yep you are right. don't forget axes, spears. what was the point of this argument? why you shouldn't own one?

then no one should own knives. cause there are plenty of non gun related homicides each year too.

here is a story for you gun owners
i own a knife and i bring it everywhere. small 2 inch blade. i went to national archive, went through metal detector forgetting i have my knife. not a good idea it was government building etc. they asked me to pull it out. i asked if there was a problem, head of security came over. looked at it and says "nope, its legal, let him through." so i got to carry my knife with me. kinda the same but not really. if they asked to hold onto it until i left, i would of.

 

hey as long as it aint america i dont care where he goes to lead

 

A paragon of sensitivity and grace, as always.

 

Are you guys really trying to argue that matches are a weapon? I'm all for citizens carrying guns because if you ask anyone why they are carrying one (outside of a shooting range or hunting) they will probably say for self defense. Nobody carries matches for self defense. Or drives a car for self defense.

 

I believe the argument is that saying that guns cause crime is like saying that matches cause fire. Both guns and matches, in and of themselves, are inanimate objects. Yes, guns can be used to commit crimes, as matches can be used to start a fire. It takes a person using the gun to commit a crime and someone striking the match to start a fire. Law abiding citizens who own guns are not criminals. Those who commit crimes using guns are criminals, period.

As a law abiding American citizen (not a criminal), I will absolutely defend my right to own firearms, which always have and always will, serve protect my right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Period.

 

I had to skim most of the posts since I last replied but I do have a couple points I'd like to make. One is that the close pairing of gun ownership rights with Republican ideals and anti-liberal sentiment is flawed in my opinion. I actually think it’s kind of funny how some people can say, “here is a gun (a tool), this is how to use it, I trust you’ll use it properly” but will say, “I will not show you a condom (a tool), I won’t show you how to use it, you will abuse it.”

Anyway, I believe that the 2nd Amendment benefits members of both/all parties, not because I expect to gain the upper hand on some unsuspecting home intruder, but because of its still relevant effects on the relationships between people and government and between social classes. Spanky has already driven home the importance of an armed population with relation to government, but it should also be stated that such fear-induced "respect" also exists in other social circumstances. For example, as uncapitalistic as this might sound, the right to bear arms probably increases the awareness of the need to keep the gap that exists between the "haves" and "have nots" in check (think riots). The same right also helps prevent a nation of "rebelds" from subjugating any group of people he considers to be "neanderthals."

That last sentence just leads me to my other point. I'm sure rebeld is far more balanced than he might lead on in this forum but like it or not, there is an issue of appearances. In that clip of Biden criticizing the pro-gun advocate for calling his gun his baby, can you really blame him for his response? Modern society values balance and proficiency in several areas of life. By simply calling his gun his baby, he showed that he valued his material possesion as much as parents value the lives of their children. This obviously goes against the popular notion of family values. There is nothing else to show anything else the man does that benefits society. There is nothing but the clip. He practically asked for the "mentally incompetent" evaluation that he received. (Note: that clip could have been staged but the point about appearances remains.)

 

This is my argument as a whole.

Criminals have guns. They always have and they always will. They will not, no matter what laws you pass, give them up.

If you ban semi-autos, guns, handguns, extended magazines, etc, only law abiding citizens will give those items up.

As such, our criminals will be more heavily armed than our law abiding citizens whose sole purpose for possession (aside from hunting & sport) is self protection.

Why should I allow my government to disarm myself so that I am put at the mercy of criminals who refuse to obey those laws?

The "thats what the cops/military/etc" are for is futile. There will never, without huge exception or amazing coincidence, be a cop or military personnel close enough to you to protect so that you do not have to take your protection into your own hands.

 

you serious? you are an idiot if you did not know guns were made for killing, injuring or intimidating. if you think the gun was invented to look as a fancy decoration for countrymen and not to be used as a method of war you are mistaken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun
gunpowder was invented for warfare by the chinese.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_warfare

as for killing open up your mind for a second. doesnt ALWAYS mean people. also means for food. stop thinking so 1 sided dude.



those words i will not disagree with spanky because you are spot on.

 

gunpowder wasn't invented for warfare :doh:

upon it's discovery it was later used for it though

 

There-in lies my passion and, in my opinion, that is the basis of the importance of the 2A in the world that we live in today and in the future.