the first instance.
Unhappily many in the military ask the question is the country and it's population worth the effort. They see no moves by their leaders and precious little support from the citizens except for the 'paper or plastic have a nice day thanks for serving your country insincerities.' Granted that's not everyone - but it seem s to be a majority judging from their actions on voting day.
Took me 24 years of lugging a rifle to observe that lesson and a further number of years to let it sink in. There is little purpose in defending a nation that turns it's collective majority back on what the previous writer so eloquently provided.
little bit of home work. Cycle of Repression as run by a government as opposed to run by a group of rag tag rebels. Key words. Marighella, Uruguay Tupumaros Then think of phrases such as ''never let a good crisis go to waste.'' The originator is one of the street theater candidates in the quadrennial (sp?) big shoow.
I have many members of my family who have, and have always been proud of that. But for them. Not myself. You put in many years of service, of your life, and for that I have no adequate words to express a profound gratitude, for something I will never understand from a veteran's or currently serving soldier's perspective.
I will do some reading about what you have written. I'm sure it's an eye opener. Thank you for your well thought out comments also. They have added depth to the discussion.
Respectfully,
NMA
Secondly, a standing army of a million or two against 150 million armed citizens would also be a very short fight, in the unlikely event that happened at all.
We are a strong country, because we are a nation of individuals with individual liberty. If you think that gun ownership is bad, feel free to hang out in Mexico for a while, it's a great example of what not to do.
Now my brother is a navy veteran, but he thinks like most here do. Otherwise I'd have to beat him up... ;-)
When I cross the border to the North I go to the bank open the box and get out the permit and the permitted item.
The rest is propaganda and sensationalist crap based on out of date statistics which WERE at one time accurate during the height of the cartel wars.
My wife has a family house in Jalostatitlan, I'm very familiar with the issues. Particularly the 'Policia' that ride shotgun around in pickup trucks, but do next to nothing to help anyone or stop crime.
The examples you give... Texas/Houston, are very high crime areas in general. Is it like that in Newport Beach, CA or Eureka? absolutely not.
They also have affordable pay as you go medicine. While I'm six months into what looks like a year long effort to get VA status assigned in the nearest area. And great food. Not at all like Taco Hell.
Originally called State militias the National Guard to took their place. About 95% of the Guard budgets at least up to pre middle east wars days was federally provided. They were for a long time considered a great money maker for the States.
So what's the law on the National Guard and pay attention to the word National. They can be federally activated at any time and for any length of time.
It starts with the Second Amendment which states IN FULL right to bear arms will not be ...etc. and gives the reason. Defense of the State which use to mean the individual States but not means states. Alluded but not stated is the right and responsibility to self defense. But the hidden meaning is you buy a weapon you just joined the state militia anytime the government decides to use it that way.
Age of participants is listed but does NOT exclude women from military service. It only gives ages for men. Back when men were the cannon fodder and women the baby factories a form of political thinking still much in vogue.
Congress of the US gets to set all the regulations governing the military including the state militias and national guard units and yes their are state militias as well as NG units. Their purpose is to take over the armories in the absence of the units to preclude a repeat of WWII when the cities took over the buildings abandoned property. Troops came home - brand new building projects often Quonset huts to begin with.
There's another part that calls for the States to appoint all commissioned officers.
ALL of that works together and one part has been broadened into the military conscription acts or draft laws. The current version has another hidden part. Sign up at age 18 and that is not listed as voluntary then you are no longer eligible for the draft. You signed you are now a willing and ready individual awaiting a reporting date and time, Catch 22 strikes again. Don't want to repay your student loan? No problem Nothing to stop the lender (Government) from sending that time and place of appearance for duty notice. Then after qualifying on whatever passes for the new GI Bill it can be used or applied to your student loan scofflaw debt. Meanwhile your family gets full benefits and you get full pay - as a Private E whatever. Maybe if it was for medical school that part might improve
But think of it a whole ready willing and able pool of college graduates ready to go be cannon fodder - all cause they involuntarily volunteered at age 18. Or put another way. All because the anti-draft movement suddenly quit and went away happy not realizing they had been bamboozled and scammed.
I shouldn't be given the Presidebt new ideas my apologies for that part.
Women get a free ride on that one because they don't sign the card at age 18. But the women's equal rights movement imploded in the 90's anyway so like the anti draft movement it's history...
If you are talking about registering for selective service, it's compulsory and its the law, but not necessarily enforced or a penalty for not doing so. There is definitely a 'gotcha' though. I work for a federal contractor, and we are required to check it on anyone that ever applies for employment - we've had more than a few very nice employment offers that would change some young peoples' lives, get pulled back because they never registered for selective service.
I don't have a problem with it at all, we have an all-volunteer force (and I did volunteer and perform my duty), but we do have unforeseen future events to defend the country and our way of life from a major aggressor (such as Germany during WWII). While its not likely to happen anytime, there will always be the next time sooner or later.
"They did that back then?"
"Yes sure did."
But I do envy the present day equipment.
"...hang out in Mexico", now that ought to convince ya!
Speak for yourself with a 'peashooter'. I have some pretty long-reach shoulder artillery.
Something off topic you might find interesting: My wife and I travel rather frequently between Phoenix and Tucson on Interstate-10 and within the last several months we have seen a number of "Patrol" cars clearly marked with "Federal Police" on them.
Glad you've been able to defend yourself and others when necessary. Nice keister shot. ;-)
Yes, I still laugh myself about where I shot that thief. It does however make the point that everyone that owns a gun isn't out to kill someone. I had a very clear field, and am a very good marksman. When he started to pull his gun, I had the upper hand and could have just as easily fired into his chest.
The Russians, with military technological superiority, failed to defeat the Afghan Mujahideen, some of whom were in fact using black powder muskets for nearly ten years before we tipped the balance against the helicopter gunships.
You've fallen victim to the classic military orderly, "set-piece" combat thinking, which hasn't worked since Napoleon's time. Should the opposition against an out of control government be forced into a violent confrontation, the outcome will not be fore-ordained, but chaotic and unpredictable.
Other points of information I used to believe were false. Schmeisser is the inventor of the MP38 and MP40 Machinen Pistole. Yes you can silence a revolver as well as a pistol. The Russians did it one way by putting a regular suppressor on the barrel and a rubber like seal between the cylinder and the throat of the barrel. They then switched to silenced ammunition. The US namely S&W did the same thing with the .44 Magnum Dirty Harry style frame for the tunnel rats of Vietnam era. Simply a thickened case necked down to the actual .41 caliber for the bullet backed up by a piston with some powder loaded through the rear aperture before the primer was seated. Just like an aircraft carrier launching a fighter plane. Anymore misconceptions I'll be happy to correct if I know the answer such as setting headspace and timing on an Ma Deuce .50 caliber machinegun without the gauges.
How right you are...!