America's "gun problem"

You will always have the "right" to defend yourself. The capacity to do so is a whole different story. That is a part of the UN Charter. Its not a birth right, or a Constitutional right, but a Humanitarian "right".

In reality, it is more like a "privilege" than a "right". If you are a Criminal in any aspect in the US, you lose that "right" to defend yourself because the Government doesn't want to be liable for your actions, not that they would be anyways. A right by all legal definition is a act that can not be removed or taken. Which is how they get away with "taking that right from you". They actually don't "take it"....they "change it"...so its still there, just in a different form

In todays world, if you believe you can protect yourself, your family, and your assets, because of some gun(s), YOUR A BLOODY FOOL!!!

The US Government and its Interests--- answers to NOBODY. They Have the Gavel, they have the Nuclear Arms. What do you got??????

ArcticGranite said:

Been reading through some of the back and forth. I'll add .02. I believe people have a right to be free. I believe people have a right to defend themselves. They have a right to protect themselves and their family. This defense/protection is against any person/entity that threatens or attempts to harm or deprive them of their freedom, life, property. I'm stating people have these rights, birth rights if you will, and they are unalienable. If this premise is accepted, that we a have a birth right to life, freedom, and possessions, than who or what has the right to deprive another of their ability to defend and protect their self and family? For what reason?
We as society do deny people the ability to exercise these rights. Violent felons who've demonstrated they abuse the right and use it to do harm, they get incarcerated.
I'm asking this in regards to people who aren't criminals nor psychologically unfit.
I'm curious to hear a legitimate argument that espouses denying someone the ability to defend them self.

Click to expand...

I don't think that there is a legitimate argument against self-defense. Too often the subject of guns is perceived as an us vs. them debate. I have never said anything about taking away guns or putting limits on their use but by asking a question about their use I am perceived as one of 'them' and not to be trusted. What the fuck?

I bet some one who was on that bus when the India girl was getting gang raped, sure wished they had a hand gun..

desert dude said:

You mistake me if you think I was referring solely to our corrupt and inept politicians.

Click to expand...

I have been asking for actual living examples of the people that your guns protect you from but you only offer quotes and hints. Can you blame me for inaccuracies when you offer so little.

Sgt.John^^^ Even then, its not a safe bet that they are going to stop the tragedy and flee. In theory they could gang up and take that gun, just to use it to rape another poor soul .....Just Sayin'

Dobbs....Solid point! Guns don't protect SHIT! People protect things, and sometimes use a weapon for leverage in the act.

How many times have you heard of a story of something went to protect their home/property with a gun, lost control of it, and was subsequently killed with their own weapon???? Really protecting thing then eh??? How many officers have died in the line of duty under these circumstances???????????

CC Dobbs said:

I don't think that there is a legitimate argument against self-defense. Too often the subject of guns is perceived as an us vs. them debate. I have never said anything about taking away guns or putting limits on their use but by asking a question about their use I am perceived as one of 'them' and not to be trusted. What the fuck?

Click to expand...

We have the right to use force to defend ourselves, Yes? If you're asking against whom, well, whoever or whatever tries to "take" from us, life, freedom or property.

CC Dobbs said:

All of the above = paranoia.

There is a need for translation because I don't understand what it means. It doesn't say anything about guns. So please translate it for me. You are up to bat and can hit a home run with this one. Put me in my place once and for all and tell me how that quote means you can have guns.

Click to expand...

Here's a long winded translation of DD's quote from the Declaration of Independence.
First a simple wiki quote about being governed.
"Consent of the governed" is a phrase synonymous with a political theory where in a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when derived from the people or society over which that political power is exercised. This theory of "consent" is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government."
Back to DD's quote. If and when the government becomes oppressively tyrannical, Despotism, we have a birthright to get rid of it and start again.

sgt john said:

I bet some one who was on that bus when the India girl was getting gang raped, sure wished they had a hand gun..
View attachment 2462513

Click to expand...

I'm guessing most of the people on that bus were either raping or watching the girl being raped

CC Dobbs said:

I believe I stated clearly that I don't understand it and so therefor I'm unable to translate it. You chose to use it as proof of something and I'm asking for clarification. If you can't put it into common speech I understand. You're backing into a corner.

Click to expand...

Nah, I am just not willing to play your dumb game. I don't take essay assignments from second-amendment-hating progressives. You translate it and tell us how a simple vote would have worked with England.

The statement needs no clarification. If you don't understand it now, no amount internet tutoring is gonna help you.

PathofTime420 said:

Sgt.John^^^ Even then, its not safe bet that they are going to stop the tragedy and flee. In theory they could gang up and take that gun, just to use it to rape another poor soul .....Just Sayin'

Click to expand...

True, but after the first one drops in a pool of blood, i promise you, the rest of them will think twice before reacting..
Its amazing how the sound alone of a gun can change things..

Contrary to popular beliefe, The reservation to use force is put into the hands of the Government and whom they deem appropriate to use said force. Military, Law Enforcement, and Select Government Agencies.

Stand your ground law is FEDERALLY not legal. State wise it depends on the state.

More so than not, if your using violence, regardless of the circumstance, it will come to bite you in the end.....Zimmerman was a good example of that and sadly many others prior to him.

I don't agree with the way the laws are at all. I think the fact that you can't legally defend yourself on a FEDERAL level makes absolutely no sense. If we don't have a right to stand our own ground...I really don't believe we have much rights at all. After such things as the Patriot Act, etc. I am a huge skeptic of US Citizen "rights".

Can people choose careers, marriage partners, where to live, what to eat, to worship or not, clothes they wear, etc.? There are numerous "rights" not enumerated, specifically spelled out. Pursuit of happiness kind of lumped em all together. It is plainly evident where we begin and end and what encumbrances we allow government to saddle us with. Doesn't matter if the US Constitution or the UN spell it out or not.

sgt john said:

True, but after the first one drops in a pool of blood, i promise you, the rest of them will think twice before reacting..
Its amazing how the sound alone of a gun can change things..

Click to expand...

I agree it does change things, but not always for the better m8. You could have just killed some guys brother, and now, he wants to kill you, with or without the gun.

I spent 13 months stationed in Kandahar, Afghanistan with the US Army. I promise you, bullets flying does not stop someone from doing harm, it only feeds them adrenaline, especially in the heat of the moment. Adrenaline+ Chaos = Massacre in my exp.

ArcticGranite said:

We have the right to use force to defend ourselves, Yes? If you're asking against whom, well, whoever or whatever tries to "take" from us, life, freedom or property.

Click to expand...

That all seems reasonable. There are many real dangers in this world that can be quickly minimized by brandishing a gun. Having a gun and thinking you can overthrow the U.S. government with it is childish. Tyranny is rampant in our government but a couple rogue gangs of angry middle aged white guys isn't going to change anything. When I hear from someone that they have guns to defend themselves from out of control government I know that I have stumbled upon a fool. A fool with a gun makes me nervous. An angry fool with a gun is much worse.

ArcticGranite said:

Can people choose careers, marriage partners, where to live, what to eat, to worship or not, clothes they wear, etc.? There are numerous "rights" not enumerated, specifically spelled out. Pursuit of happiness kind of lumped em all together. It is plainly evident where we begin and end and what encumbrances we allow government to saddle us with. Doesn't matter if the US Constitution or the UN spell it out or not.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more!! I stated in prior post, the US Government and its foreign Interest answer to NOBODY. Especially the UN. Its very well documented that the US has violated the UN more than any other nation on earth. Yet we still have the most powerful seat in the UN. Odd how that works eh? Like I said, When you have the gavel, and you have nuclear arms....you do as you damn well please, regardless of who does or doesn't like it.

CC Dobbs said:

I realize that the questions that you are asking are meant to shut me up and put me in my place. Don't hide behind your uniform. I appreciate your numbering of you responses so that I don't get confused but it really isn't necessary. I am not questioning or challenging your right to have guns I am asking who are these guns protecting you from.

Did you offer Vietnam, Iraq and the revolutionary war as examples of an armed citizenry overcoming a better armed and financed invading force? Did the U.S. military lose two of those battles or did we just give up and walk away? The revolutionary war was fought with crude weaponry by modern standards, the same basic weapons that regular citizens have available today. Would these weapons be very effective against the far more advanced firepower available to any sovereign state? Or would you be slaughtered?

Click to expand...

CC, there are two wars to consider here, if ever an armed conflict arose between the standing military and popular insurgents. The first is the physical war. The insurgents would take an awful pasting at first, but the survivors would be the sort of smart tough bastard that handed us our helmets in the wars DD mentioned.

The other war though is the moral war. Ironically, by killing citizens, each gain on the physical side for the army would be a moral loss. We lost the moral war in 'Nam and Iraq (the second time around), which is why we walked away.

But our and our old rivals' (the USSR) experience in Afghanistan should show that even the most modern of weapons can meet their master in a determined guerilla insurgent at home on bad terrain. cn

desert dude said:

Nah, I am just not willing to play your dumb game. I don't take essay assignments from second-amendment-hating progressives. You translate it and tell us how a simple vote would have worked with England.

The statement needs no clarification. If you don't understand it now, no amount internet tutoring is gonna help you.

Click to expand...

You are now officially backed into the corner. You don't really understand it and therefor you cannot explain it. You are unable to admit that you used a quote as proof of your beliefs without understanding what the quote means. You throw around citations as if you are a fucking Constitutional scholar when you probably get you knowledge from other equally uneducated people. You can go now, I'm done with you.

CC Dobbs said:

That all seems reasonable. There are many real dangers in this world that can be quickly minimized by brandishing a gun. Having a gun and thinking you can overthrow the U.S. government with it is childish. Tyranny is rampant in our government but a couple rogue gangs of angry middle aged white guys isn't going to change anything. When I hear from someone that they have guns to defend themselves from out of control government I know that I have stumbled upon a fool. A fool with a gun makes me nervous. An angry fool with a gun is much worse.

Click to expand...

The Loudest Message of Truth is that THE PEOPLE DO want to RID of this Regime, but the fact remains that we just don't have the capacities to do so, and the US Government is well aware of that. Especially with the Governmental changes that have happened lately around the worl. People are waking up and realizing the true enemies are our own "leaders".

CC Dobbs said:

Being right doesn't mean shit when the other person has a bigger gun. Who is this enemy that the authors of the Constitution identified?

Click to expand...

A government that is contemplating the labor-saving step of going from asking us to telling us what's what. cn

cannabineer said:

CC, there are two wars to consider here, if ever an armed conflict arose between the standing military and popular insurgents. The first is the physical war. The insurgents would take an awful pasting at first, but the survivors would be the sort of smart tough bastard that handed us our helmets in the wars DD mentioned.

The other war though is the moral war. Ironically, by killing citizens, each gain on the physical side for the army would be a moral loss. We lost the moral war in 'Nam and Iraq (the second time around), which is why we walked away.

But our and our old rivals' (the USSR) experience in Afghanistan should show that even the most modern of weapons can meet their master in a determined guerilla insurgent at home on bad terrain. cn

Click to expand...

Good Perspective m8! If every the people arouse to overthrow the Government and they turned the military on its own people, it would be a sad day for American Citizens. No different than what the poor souls of Syria are currently going through. The Free Syrian Army ( collected everyday citizens turned commando) are being slaughtered.

Remember, the Military does not listen and get its orders from the people. Regardless of how much they are "here for us" , they answer to a Chief Commander, and they all have one job...." To defend the Constitution against ALL ENEMIES...Foreign and DOMESTIC......

**Afghani's will sell the story that they beat the Russians, but numbers don't lie. The USSR completely crumbled all of Afghanistan. From Infanstructure to the Economy. The USSR didn't expect that strong of a resistance, but they won the numbers game by a large margin!

I spent over a year Stationed in Kandahar, Afghanistan with the US Army 10th Mtn. Division. They afghani's are still telling folklore that they stomped us. They still sell the stories that they ruined USSR.