• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Query for the not-so-keen on guns...

That a gun is a deadly weapon is entirely the point of it being useful in certain circumstances. Just like having a highly pressurized metal container can be useful in certain circumstances. Just like having a tank of flammable/explosive liquid is useful in outrunning a thunderstorm.
 
What was the contextual difference? You make the unsupported claim that it is very unlikely a gun will be of any use. Well, unsupported except for your further assertion that you can negate the usefulness in a mostly unspecified scenario. An unlikely chance is still a greater chance than zero.
 


goodbye and good luck, you are gonna need it

peace
 
noonereal said:
goodbye and good luck, you are gonna need it

peace
Click to expand...
Yeah it's pretty tough to support a contextual difference reference an analogy that you brought into play yourself. Perhaps you aren't as good at "getting the drop" on folks as you imply?

Have a good day.
 
RF667799 said:
That a gun is a deadly weapon is entirely the point of it being useful in certain circumstances.
Click to expand...

I don't live in a society where I need a deadly weapon with me at all times. I have, Vietnam, but not anymore. I'm sorry you think you do.
 
dave8383 said:
I don't live in a society where I need a deadly weapon with me at all times. I have, Vietnam, but not anymore. I'm sorry you think you do.
Click to expand...
need isn't the issue. I thought you lefties were all about choice? I guess not. I am listening to Senator Cruz in the Barrett confirmation hearings. He is setting forth how much liberals hate our actual constitutional rights. Speech, guns, free exercise of religion.
 
TurtleDude said:
I am listening to Senator Cruz in the Barrett confirmation hearings.
Click to expand...

Me too, I'm laughing. I see he's gaining a bit of weight, understatement.

BTW:
need isn't the issue.
Click to expand...

It isn't? Do you carry a hammer to every social gathering in case a nail pops up? A firearm is a tool.
 
dave8383 said:
I don't live in a society where I need a deadly weapon with me at all times. I have, Vietnam, but not anymore. I'm sorry you think you do.
Click to expand...
I don't believe I need one at all times. I hope neither of us ever need one for the purpose in question. It's just that if there ever is a time I do need one, I will need it right then.
 
dave8383 said:
Me too, I'm laughing. I see he's gaining a bit of weight, understatement.

BTW:

It isn't? Do you carry a hammer to every social gathering in case a nail pops up? A firearm is a tool.
Click to expand...

I rank the chance of suddenly, and without warning having to frame a wall or build a set of stairs to protect myself as significantly lower than having to resort to a firearm to suddenly, and without warning having to defend myself.

I am glad you live in a place where you do not need to carry for personal protection....sadly, the reality in our nation is that not everyone is quite so fortunate. ✌
 
Holey Hannah, the quality of discourse here has really gone downhill since I left.
 
Goshin said:
It isn't rare, and I wasn't really trying to explain it.
Click to expand...

Of course it's rare. Around 6%.

I don't need to justify myself to you, thanks.
Click to expand...

You can't justify yourself. That's obvious. Anybody that's justifiably carrying a firearm wouldn't be in here talking about it. They'd just carry it.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Holey Hannah, the quality of discourse here has really gone downhill since I left.
Click to expand...

Eh.....I havent been here long, but it seems like its a bit of a mixed bag; I have no idea what it was like when you arrived, but this forum still ranks far above others I have been to....many are little more than a place for partisan pit fights.
 
Ah hell man I carry a hammer, 2lbs. of 20 ga. nails and a battery operated skill saw plus a few 2x8s and a 3D printer for everything else. Tried the old Swiss Army knife routine but it didn't cut it.
 
Reactions: Bum
zsu2357 said:
Ah hell man I carry a hammer, 2lbs. of 20 ga. nails and a battery operated skill saw plus a few 2x8s and a 3D printer for everything else. Tried the old Swiss Army knife routine but it didn't cut it.
Click to expand...

I dragged the 2x4's across the floor and scuffed the wood.....I never heard the end of it from Lady Bum.
 
dave8383 said:
According to TD "need isn't the issue." It's a matter of choice.
Click to expand...

Its always a matter of choice...choosing to carry or not is entirely up to the individual based upon situational requirements; some locations are safer than others.
 
Bum said:
Its always a matter of choice...choosing to carry or not is entirely up to the individual based upon situational requirements; some locations are safer than others.
Click to expand...
the leftwing mindset is that they know what is better for you than you know yourself. So if they don't think you need a gun, they also believe they should prevent you from having one or carrying one. People like that are exactly why you do need to be armed
 
Goshin said:
It isn't rare, and I wasn't really trying to explain it. I don't need to justify myself to you, thanks. Buh-bye.
Click to expand...

No, it isnt rare at all....if we consider the US population is ( by last count) 327 million, and the number of valid carry permits at 17-18 million...that comes out to quite a large number; keep in mind, this does not include the 15 states with constitutional carry that require no permits.

Even if we cut that number in half, thats a number we cannot really refer to as "rare".....small perhaps by population standards, but hardly rare.
 
dave8383 said:
Funny pages material from Mr. Turtle.
Click to expand...

Haven't you told posters what they need? I think you suggested a single action revolver was all people need for home defense? Your posts suggest that your real hostility is to those of us who attack the democrat party for its anti gun views.
 

I would like to point out an obvious reality....there are many in the criminal element that are dedicated to taking from the law abiding citizens , life, liberty, and property.

Now, I know the first response for many anti 2 Amendment advocates is "call the police"....but if we logically review this statement, we must conclude that the victims of violent crime did not have the time to call 911 ( as most violent crimes occur without warning), or if they did call 911, the police did not arrive in a timely fashion to prevent violent crimes..............it stands to reason that if the victims did call 911, and if 911 did respond in a timely fashion, we would never read about violent crime in the media.

But, this is simply not the case....turning on the news or media on any given day will disprove the myth that 911 is the answer to personal safety.

The bottom line is this.....we are all responsible for our own personal safety; to rely upon the government in these cases is wishful thinking.....the Cavalry does not always arrive in the nick of time.
 
Goshin said:
It isn't rare, and I wasn't really trying to explain it. I don't need to justify myself to you, thanks. Buh-bye.
Click to expand...

Goshin:

I quoted you from this post rather than your OP because it is shorter, leaving me more room to blather on!

Fear, a climate of fear, a mind-set of fear, these are the issues you want discussed. But from which perspective? The POV of a person who opposes unfettered gun ownership and possession or the POV of a person who goes about armed in public with firearms out of choice because of the possibility of danger? Since I don't know exactly which you point of view you mean, I will deal with both. But before I do, some disclosure. I am not an anti-gun advocate nor an unfettered gun rights advocate, so I have a leg in each camp but also stand outside of each camp. I have owned longarms in the past but no longer do.

First the perspective of the anti-unfettered gun rights point of view. Those who own or possess guns can be very responsible or very irresponsible with most falling in the middle. Unfortunately it is often hard to figure out who is responsible and who is not, after just casual interaction. Therefore non-gun-owners reasonably fear the worst of anyone possessing a gun in a public space unless they know them well and know them to be responsible. Thus the carrying of either concealed or openly carried weapons in public spaces alarms folk, creating a climate of fear. That fear degrades the quality of life in the public spaces which creates antagonism between those who do not wish to carry guns in public spaces and those who do. This is not usually a problem if the person carrying the gun is in a publicly recognised and accepted uniform like an officer of the law or a member of the armed forces, unless a community has a history of distrust in such institutions. However private citizens wear no such uniforms and thus induce fear in the public if they are discovered to be armed. So a gun-owner's choice and right to be prepared for a worst case scenario is also the worst case scenario for an unarmed person, because they cannot suss out whether the gun-owners are responsible and competent or dangerous and inept. Your preparation is their fear.

The other perspective. The gun-owner who wants to be prepared for a worst case scenario and takes reasonable steps to do so will cause some alarm to those around the gun-owner but with prudence they can minimise that alarm. However there are gun-owners who parade about in public spaces with very intimidating military-style longarms, with large magezines and many clips of additional ammunition, overpowered sidearms, body armour and frankly silly but also alarming paramilitary uniforms. The behaviour of these yahoos does little to calm the fears that the unarmed public has for gun-owners including the responsible ones. So what may seem to you to be a reasonable precaution becomes an extraordinary provocation if the precautions are taken too far by a less responsible gun-owner. Thus your preparation, if taken too far, can alarm and distress others. Because you are preparing for the worst case scenario, others see you as living in fear and react to your preparations with their own fear. This creates a feedback loop which intensifies the fear to new heights on all sides of the gun rights vs. gun restrictions divide until the fear on all sides takes on an irrational life of its own.

My position is that the Second Amendment was originally written as a collective right to assure that the Federal Government could not infringe upon citizens' gun ownership rights as a back door to disarming state militias. Being a member of a well regulated state militia requires that gun owners not only have rights but responsibilities. The same men who crafted the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights also wrote legislation (Militia Acts) putting onerous responsibilities and obligations on citizens as perspective members of the state militias to present themselves, their firearms, their ammunition and their bladed weapons periodically and regularly for inspection and registration (counting, description and evaluation of serviceability). Thus the Second Amendment implies not only rights but also responsibilities for gun ownership. The 2008 SCOTUS decision protected the rights but severed many of the legitimate responsibilities of gun ownership in America and was a landmark and disasterous decision by that august body of jurists.

There is a need for responsible gun ownership and stricter controls on gun possession in America. Only then will the fear on both sides abate, hopefully to be replaced by respect and trust in members of a well regulated state militias and responsible certified gun owners.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy said:
Goshin:

Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

I cut out your post so I could meet the limit but I wanted to notify you I was responding to your post to Goshin

Does your collective rights view created by the actual facts surrounding the creation of the bill of rights and the concept of natural law, or is it a position you take based on what you think you can get away with in order to support your views that existed prior to your examination of the second? The point is-if you start from the beginning-of what the founders believed and what they intended, you cannot honestly claim a collective right
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…