• 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!

One More Reason for Gun Ownership

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Had an incident occur at my apartment tonight (long story and I called the law to deal with it). Nothing special, just someone who jiggled my door handle before knocking when they realized someone was home.

I got to thinking about this. This is exactly why the second amendment is so important to those who would otherwise find themselves disarmed. Of course Joe Biden only needs a side by side he fires recklessly In the air. He has bodyguards. So does Hillary. But you? Me? We have ourselves. And the tyrant most likely to subject is to Tyranny? Our fellow citizen. People who can be described as nothing more than parasites. Scavengers.

People who will victimize those of us who are poor. Those of us who they can easily victimize. Those of us with little recourse. They don't go after billionaires. They don't go after millionaires. They go after those of us who have to work for a living and scrape buy. They go after people who would be in their shoes, but instead have work ethic and integrity.

So the next time someone tries to sell you the gun control myth, remind them that it is the only true line in the sand for them if someone decides they are a victim as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Had an incident occur at my apartment tonight (long story and I called the law to deal with it). Nothing special, just someone who jiggled my door handle before knocking when they realized someone was home.

I got to thinking about this. This is exactly why the second amendment is so important to those who would otherwise find themselves disarmed. Of course Joe Biden only needs a side by side he fires recklessly In the air. He has bodyguards. So does Hillary. But you? Me? We have ourselves. And the tyrant most likely to subject is to Tyranny? Our fellow citizen. People who can be described as nothing more than parasites. Scavengers.

People who will victimize those of us who are poor. Those of us who they can easily victimize. Those of us with little recourse. They don't go after billionaires. They don't go after millionaires. They go after those of us who have to work for a living and scrape buy. They go after people who would be in their shoes, but instead have work ethic and integrity.

So the next time someone tries to sell you the gun control myth, remind them that it is the only true line in the sand for them if someone decides they are a victim as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

one of the better posts I have seen on this issue in a long time
 
Had an incident occur at my apartment tonight (long story and I called the law to deal with it). Nothing special, just someone who jiggled my door handle before knocking when they realized someone was home.

I got to thinking about this. This is exactly why the second amendment is so important to those who would otherwise find themselves disarmed. Of course Joe Biden only needs a side by side he fires recklessly In the air. He has bodyguards. So does Hillary. But you? Me? We have ourselves. And the tyrant most likely to subject is to Tyranny? Our fellow citizen. People who can be described as nothing more than parasites. Scavengers.

People who will victimize those of us who are poor. Those of us who they can easily victimize. Those of us with little recourse. They don't go after billionaires. They don't go after millionaires. They go after those of us who have to work for a living and scrape buy. They go after people who would be in their shoes, but instead have work ethic and integrity.

So the next time someone tries to sell you the gun control myth, remind them that it is the only true line in the sand for them if someone decides they are a victim as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem is that the "current gun control myth" is called "common sense" gun control, and it claims to allow the "honest citizen" some "reasonable" form of firearm for home defense.

Simply agree to in-depth background checks, registration to monitor ownership, licensing requirements, limitations on the type and caliber of weapons, etc., etc., etc.

But the essential right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual self-defense; not just of home, family, and/or life and limb, but also of your freedom.

So while I agree that your story exemplifies one of the important reasons to keep and bear arms, it is an argument gun control advocates are all too familiar with and always have some ready answer for. Typically, "common sense" gun control.

IMO the argument should always be that it is an INDIVIDUAL right protected, not granted by the Constitution and the types of arms an individual citizen could be expected to carry as a basic infantryman if called up to serve in a militia should be the standard guaranteed safe from infringement. The kind of arms that could also be used for hunting, sport, and home protection easily usable in combat if necessary.

That is where the "well-regulated militia" descriptor applies. :yes:
 
Last edited:
Seeing the actions of Democrats has me scared we will most likely see the real reason for the 2nd amendment.
 
Seeing the actions of Democrats has me scared we will most likely see the real reason for the 2nd amendment.

There is a real reason why the fans of more and more government are invariably allied with the fans of banning and restricting firearms
 
Had an incident occur at my apartment tonight (long story and I called the law to deal with it). Nothing special, just someone who jiggled my door handle before knocking when they realized someone was home.
OK, and...?


I got to thinking about this. This is exactly why the second amendment is so important to those who would otherwise find themselves disarmed.
Actually, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that militias could quickly get armed; it had nothing to do with self-defense. That's evident in the text of the 2nd Amendment, which explicitly mentions militias and says absolutely nothing about any right to self-defense.


Of course Joe Biden only needs a side by side he fires recklessly In the air. He has bodyguards. So does Hillary. But you?
I have a solid door, a good lock, a police station nearby, and a phone.

I've lived in some very nasty neighborhoods, and never needed anything more than that.

Oh, and unlike Biden or Clinton, I'm not a potential target for idiots who fall for insane conspiracy theories:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-ping-pong-restaurant/?utm_term=.58de7004651b


Me? We have ourselves. And the tyrant most likely to subject is to Tyranny? Our fellow citizen. People who can be described as nothing more than parasites. Scavengers.
:roll:

The reality is that home invasions are quite rare in the US, and most people will never have a break-in, let alone at a time when they are home.

Crime has been on the decline for decades. It started dropping in 1991, and has dropped in half since then:

reported-burglary-rate-in-the-us-since-1990.jpg


Most home invasions are actually due to domestic violence, not random theft.
2/3 of the time, the victim knows the burglar.
2/3 of the time, the burglar is not armed.
88% of the time, the burglar does not have a firearm.
A nice chunk of those random burglaries are repeat victimizations.

I.e. the dangers of a random monster breaking into your home to harm you and then take your stuff? Not very likely.


People who will victimize those of us who are poor. Those of us who they can easily victimize. Those of us with little recourse. They don't go after billionaires. They don't go after millionaires. They go after those of us who have to work for a living and scrape buy. They go after people who would be in their shoes, but instead have work ethic and integrity.
Yes, I'm sure that the crackhead who jiggles handles looking for an open door thinks to himself, "I'm going to target those hard-working people down the block!" :doh

Get real. Most burglars are looking for targets of opportunity, and don't care about their victims.

And while there is no question that poor people are proportionately more affected by many types of crime, there's no question that higher income individuals are also victims. Aside from actually having more wealth, they are also targets of "soft" crimes like identity theft. And yes, even the wealthiest people can also be the victims of very violent crimes:
The Inside Story of the Kim Kardashian Paris Hotel Heist | Vanity Fair


So the next time someone tries to sell you the gun control myth, remind them that it is the only true line in the sand for them if someone decides they are a victim as well.
Or: The next time someone tries to sell us on the "self defense" myth, we should ignore vague and unprovable anecdotes, and have a realistic discussion about the pros and cons and facts of gun ownership, of crime rates, and effective means of self-defense.
 
OK, and...?



Actually, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that militias could quickly get armed; it had nothing to do with self-defense. That's evident in the text of the 2nd Amendment, which explicitly mentions militias and says absolutely nothing about any right to self-defense.



I have a solid door, a good lock, a police station nearby, and a phone.

I've lived in some very nasty neighborhoods, and never needed anything more than that.

Oh, and unlike Biden or Clinton, I'm not a potential target for idiots who fall for insane conspiracy theories:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-ping-pong-restaurant/?utm_term=.58de7004651b



:roll:

The reality is that home invasions are quite rare in the US, and most people will never have a break-in, let alone at a time when they are home.

Crime has been on the decline for decades. It started dropping in 1991, and has dropped in half since then:

reported-burglary-rate-in-the-us-since-1990.jpg


Most home invasions are actually due to domestic violence, not random theft.
2/3 of the time, the victim knows the burglar.
2/3 of the time, the burglar is not armed.
88% of the time, the burglar does not have a firearm.
A nice chunk of those random burglaries are repeat victimizations.

I.e. the dangers of a random monster breaking into your home to harm you and then take your stuff? Not very likely.



Yes, I'm sure that the crackhead who jiggles handles looking for an open door thinks to himself, "I'm going to target those hard-working people down the block!" :doh

Get real. Most burglars are looking for targets of opportunity, and don't care about their victims.

And while there is no question that poor people are proportionately more affected by many types of crime, there's no question that higher income individuals are also victims. Aside from actually having more wealth, they are also targets of "soft" crimes like identity theft. And yes, even the wealthiest people can also be the victims of very violent crimes:
The Inside Story of the Kim Kardashian Paris Hotel Heist | Vanity Fair



Or: The next time someone tries to sell us on the "self defense" myth, we should ignore vague and unprovable anecdotes, and have a realistic discussion about the pros and cons and facts of gun ownership, of crime rates, and effective means of self-defense.

tl but you are wrong as usual Visbek. the natural right the founders sought to guarantee in the second amendment was the right to self defense. I understand you won't respond to this but for those reading the nonsense you post, need to know that you are wrong. your silly diversions about what "most" criminals do is irrelevant.

BTW crime is on the decline. that sort of cuts against those who keep calling for more restrictions on honest men and women being armed
 
Had an incident occur at my apartment tonight (long story and I called the law to deal with it). Nothing special, just someone who jiggled my door handle before knocking when they realized someone was home.

I got to thinking about this. This is exactly why the second amendment is so important to those who would otherwise find themselves disarmed. Of course Joe Biden only needs a side by side he fires recklessly In the air. He has bodyguards. So does Hillary. But you? Me? We have ourselves. And the tyrant most likely to subject is to Tyranny? Our fellow citizen. People who can be described as nothing more than parasites. Scavengers.

People who will victimize those of us who are poor. Those of us who they can easily victimize. Those of us with little recourse. They don't go after billionaires. They don't go after millionaires. They go after those of us who have to work for a living and scrape buy. They go after people who would be in their shoes, but instead have work ethic and integrity.

So the next time someone tries to sell you the gun control myth, remind them that it is the only true line in the sand for them if someone decides they are a victim as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I keep a pistol and two rifles and have never had to refer to them: 25 years in the same home. It could have been a lost drunk at your door too, but you'll never know.

The point I'm making is guns are not a first step for anything. You've had some sort of experience and you're emotionalizing it. As twelve year old with a paper rout, out "monthly collecting" one night, the lady on the other side of the door said she had a gun and was going to use it. I leaped her 6' wooden gate in one bound. Went home, calmed down, called her, and went back to get my money. She said her husband was out of town and she was alone; what if she'd fired the gun? What if you'd fired?

The second amendment, as has been said, has zero to do with your story or mine, so kissing your copy of it means nothing.
 
I keep a pistol and two rifles and have never had to refer to them: 25 years in the same home. It could have been a lost drunk at your door too, but you'll never know.

The point I'm making is guns are not a first step for anything. You've had some sort of experience and you're emotionalizing it. As twelve year old with a paper rout, out "monthly collecting" one night, the lady on the other side of the door said she had a gun and was going to use it. I leaped her 6' wooden gate in one bound. Went home, calmed down, called her, and went back to get my money. She said her husband was out of town and she was alone; what if she'd fired the gun? What if you'd fired?

The second amendment, as has been said, has zero to do with your story or mine, so kissing your copy of it means nothing.

your idiotic attempt to make absolutist claims is just that idiotic. in some cases a gun is the worst solution to a problem, in some cases its the only solution to a problem.

you have demonstrated that you have no clue about the second amendment so you telling anyone else what is relevant to the second amendment is a gut buster.

You constantly use isolated incidents and pretend they apply to everything- like some woman fighting off three less than determined robbers and then you claim NO ONE needs a gun for self defense.
 
So the next time someone tries to sell you the gun control myth, remind them that it is the only true line in the sand for them if someone decides they are a victim as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...randmother-police-say/?utm_term=.015461f019de

A 3-year-old on a preholiday shopping trip with his grandmother was fatally shot by a man who police believe grew impatient when the woman took too long at a stop sign.

The boy is the second toddler to be killed in Little Rock in less than a month, Police Chief Kenton Buckner told reporters at a Saturday evening news conference.

Gun control is not a myth dude.
 
I will say that this is what the battle for the 2nd Amendment has become, but this is NOT what the 2nd Amendment is about.

The right to self defense, the right to hunt...those rights were so ingrained as to be considered unquestionable by the founding fathers. When you think about it is LAUGHABLE to assume those men...those that willingly stood up to tyranny...would subjugate the defense of self and family to the government. Its juts a non-starter. No...the 2nd Amendment is today what it was meant to be then...the right of CITIZENS in this country to keep and bear arms to serve as a last line of defense FOR this country and to that end, CITIZENS have the right to keep and bear any armaments that ANY infantryman might be reasonably expected to carry into battle. Allowing the anti-gun leftists to turn this into a struggle for self defense has allowed them to make the arguments that...really...do you NEED more than a single shot weapon to defend yourself? Surely its reasonable to ban ARs. Right? I mean...thats just 'common sense' gun control that EVERYONE can agree with...right?
 
The problem is that the "current gun control myth" is called "common sense" gun control, and it claims to allow the "honest citizen" some "reasonable" form of firearm for home defense.

It's to placate citizens with platitudes so they agree with them.

What we fail to recognise is that gun control advocates are using our own desires to subvert any opposition. I asked a while back afer having pointed out if we want dialogue with gun control advocates we have to find common ground. That means both sides get what they want and not one side gives in on some matter, It's right here staring everyone in the face and when I mention it it will be to simplistic or just not true. Many will know better... However I will take my hat off to anyone who can disprove it. One word "safety". Personal safety.
Simply agree to in-depth background checks, registration to monitor ownership, licensing requirements, limitations on the type and caliber of weapons, etc., etc., etc.

Many firearm owners have bought into gun control lies because they feel unsafe and believe those lies to be true.
But the essential right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual self-defense; not just of home, family, and/or life and limb, but also of your freedom.

So very true but a scared persons cares nothing about our rights and telling them we have rights is not going to make any difference to that fear,

So while I agree that your story exemplifies one of the important reasons to keep and bear arms, it is an argument gun control advocates are all too familiar with and always have some ready answer for. Typically, "common sense" gun control.

Self-defence is not possible unless one has the capability to do that. Arms even up the playing field but mean the need in defence of the best means possible. Not some lesser substitute.
IMO the argument should always be that it is an INDIVIDUAL right protected, not granted by the Constitution and the types of arms an individual citizen could be expected to carry as a basic infantryman if called up to serve in a militia should be the standard guaranteed safe from infringement. The kind of arms that could also be used for hunting, sport, and home protection easily usable in combat if necessary.

It is first and foremost a human right or natural right to which all living things subscribe. No animal of which man is but one needs a piece of paper to defend their life if danger is perceived. Cross the line and you get attacked.

That is where the "well-regulated militia" descriptor applies. :yes:
 
OK, and...?



Actually, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that militias could quickly get armed; it had nothing to do with self-defense. That's evident in the text of the 2nd Amendment, which explicitly mentions militias and says absolutely nothing about any right to self-defense.



I have a solid door, a good lock, a police station nearby, and a phone.

I've lived in some very nasty neighborhoods, and never needed anything more than that.

Oh, and unlike Biden or Clinton, I'm not a potential target for idiots who fall for insane conspiracy theories:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-ping-pong-restaurant/?utm_term=.58de7004651b



:roll:

The reality is that home invasions are quite rare in the US, and most people will never have a break-in, let alone at a time when they are home.

Crime has been on the decline for decades. It started dropping in 1991, and has dropped in half since then:

reported-burglary-rate-in-the-us-since-1990.jpg


Most home invasions are actually due to domestic violence, not random theft.
2/3 of the time, the victim knows the burglar.
2/3 of the time, the burglar is not armed.
88% of the time, the burglar does not have a firearm.
A nice chunk of those random burglaries are repeat victimizations.

I.e. the dangers of a random monster breaking into your home to harm you and then take your stuff? Not very likely.



Yes, I'm sure that the crackhead who jiggles handles looking for an open door thinks to himself, "I'm going to target those hard-working people down the block!" :doh

Get real. Most burglars are looking for targets of opportunity, and don't care about their victims.

And while there is no question that poor people are proportionately more affected by many types of crime, there's no question that higher income individuals are also victims. Aside from actually having more wealth, they are also targets of "soft" crimes like identity theft. And yes, even the wealthiest people can also be the victims of very violent crimes:
The Inside Story of the Kim Kardashian Paris Hotel Heist | Vanity Fair



Or: The next time someone tries to sell us on the "self defense" myth, we should ignore vague and unprovable anecdotes, and have a realistic discussion about the pros and cons and facts of gun ownership, of crime rates, and effective means of self-defense.

So I take it that you are claiming the odds are so low that there is little reason to take responsibility for protecting ourselves. Hmmmm.... Yet many want to restrict CCW or firearms ownership based on even lower liklyhoods of legal owners becoming mass shooters or murderers. So let me get this straight, I am to accept being told I should not own a firearm for personal protection because the chance I would need it is so low. Yet I am to accept restrictions to CCW and firearms ownership based on an even smaller liklyhood that I may use it illegally....Seems reasonable....not....:roll:
 
So I take it that you are claiming the odds are so low that there is little reason to take responsibility for protecting ourselves. Hmmmm.... Yet many want to restrict CCW or firearms ownership based on even lower liklyhoods of legal owners becoming mass shooters or murderers. So let me get this straight, I am to accept being told I should not own a firearm for personal protection because the chance I would need it is so low. Yet I am to accept restrictions to CCW and firearms ownership based on an even smaller liklyhood that I may use it illegally....Seems reasonable....not....:roll:

that is one of the major bits of dishonesty that the anti gun movement is based on

You are PARANOID to want to carry a gun for self defense or own the same DEFENSIVE weaponry CIVILIAN police officers are issued because crime is low but

CRIME WITH GUNS IS SO HIGH, Honest citizens have to be disarmed so criminals cannot get guns
 
that is one of the major bits of dishonesty that the anti gun movement is based on

You are PARANOID to want to carry a gun for self defense or own the same DEFENSIVE weaponry CIVILIAN police officers are issued because crime is low but

CRIME WITH GUNS IS SO HIGH, Honest citizens have to be disarmed so criminals cannot get guns

Seems "reasonable" to me...
 
OK, and...?


Or: The next time someone tries to sell us on the "self defense" myth, we should ignore vague and unprovable anecdotes, and have a realistic discussion about the pros and cons and facts of gun ownership, of crime rates, and effective means of self-defense.

Crime will always be a problem and it is an indicator of governments failure at many levels but mainly social aspects

I hear what you are saying and yes personal safety is very important as there is no argument there are predators out there that threaten that safety.

Do you agree that one is far safer if one is able to resist an attack and demand for your valuable property as predators use a show of power to obtain compliance? That show of power simply has to convince the victim there is no hope of resistance. It can take many forms from brute strength, numbers of predators or weapons like chains, sticks, knives or firearms or even a humble screwdriver.

What would you suggest as a good way to survive such an attack?

Give them what they want?
Pull out you phone and dial 911?
Get on your knees and beg?
Fight them with you bare hands?
Other? Explain
 

The above is the myth. You treat it like the rule. I have carried a firearm since I was 6 or so (under supervision), and hunting without supervision when I was 16, and into public at 21. I'm the normal The RULE is that lawful firearms owners are extremely safe. We don't hurt anyone. And concealed carriers even less so. The exception is someone does something stupid. It is very rare. But your paranoia of lawful gun owners is noted.
 
I keep a pistol and two rifles and have never had to refer to them: 25 years in the same home. It could have been a lost drunk at your door too, but you'll never know.

I do know what it was. I didn't share the entire story to keep it short. The full story is he was knocking on people's doors and asking for money, but given that the lights were out, he knocked and jiggled my handle as well.

Joe crackhead has been trying to break into unoccupied apartments while people are out of town. The complex was informed, and they have actually requested additional police patrols. We ALSO had a shooting on the other side about 2 weeks ago.

So I may not know his entire life story, but I tell you what...you can invite him in for milk and cookies. Tis the season and all. But I'm not going to give any trust or benefit of the doubt to someone who is willing to violate the sanctity of another's home. **** him.

The point I'm making is guns are not a first step for anything. You've had some sort of experience and you're emotionalizing it. As twelve year old with a paper rout, out "monthly collecting" one night, the lady on the other side of the door said she had a gun and was going to use it. I leaped her 6' wooden gate in one bound. Went home, calmed down, called her, and went back to get my money. She said her husband was out of town and she was alone; what if she'd fired the gun? What if you'd fired?

The second amendment, as has been said, has zero to do with your story or mine, so kissing your copy of it means nothing.

At what point did I shoot him? Did I state I put a gun in his face? No. I called the law. But what if he HAD found my door unlocked? What would he have done? Waltzed in? Again...you can be a holly jolly individual. But when a piece of **** wants to violate the sanctity of someone's home...they don't get to pretend to be a victim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Only gun fanatics could melt down into a puddle of their own paranoia and insecurities with all three branches of federal government and most state governments dominated by NRA--owned politicians.

I don't think owning an assault rifle is the answer to your mental health issues.
 
Had an incident occur at my apartment tonight (long story and I called the law to deal with it). Nothing special, just someone who jiggled my door handle before knocking when they realized someone was home.

I got to thinking about this. This is exactly why the second amendment is so important to those who would otherwise find themselves disarmed. Of course Joe Biden only needs a side by side he fires recklessly In the air. He has bodyguards. So does Hillary. But you? Me? We have ourselves. And the tyrant most likely to subject is to Tyranny? Our fellow citizen. People who can be described as nothing more than parasites. Scavengers.

People who will victimize those of us who are poor. Those of us who they can easily victimize. Those of us with little recourse. They don't go after billionaires. They don't go after millionaires. They go after those of us who have to work for a living and scrape buy. They go after people who would be in their shoes, but instead have work ethic and integrity.

So the next time someone tries to sell you the gun control myth, remind them that it is the only true line in the sand for them if someone decides they are a victim as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Armed invaders and mass murderers don't hold up Cracker Barrels or gun shows for the same reasion. There is a high likelihood that you will meet with resistance of a violent nature.

Sandy Hook is still being used as an example of why we need more gun regulation. Instead it should be an example of why we need less. If there had been a gun safe and a couple of people who knew how to use a weapon in the office there would have been at most one casualty. The perp. Instead the shooter was given a free pass to a shooting gallery.
 
Only gun fanatics could melt down into a puddle of their own paranoia and insecurities with all three branches of federal government and most state governments dominated by NRA--owned politicians.

I don't think owning an assault rifle is the answer to your mental health issues.

Pretty goofy statement. Are you here to take snarky potshots or do you have a solution or at least a suggestion of how to resolve the mental health issues you speak of?
 
Only gun fanatics could melt down into a puddle of their own paranoia and insecurities with all three branches of federal government and most state governments dominated by NRA--owned politicians.

I don't think owning an assault rifle is the answer to your mental health issues.

Owning a modern sports rifle is the answer to my 3 gun needs, however.
 
Pretty goofy statement. Are you here to take snarky potshots or do you have a solution or at least a suggestion of how to resolve the mental health issues you speak of?

Well, certainly keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally unhealthy would be a good start.
How do you think that can be achieved?
 
Well, certainly keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally unhealthy would be a good start.
How do you think that can be achieved?

How can we determine that someone who is "mentally unhealthy" is actually a danger to themselves or others? How does that translate into loss of rights? Why do we only want to restrict them from guns? Why not also knives, ropes and trucks?
 
How can we determine that someone who is "mentally unhealthy" is actually a danger to themselves or others? How does that translate into loss of rights? Why do we only want to restrict them from guns? Why not also knives, ropes and trucks?

I wasn't asking for more questions. You are the one who suggested bringing up solutions.
Why don't you go ahead and suggest some.

How can we keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unhealthy?
Are you even in support of that outcome?
 
Back
Top Bottom