[quote]pushharder wrote:
As private gun ownership and carry skyrockets gun crime against LEO’s continues to fall.
Gun Problem? 2013 Had Fewest Police Deaths by Firearms since 1887
[/quote]
Why do you believe the two are related? It wasn’t suggested in the link.
They referred to an increased culture of safety, which I believe is the result of better weapons, tactics, and equipment.
I’m also not one of those who thinks in terms of duty. I don’t get patriotic mumbo jumbo, Don’t believe voting is your civic duty, etc.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Found this in the comments section on an article about carrying a weapon daily:
"Why do I carry a Gun? Thank you for asking!
Yep.[/quote]
This is good stuff although I don’t view number 3 as true. I think the right to bear arms means being allowed not to bear them just as much as to bear them. I have firearms, but my best friend does not. I don’t think it his duty to become armed. I just view it as he has the right to become armed if he feels so inclined.
Not all men feel the need to keep and bear arms to defend themselves. This guy does. I have no qualms with anyone who chooses not to. I would just prefer they don’t have qualms with me for choosing to. [/quote]
One more thing along the same line (not necessarily trying to be argumentative) and to use your words – if number 3 is not true and number 2 is then you’re saying others need not accept the honor and duty of their basic human right to self defense and arms ownership. In other words honor and duty should not be expected from all. Why is that? Is it acceptable that your friend is not honorable in this regard? Not dutiful? Why does he get a pass?[/quote]
I didn’t look at it that close. To me it comes down to freedom. If someone feels better or simply does not wish to carry I don’t think we should look down n them. Liberty is people being able to do what they choose. My friend isn’t against guns, it’s just never been his thing. I don’t think he is lacking in honor by making this decision. I don’t have a conceal and carry license, and I don’t feel less honorable without my arms than with it.
I guess I don’t view it as a duty. That smacks of control to me. You must do x makes me queasy in regards to liberty. You have the right to do x, and you have the right to not do it.
Silly semantic debate perhaps, I dunno. I am getting my conceal carry license soon though, just have put it off.
[/quote]
It could be argued a man doesn’t have true freedom until he is capable of defending himself. In fact he is under more “control” when he depends exclusively on others for his security.
FWIW, I don’t have a CCW. It smacks of too much “control.” Seriously.
However, there are enough good reasons to have one that do cause me to reconsider my position.
[/quote]
Main reason for me not having one is I live in a low crime area and my job frequently takes me to places where I can’t carry anyways.
Maybe my friend isn’t free then, I dunno. I don’t view him as having some obligation to carry though. We should be free to do what we want. Either carry or don’t.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The point is that the Chicken Little’s of this world predicted, and continue to predict, that mayhem will abound in a society that is rife with guns.
Yet CCW permits have been been on a rapid rise for two decades. Private gun ownership has exploded. USSC court decisions have unequivocally sided with the individual right to possess and carry. These things are happening and gun violence is dropping drastically.
Now if you want to try and make the point that this is a result of police having better weapons, tactics and equipment, have at it. I will then point out that the weapons, tactics and equipment angle only kicks in after a crime is committed. I will agree though that it certainly has a significant influence.
Bottom line is the anti-gun crowd’s argument that “we have to take away, restrict, inhibit, etc. your guns to make you and our fine police officers safer” has been eviscerated.[/quote]
Question: What is the chance that the government has been siding with freedom for freedom’s sake?
Is it not somewhat likely that the government has just realized that it’s most likely to incite violence against itself by an outright ban on, or confiscation of, firearms? Maybe the government’s just gotten smarter and realized it’s best to take incremental steps toward firearm prohibition.
I would guess(that’s all it would be-a guess) that between increases in the number of laws, the severity of punishment for the violation of laws, and increases in the price of firearms due to the government competing against private citizens with their own money, that the likelihood that a man or household possesses or is capable of defending himself with a firearm has decreased.
Add to all that the facts that D.A.R.E. programs and what not are everywhere today, and children have been indoctrinated to believe that they should never fight back against government abuses and I bet the government has plenty of ways to use the same statistics you posted for its own purposes.
(not disagreeing with your point, just pointing out another-and more likely to be used against us-point of view)
Harvey Weinstein announces movie against the NRA.
“The NRA is going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done.”
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Harvey Weinstein announces movie against the NRA.
“The NRA is going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done.”
Such an ultimate troll. Make a bunch of shoot em up movies and then go anti-gun. Ohhhkayyyyy.
Have to agree with you Bauber. Dude made a shit ton of money with violent gun scenes and now wants to bite the hand that fed him.
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Harvey Weinstein announces movie against the NRA.
“The NRA is going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done.”
Such an ultimate troll. Make a bunch of shoot em up movies and then go anti-gun. Ohhhkayyyyy.[/quote]
Yeah I was just going to say that, he has an impressive list of movies under him including Rambo from 2008, even I was amazed by the kill count in that movie.
Being that its not a documentary I’m sure it will just be a movie with the villain as an NRA like organization that he can make up anything since it doesn’t have to be real.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Harvey Weinstein announces movie against the NRA.
“The NRA is going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done.”
Thanks, that busted me up! These guys (Hollywood) give themselves to much credit. Make a movie and if it’s good, I’ll go see it. I could give a shit what they think about gun control. They are for my entertainment, just like a whore, entertain and leave, no one cares what you think about gun control.
Mother of god…
I can’t even comprehend the idiocy present here.
[quote]Bauber wrote:
Mother of god…
I can’t even comprehend the idiocy present here.[/quote]
By this morons reasoning, that gun fires a theoretical 3600 rounds/minute.
I am unaware of any non-belt fed auto that can fire at a 3600 round per minute rate.
[quote]Bauber wrote:
Mother of god…
I can’t even comprehend the idiocy present here.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter how uneducated you are when you are the smartest guy in the room.
Ow, Hay Mr. Senator, do you need to have a permit to be in possession of that firearm?
It wouldn’t be the first time a legislator got up on stage with a banned gun.
[quote]doublelung84 wrote:
Ow, Hay Mr. Senator, do you need to have a permit to be in possession of that firearm?
It wouldn’t be the first time a legislator got up on stage with a banned gun.[/quote]
No, because laws don’t apply to him. That is how this works brah!
That Senator is how we (California) got to where we are, by electing dimwitted mother fuckers who just spew random bullshit with no fact checking whatsoever.