Welcome to Gaia! ::

Zetsubouu's avatar

Beloved Visionary

Divine_Malevolence
Who the hell needs military grade weaponry to take on common thugs?
What the hell was wrong with your alarm system?
Two issues I have with your little story.
As to why I'm against legal guns whatsoever...:


If there are no guns, ala zero, aka you can't get any guns whatsoever, how would a criminal get one, per say?
Sure, they wouldn't instantly get disarmed. But they would run out of ammo, and supplying that wouldn't really be possible. Every bust against someone with a gun would remove one from the criminal world, to a point where a scant few criminals throughout the country would have any access to even the lowest grade weaponry.
Four guys break into your house at night? That's what a security system is for. If they're armed with at most a knife and you're capable of barricading a door there's basically no way they'd harm you. If they're also armed , one of the best case scenarios is that you hit one and the other three turn you into a holey maiden, doors don't even matter.

Guns don't make you safe. They make everyone else a little less safe regardless if you're against them or not.

Malevolence,
Non-military grade weapons are a good thing for protection. It is not a good idea for gun totalitarianism, it would be similar to how Britain has their gun laws. While gun control did help gun crimes go down they still existed. Criminals will always find ways to get guns. But also on another note is that when gun crime goes down knife and other crime go up, which is much more brutal, much less safe. Multiple stab wounds to the torso are often worse than one or several shots to it.

That said, gun aren't only for protection against humans. What if a coyote attacked one of my dogs, I can't run after it with a knife, I would need to shoot it.
BlackBeltMan
Also, forgot to note, for people saying that our country would be invaded, you seriously need to get out of the Cold War era mindset. Our country spends so much on our military, it trumps the next 20 or so countries COMBINED. Thats all of china and all of russia, plus a little bit more. Not to mention our homicide rate is so incredibly high that itself should be enough reason just to let us kill ourselves with our needlessly powerful guns. The world is coming to a new and peaceful era, hop on board or be stuck in the dark ages...


One last bit for why its insane to invade the US, our country covers an absolutely massive amount of land and military strategists the world over have said it would be an absolute nightmare to try and occupy for that reason alone
Hero Rising's avatar

Paladin

7,250 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Battle: Knight 100
  • PvP 200
Divine_Malevolence
Hero Rising


We may not stand a chance but the point is that the government will face consequences if they meddle with our rights.
Funny joke. At the very best they'd have the ability to quickly sedate you and then throw you in prison for treason. They would also be able to massacre you in the streets. A rebellion wouldn't actually be useful for the sake of rebellion. It would be more to the tune of "We're now rebelling, not because we can do anything, but to make a point", which is as effective if you're wielding automatic kalashnikovs or twigs and rocks.
Hero Rising


It would be a lot worse to rebel if we didnt have than if we had, correct?
Incorrect. You'd be equally ******** either way.
Hero Rising

The corrupt are very, very, very, very few when it comes to gun ownership.
No idea what the hell you're talking about here.
Hero Rising

The law abiding gun owners are practically 100%...like Purell. 99.9%. Theres that damn germ that always gets in the way, however.
You both provide no backing to your statistics and fail to address that there's still a problem anyway, which could easily be solved.
Hero Rising

Were not Columbine shooters.
But you empower them.
Hero Rising
We are the original homeland security.
And are outdated.
Hero Rising
We are very aware of our privileges each time we walk out onto the field.
Note you didn't say 'rights'.
Hero Rising
We know, we understand.
Somehow I doubt that.
Hero Rising


Were not here to shoot you but to defend you.
I'd rather you didn't do either, thank you.
Hero Rising
Your rights. Your livelihood.
More likely to be put in danger by an armed crazy than not.
Hero Rising
And were the only thing that stands between you and the government,
Don't make me laugh. Nowadays there are a million more effective ways to deal with the government than guns. If you're really interested in that, learn how to hack.
Hero Rising
even if nowadays it is shrinking due to the pressures of gun control and the expenses involved.
It's shrinking because it's outdated, more like.


It is so obvious you do not shoot. We are not outdated and are provided access to the same weapons they are using in Iraq right now. I OWN them, hun. And yes, privileges AND rights. Those privileges are not just constitutional rights but BIRTH rights.

You make ME laugh with your blatant ignorance. Thank you. I have to go to church now so feel free to respond so that I can continue to argue with you further.
BlackBeltMan's avatar

Enduring Conversationalist

6,700 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Marathon 300
Hero Rising
BlackBeltMan
You noted China. You said they took away ALL "arms". Obama isn't taking away all arms, only the military grade ones, so YOU don't go crazy ( don't say its impossible because it is highly possible for everyone ) and shoot 100 people and 10 cops. Why do we need MILITARY GRADE weapons anyways? We could still defend ourselves just fine with a hunting rifle...


A hunting rifle vs. a semi-automatic AR15? Do you shoot?

Balance in weaponry as evenly distributed as possible through civilian, military, and government is the best defense against infringed freedoms. Those AR's protect you.

The founding fathers stressed it for a very good reason. If they trusted that power could not be abused, they would not care.

Thank God that the government has so many branches and filters and that the citizens are well armed in the case that these filters fail and their freedoms are compromised.
Yes I do shoot. I have shot before and i'm proficient at it. Why would it matter anyways? I've studied the military channel for years, read strategy from Sun Tzu all the way up to the Cold War and even our new wars. I could almost be considered an expert tactician. Those are my credentials. What I have noticed is its not the weapons that makes the country, its how you use them and what strategy you use. In that case, with the correct strategy, you could easily use guerilla warfare and completely dominate, note Vietnam.

No, i'd rather not thank God, as he simply does not exist, but thats an entirely different argument.

Those AR's are used, or can be, to hurt hundreds and thousands of innocent lives from one deranged maniac, note recent Colorado shootings.

There are so many filters in our government it would be ridiculous to assume that any plan for a coup would work. ESPECIALLY with our news media the way it is.
BlackBeltMan's avatar

Enduring Conversationalist

6,700 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Marathon 300
Viral Protocol
BlackBeltMan
Also, forgot to note, for people saying that our country would be invaded, you seriously need to get out of the Cold War era mindset. Our country spends so much on our military, it trumps the next 20 or so countries COMBINED. Thats all of china and all of russia, plus a little bit more. Not to mention our homicide rate is so incredibly high that itself should be enough reason just to let us kill ourselves with our needlessly powerful guns. The world is coming to a new and peaceful era, hop on board or be stuck in the dark ages...


One last bit for why its insane to invade the US, our country covers an absolutely massive amount of land and military strategists the world over have said it would be an absolute nightmare to try and occupy for that reason alone
Exactly. We're only the 3rd largest as well, China and Russia have much bigger amounts that they need to protect as well.
Qyp's avatar

Manly Lunatic

Hero Rising
Qyp
Hero Rising
Qyp
Hero Rising


Hes taking military grade weapons from all of us, soon. This should worry you.
As long as free men and women are armed there is always a threat to would be tyrants that their rule will be challenged. There is always the knowledge that armed citizens could turn the tables on their toy soldiers and over throw the despots, and even if the armed citizens must die opposing tyranny it is better to die free than live a slave. The reason for owning guns then is to protect our freedom.

Tyranny is impossible due to the 22nd amendment.


But if they can rattle the 2nd "Shall not be infringed"? Tell me what value the 22nd could hold?

Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. It does not mean infringe. Period. And there is a true reason for it. It protects you, it protects me.

When the average American is better armed than the soldier of another country, tell me how powerful our homeland security is?

We are a powerful foundation to a force called the United States of America. Know that if we were invaded in such a way by multiple countries, if bombs were thrown upon us (it IS possible), wed be the underlying foundation of defense.

Its there for a reason, not for fun.

If the military can't protect the USA, then well... whats the point in the military at all?


It protects our freedoms. But in some cases as seen throughout history, corruption bleeds into the system and it's up to armed civilians to protect liberties.

Remember the Assassin's Creed trailer? "It is better to die as a free man than live as a slave."

This is a famous argument for gun rights that goes back to Lord knows when. The AC3 trailer used it on a scene where Connor was shooting a huge rifle

I totally forgot George Washington who had to be Mr Liberal, had slaves of his own... Hypocrisy from the beginning.

Anyway, lol, AC3, nice. It does keep to the historical stuff quite well actually.

I do not think the President can be a tyrant unless he does Martial Law, but he needs a good reason for him to be allowed to do such a thing, like a rebellion/civil war. Which means it would be the people's fault if he became a tyrant...
Divine_Malevolence's avatar

Blessed Tactician

11,050 Points
  • Beta Contributor 0
  • Beta Critic 0
  • Contributor 150
Kolyatt
Divine_Malevolence
Who the hell needs military grade weaponry to take on common thugs?
What the hell was wrong with your alarm system?
Two issues I have with your little story.
As to why I'm against legal guns whatsoever...:


If there are no guns, ala zero, aka you can't get any guns whatsoever, how would a criminal get one, per say?
Sure, they wouldn't instantly get disarmed. But they would run out of ammo, and supplying that wouldn't really be possible. Every bust against someone with a gun would remove one from the criminal world, to a point where a scant few criminals throughout the country would have any access to even the lowest grade weaponry.
Four guys break into your house at night? That's what a security system is for. If they're armed with at most a knife and you're capable of barricading a door there's basically no way they'd harm you. If they're also armed , one of the best case scenarios is that you hit one and the other three turn you into a holey maiden, doors don't even matter.

Guns don't make you safe. They make everyone else a little less safe regardless if you're against them or not.

Malevolence,
Non-military grade weapons are a good thing for protection. It is not a good idea for gun totalitarianism, it would be similar to how Britain has their gun laws. While gun control did help gun crimes go down they still existed. Criminals will always find ways to get guns. But also on another note is that when gun crime goes down knife and other crime go up, which is much more brutal, much less safe. Multiple stab wounds to the torso are often worse than one or several shots to it.

That said, gun aren't only for protection against humans. What if a coyote attacked one of my dogs, I can't run after it with a knife, I would need to shoot it.

But knife crimes are easier to prevent. You don't drive by with a knife, it's easier to see the blood on someone's hands if they use a knife, it's easier to get away from a guy with a knife, and all the like.
And why are you running after a coyote with a knife? You're a good... What, three times its size, with a dog? Scare it off and make sure the pooch doesn't chase it, then call animal control.

Hero Rising


It is so obvious you do not shoot. We are not outdated and are provided access to the same weapons they are using in Iraq right now. I OWN them, hun. And yes, privileges AND rights. Those privileges are not just constitutional rights but BIRTH rights.

You make ME laugh with your blatant ignorance. Thank you. I have to go to church now so feel free to respond so that I can continue to argue with you further.
Right.
You take your gun and I take my computer.
Lets see which of the two of us goes down first.

You are outdated. Nowadays the most you can do with a gun, really, is columbine. Not that you'd actually be protecting people... The modern day military?
They would ignore you. If you tried stepping in front of them you'd be met with tear gas and quickly restrained. Or sniped, if the government is less merciful.
As opposed to someone with technical skills who could shut down communications, leave them stranded. Find their frequencies and tell where they're going. Mess with drones... Hell, if you were a ******** genius you might be able to find and wrest control of a nuke.
You fight rifles with rifles. You fight high-tech with high-tech. Guns were necessary when the British had guns. America has much more than guns.

There's a thing called sense... "Hun".
You don't seem to have any.
Hawanja's avatar

Unholy Abomination

21,900 Points
  • Sunny Side Up 100
  • Abomination 100
  • Conventioneer 300
Hero Rising
Hawanja
Hero Rising



Thank you for that response. You seem very educated on this issue.

Honestly, where on earth have you been for the past 5 years? When Obama was a senator, he placed a number of gun control laws (and went very far on Chicago). It didn't stop when he became president.

I won't be vague here. Don't worry.

Obama stated in his last debate that he was going to ban all assault weapons from homes. ALL of them. Meaning that only the government and the military were going to have military grade weapons. He uses the words "assault weapons" (which, in the world of guns, is actually only proper when referring to the military).

On LIVE television. In front of our eyes and ears. Me and my father looked at each other and suddenly the election became MUCH more for us.

But obviously, you did not watch the debates.

Here's a direct quote from Obama:
"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

If that's too vague for you, here's more:
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Wait! But there's more!

Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in 2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.

^These are just handguns. Not even assault weapons!

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices

THIS MEANS THAT THE COMPANIES WHICH MANUFACTURE GUNS WILL GET ATTACKED WHENEVER SOMEONE IS SHOT BY A GUN THEY MADE. THIS DESTROYS GUN OWNERSHIP WITH A TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT.


An interview about the assault weapons ban:

KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that’s good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.


Now, would you like me to tell you WHY assault weapons are important? Because I can and I will. Anyone who does not understand the philosophy behind assault weapons needs a bit of education on the founding fathers and why they states all arms for all men, not to be infringed.

If Obama does not understand the value of having equal arms with the government and the military, then his understanding on the value of the constitution is not suitable for any government seat.


But would you like some more proof?


Actually yes, because all of that bullshit you said is irrelevant.

I asked you this:

Hawanja, because I am awesome
Please tell me, which policy has Obama enacted, EXACTLY, which has curtailed second amendment rights in any way?


So let's see what of what you posted actually fits that criteria.

Hero Rising
Honestly, where on earth have you been for the past 5 years? When Obama was a senator, he placed a number of gun control laws (and went very far on Chicago). It didn't stop when he became president.


What laws, exactly, has Obama "placed" as president? First off, how the ******** exactly does the president "place" a law? I thought like that both houses of congress had to pass something, then the president had to sign it? Which laws exactly did Obama sign, AS PRESIDENT - because s**t he did as a senator doesn't ******** count as to his presidential record - that have curtailed second amendment rights?

Please tell me the exact law, and link me to the exact text of the law if possible.

Hero Rising
"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."


Irrelevant - Direct quotes are not laws. Doesn't matter what he personally thinks, this does not change the law. I asked you for the exact bills he signed into law which takes away yer guns. Please learn how to answer the questions you are asked and not try to buffer with irrelevant bullshit.

Hero Rising
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”


Once again, irrelevant. What document was this exactly? Was it a bill that he signed into law as president? No? THEN IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THE CONVERSATION. I put that in caps and in bold so you can imagine me yelling it into your ear. I asked you for laws he signed as president. Learn how to read please.


Hero Rising
Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:


Oh, so it was a document when he was running to be a state senator? So he wasn't even part of the government then, yes? Back in 1996? I guess that means it wasn't a law he signed as president, yes? Know what that means? It means this little tidbit of bullshit is irrelevant.

Hero Rising
Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in 2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.

^These are just handguns. Not even assault weapons!


First off, this happened in 2000 and 2004, which means that, again, it's not a law he signed as president, thus again, it's irrelevant. Secondly it shows that you're not even reading this s**t yourself before you copy and paste it, else you would have seen this line:

Quote:
but also voted in 2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.


As you have written it means he voted to ALLOW this, not BAN it. It's called "reading comprehension." You learned it in grammar school. I'm sure you can remember. I know 7th grade was like two years ago for you, just try real, real, real, real hard.

You may have noticed I'm being kind of an a*****e to you in this post. It's because I have no ******** patience for people who copy and paste stupid bullshit to support their idiotic childish political views without even ******** reading it first. If you're gonna post this s**t, at least like, glance over it for a couple of minutes.

Hero Rising
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.


"Principles he supports" are not laws which he has signed to curtail gun rights. Also you'll notice that none of those actually would result in you getting your guns taken away. Irrelevant.

Hero Rising
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices


So this is actually a bill, which he has signed into law as president? Really? Can you tell me the actual name of this bill? Link me to the text? Who cosponsored it? When did he sign it, exactly?

And please explain to me how the text above would "destroy gun ownership?" It sounds to me all it does it keep them from being sued, and ban armor piercing rounds. I'm sure the police would like that.

Hero Rising
KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that’s good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.



Once again, this is something he said in an interview, not a law that congress passed and he signed as president. Thusfar you have given me absolutely nothing to back you up when you said "My rights have been challenged." Remember that? In order for your rights to have been challenged, a law has to be passed in order to actually challenge your rights.

In conclusion:

- Pieces of paper he signed as a senator which have no legal binding are irrelevant.
- Quotes from Obama are irrelevant.
- Bills he co-sponsored before he was president are irrelevant.
- Voting to let ex-police officers carry handguns are irrelevant, especially since that's an expansion of gun rights, not a curtailment.
- Principles he supports on gun control but he hasn't enacted into law are irrelevant.
- Things he said during interviews with Allen Keyes are not relevant.

I asked you for specific policies which Obama has enacted since becoming president that have curtailed your second amendment rights. Stop trying to skirt by with stupid irrelevant bullshit and answer the question.

I want the specific laws, the specific details, and links to the text. Do this or GTFO.
X_Torric_X's avatar

Dangerous Lunatic

9,500 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Forum Explorer 100
  • Dressed Up 200
As a prior service member of the US Army, i completely agree with the OP and fully support it.
Hawanja's avatar

Unholy Abomination

21,900 Points
  • Sunny Side Up 100
  • Abomination 100
  • Conventioneer 300
X_Torric_X
As a prior service member of the US Army, i completely agree with the OP and fully support it.


Well, I invite you then to answer the same question I gave to the OP, which is this:

Quote:
Please tell me, which policy has Obama enacted, EXACTLY, which has curtailed second amendment rights in any way?


I'm sure you're probably better informed than he appears to be.
Zetsubouu's avatar

Beloved Visionary

Divine_Malevolence

But knife crimes are easier to prevent. You don't drive by with a knife, it's easier to see the blood on someone's hands if they use a knife, it's easier to get away from a guy with a knife, and all the like.
And why are you running after a coyote with a knife? You're a good... What, three times its size, with a dog? Scare it off and make sure the pooch doesn't chase it, then call animal control.



I don't have razor sharp teeth like a coyote. Plus, they aren't the only things out here. We have bears and rattlesnakes too. Its also high doubtful but what if a bear attacked my wife? What could I do against it with a knife?

If you are unarmed against a man with a knife chances are you can't overpower him. Normally with knife crimes they are too close before you realize you are in danger. Guns create the distance factor but knives are also easier to conceal, they are just as deadly up close as a gun.
X_Torric_X's avatar

Dangerous Lunatic

9,500 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Forum Explorer 100
  • Dressed Up 200
Hawanja
X_Torric_X
As a prior service member of the US Army, i completely agree with the OP and fully support it.


Well, I invite you then to answer the same question I gave to the OP, which is this:

Quote:
Please tell me, which policy has Obama enacted, EXACTLY, which has curtailed second amendment rights in any way?


I'm sure you're probably better informed than he appears to be.
I don't care enough about Obama to follow up on his policies (unless I miraculously stumble on something). Mainly, I agree with the OP that the US citizens have the right to bear arms towards an oppressing government.
Divine_Malevolence's avatar

Blessed Tactician

11,050 Points
  • Beta Contributor 0
  • Beta Critic 0
  • Contributor 150
Kolyatt
Divine_Malevolence

But knife crimes are easier to prevent. You don't drive by with a knife, it's easier to see the blood on someone's hands if they use a knife, it's easier to get away from a guy with a knife, and all the like.
And why are you running after a coyote with a knife? You're a good... What, three times its size, with a dog? Scare it off and make sure the pooch doesn't chase it, then call animal control.



I don't have razor sharp teeth like a coyote. Plus, they aren't the only things out here. We have bears and rattlesnakes too. Its also high doubtful but what if a bear attacked my wife? What could I do against it with a knife?

If you are unarmed against a man with a knife chances are you can't overpower him. Normally with knife crimes they are too close before you realize you are in danger. Guns create the distance factor but knives are also easier to conceal, they are just as deadly up close as a gun.
Depends on what type of bear.
If it has children it probably wouldn't.
If it doesn't have children they're generally the type of buggers that can be scared off.
They're cowardly if not for bear cubs.
The method of dealing with rattlesnakes is not ******** with rattlesnakes. A rattlesnake would only ever attack you in self defense. There is no value in killing you for them unless it keeps you from killing them.
Most animals will either only ever attack you if you deserve it, ala the female bear with cubs and the rattlesnake, or are equally likely to get dissuaded, like most male bears.
If there was a violent bear in the area, however, that would be a problem. Not for someone like me or you, but for animal control who would tranquilize the thing and put it somewhere where it doesn't cause problems.

Which brings to mind an alternative. Instead of guns, they should sell tranquilizers and taser guns. Better of the defensive, not as good at killing people.

If you're unarmed against a man with anything chances are you can't overpower him. People are even dangerous unarmed. Guns aren't particularly problematic to conceal, and even if, the fact that knives and well trained bare hands are dangerous is not an argument for keeping guns. In any way. Maybe it's something to say, hey, we should make tasers more common so that if a big burly dude comes at you you can do something, but it is definitely not an argument for a gun.
nobounce the 2nd's avatar

Dapper Dabbler

15,300 Points
  • Pie For All! 300
  • Pie Trafficker 100
  • Pie Hoarder by Proxy 150
of course you are forgetting that the second amendment was written 250 years ago, where at the time the social discourse that the country had just come out of led people to think about the potential need to uprise should the "experiment" that was the new united states fail. As well the fact that gunpowder weapons were simple and there was not much to them. You have to remember the state of time and the situation to which the second amendment was written. If someway one could ask the founding fathers about if people should have the "right" to hold mass assault weapons, and to bare distinctive arms of the caliber that exist today, the stronger argument can be made that they would say no to people being able to hold those weapons. Instead of putting things in context the 2nd amendment has be greatly distorted into the belief of absolute freedom to hold weapons who's only purpose is for the death of large numbers of creatures in the shortest amount of time possible. If you took the guns you speak of back 250 years to their time, they maybe in not the exact words(given for the speech at the time) label each of your guns that you love so much as "weapons of mass destruction" as even in this day they can be categorized as such. Oh and if you are hunting with the AR15 and AR10 then you are missing the point and sport of hunting.

Oh and for the record yes all military grade weapons should be removed from civilian hands, there is a reason why they are called "military grade". It should be illegal to carry or own any firearm unless you have a proper license which puts you into one of the following categories "farmer, collector, sport shooter, hunter" even with those due to the amount of power modern weapons have they should at all times be locked in a safe unless when being used, and subject to police checks should a crime occur with gun in your area. There should also be registration on all the weapons as well. Nothing would be stopping you from owning a weapon with this, it would however be saying these are devices of very destructive power should be treated as such. If one is caught without the license and without the registration it should be 10 years in jail.

If you account for the advancements from 250 years ago to today, and look at the inflation of the types and power of weaponry then in another 250 years you would be okay with everyone walking around and owning small nuclear weapons, devices that we today consider weapons of mass destruction, where are those people 250 would consider the fire arms of today weapons of mass destruction.
Morbid Monstrosity's avatar

Invisible Prophet

6,600 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • First step to fame 200
  • Contributor 150
Hero Rising
Morbid Monstrosity


I understand your grievance and point of view, but all weapons are made for the same purpose, protection. It does not matter the "grade" of the weapon, because it is and will always be a weapon. On top of that, a knife is more friendly to the user than a gun since it never runs out of bullets, is silent when gliding through the air, and only needs a target.

You are interpreting a lot of what the Founding Fathers set for this country, which is some good, some bad in my opinion. I think you must realize that our voice as one as the People of the United States is more powerful than any number of firearms. We must be allowed to maintain our second amendment rights, but we do not need military grade weapons. All the change in our country's history is more dynamically seen through the voice of the people, not violence via firearms. I understand and respect your opinion since it is more intelligent than most; I only worry if you were more or less "taught" this view or thought of all the things concerning the issue and came to this yourself.

Violence is never the answer. Violence only begets more violence. I can tell you many points on why firearms shouldn't be needed, but we live in a cold and cruel world where you can trust no one, sometimes even yourself.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games