Now I have you going in circles. So you are now implying that your gun is there for fighting crime, or tyranny? Could you make up your mind because you just backed way off of that and said i was wrong for going down that road. Perhaps it is not me who has a problem, but rather you who keeps romneying back and forth between contradictory points? As you have said, and I quote: "I also never claimed I have guns for other than shooting at the range and self defence," target shooting is entertainment, and self defense is a security blanket just as I have claimed. Those are your words agreeing with me dude.
What part of "
self defence" do I need to explain? And yes entertainment is absolutely part of it, no law against that now is there?
You are wrong, no one said anything about wanting a gun to fight tyranny except you. An armed populace is a safeguard against Tyranny, but you can't deal with that so you make up what amounts to an elaborate and incoherent lie. Specifically a strawman.
Now please point out what points I have been "
romneying" back and forth on?
In fact you still have not shown where I said...
No, gun owners have made the claim their presence prevents tyranny and now you are claiming it fights crime. -
Tererun
Ok, so you are now saying you simply own a gun for entertainment purposes and it is not to fight tyranny or to stop crime. -
Tererun
but they certainly are not a deterrent for gang violence like you have claimed because they do not actually confront it. -
Tererun
So you are saying self defense is not fighting crime? Your words are not matching your statements again.
My words are matching my statements exactly. You on the other hand don't seem to have a real good grasp on much of anything in this conversation.
Self defence is not fighting crime. Self defence is protecting yourself
from crime. Fighting crime is proactive, defence is reactive. The fact that I have to even explain the difference says allot.
you are the one who brought up the reality that being a vigilante and resisting authority with violence are crimes.
That would be another falsehood....
Police go out and fight crime. You may argue they do not do it much or as well as you like, but they do it which is something the gun community really does not do. If crime trips over them and effects them directly with no escape or when they overpower it they may do something, but they certainly are not a deterrent for gang violence like you have claimed because they do not actually confront it. If you are going to make the claim you will need to live up to it somewhere outside of your imagination. -
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-c...nny-why-you-should-fear-4.html#post1061963360
So who brought the subject up of gun owners going out and then "
live up to it somewhere outside of your imagination." I wonder what that would be called? Hmmmm?
Now in this thread people are arguing that using a gun to resist the government is the purpose of the second amendment. however, using a gun to resist the government is also a crime. You can own the gun, but you cannot legally use it on police officers to fight against the power. I see you have a problem with making contradictory arguments. Do you really not see that saying guns are for resisting tyranny as defined by our highest legal document and that resisting the government with guns is illegal according to our criminal system are two directly contradictory statements?
Again you are completely missing the point and making a lousy strawman argument that is incoherent at best. Do you understand the difference between vigilantism and armed rebellion? Do you understand the difference between action and deterrent? An armed populace is the best guarantee against tyranny. The founders who had just fought an illegal war against the British crown knew this. So they absolutely wanted an armed populace for defence and a deterrent to tyranny, and if needed take up arms against it. Now please point out how our government has become so bad we need armed rebellion because you seem to be suggesting that we must do this now? But because it is illegal, we should be disarmed?
Vigilantism is a local and state crime, not Federal. Completely different in it's scope and implementation. Yet you seem to think somehow they go hand in hand??? What nonsense.
Directly contradicting yourself doesn't make much sense. Oh, and i am pretty sure the gun posse cannot think any less of me. I will let you know when i start caring about their opinions. Please feel free to hold your breath if you think that will help your argument.
Another lie. I have not made a contradictory statement. You have however confused your own senseless strawman with something I have said as shown above.
translation: you do not like being backed into a corner you cannot get out of.
Translation: Your argument is a circular room, there is no corner to be backed into.
Thank you for agreeing with my argument and supporting it with your own words.
Only someone with the IQ of say a potato, would think somehow my argument even remotely by accident resembles your lunacy. You have not even addressed my post? You just keep avoiding it and ranting about things I never said.
Keep on helping me. I am cool with that. Oh, and thanks again for completely agreeing with what i have said. If you would like to continue showing that guns are not for opposing tyranny and crime fighting and are just there for entertainment and a security blanket have at it.
Until you address this...
Mainly the war on drugs allowed gangs an easy way to make money. Crack is highly addictive and when people get hooked, they are hooked. Add in a lack of fathers and to many mother only families on welfare and it is a recipe for disaster. Now add our economy which is slowly recovering but not anywhere close to what it was and you have gun crime in the inner cities shooting up the gun statistics.
No one seems to want to talk about minority on minority crime in the inner city but 70%+ of our gun crime comes from that alone. Everytime I mention it, it get's ignored. If you took away suicides and inner city crime from our overall statistics (adding suicide is just dishonest as it is not a crime) our gun crime rate even with mass shootings is about the same as any industrialized nation with or without strict gun laws.
The problem is nobody wants to hear that. They would rather rage about assault rifles and mass shootings (which are rare). Then pass laws that have no effect on either and pat themselves on the back. Then it happens again and they want even more laws that do nothing but disarm or make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns.
That is how it got this way. We don't want to address the causes of said crime. We would rather pass more laws to make ourselves feel good. Until as I said, it happens again.
Or the lie's you said I am responsible for above, you are just peeing in the wind. :2wave: