|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 21, 2009 22:10:07 GMT -5
I don't think I break gun fundie just yet, I'm still more the gun lover.
I imagine the gun-fundies have the same mentallity car enthusiasts do when they bitch about computer chips keeping them from doing 300mph down a 55 mph highway
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Waldorf X on Jul 21, 2009 22:20:27 GMT -5
Does Wal-Mart still sell guns? They pulled them from New England over a year ago, and I was told that it was part of a much larger plan to pull guns out of all their stores. Maybe it wasn't true, or hadn't happened yet... Depends on the store. Mine, being a store that's only a few years old sells ammo, but doesn't sell the guns themselves. Some of the more backwoods stores still have them, though.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Jul 21, 2009 22:35:25 GMT -5
Does Wal-Mart still sell guns? They pulled them from New England over a year ago, and I was told that it was part of a much larger plan to pull guns out of all their stores. Maybe it wasn't true, or hadn't happened yet... Depends on the store. Mine, being a store that's only a few years old sells ammo, but doesn't sell the guns themselves. Some of the more backwoods stores still have them, though. Yeah, mine still sells ammo. It was funny when they used to sell guns, because they'd escort a gun owner out of the store before giving them their gun and ammo. Like there was anything stopping someone from just walking back in the store if they really wanted to kill someone. We once had a "sniper" up on the roof. I say "sniper" because he was using a shotgun, from what the papers said. But somehow, while a guy could get to the roof, nobody would ever think of just walking back into the store.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Jul 22, 2009 0:39:31 GMT -5
The long and short of it?
There are, really, a handful of fundamental reasons why many people in the US who have firearms retain them.
1. Since the American Revolution, a large segment of America has seen firearms as an "equalizer" between them and the government. If the government goes off the rails and becomes truly oppressive, armed insurrection is the last resort for the sake of personal liberty (one of the Federalist Papers actually recognizes that centralized governments are indeed vulnerable to insurrection; they used this as an argument in favor of the US being a republic instead of a confederacy).
2. Since the nation's early days, guns were a means survival. Even today, families often hunt for their own meat. In some situations, meat hunting is required for survival (legendary sniper Carlos Hathcock was actually so good because his father abandoned the family, leaving them so poor that he had to begin hunting while still a child in order to help his mom make ends meet). Additionally, "wastage" laws and the like mean that hunters often donate a good deal of meat to charity.
3. From the standpoint of self-defense, guns are a great equalizer between attackers and defenders.
As a result, whenever the government starts to talk about gun control, restrictions, or even outright bans, even non-fundies will take umbrage as they feel that the government may well be going too far. That many instances of gun control have turned into boondoggles (such as the Assault Weapons ban and DC's ban on private ownership) only fuel things.
Fundies, though, take it several steps further. Firearm ownership is regarded as an outgrowth of their religious leanings rather than the means to protect them. Couple this with the rampant paranoia and misinformation that is all-too-common among fundie groups, and there's your answer.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jul 22, 2009 1:00:53 GMT -5
You've got to admire the cognitive dissonance in "I'm protected and blessed by the most powerful being in the universe, and none could ever stand against his mighty power" and "I have a device designed exclusively for ending lives just in case I need it". That's yer fuckin' faith in action right there. Oh oh! I know the correct fundie response to that! "A man was warned that a flood was coming to his town. Everyone else evacuated. He stayed and said God would protect him. When the rain got heavy, the police knocked on his door and offered him a ride out of town. He said God would protect him. It covered the first floor, and a man came by in a motorboat to his top story window, and offere him a ride. He said God would protect him. It covered the second floor, and a helicopter came to the roof to offer him escape. He said God would protect him. Then the flood covered his house, and he drowned. He went to heaven and then asked God why He didn't protect him. And God said, 'I sent you a police car, a boat, and a helicopter, and you didn't take any of them!'"
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jul 22, 2009 1:09:42 GMT -5
Actually, from what I understand, the point of the 2nd amendment is for people to be able to form a militia if the government ever gets out of hand. Which makes what these idiots are doing ironically sensible, & it also makes it the stupidest part of the Constitution. If the government doesn't want to be challenged, it'll take the guns early on. While I've generally been on the boat that registration and licensing or the like are fine and constitutional and straight-out banning of arms is not, I was swayed for a while by this argument. I have come back to my original conclusion based on research and most strongly influenced by various quotes by the founding fathers on what they meant by "militia". (Not to say that that's what they meant makes it objectively right, but I AM convinced that it is unconstitutional to ban arms, and if we are going to change it it must be a constitutional change; other changes are unlawful and undermine the constitution.) Just FYI, these are a big part of what made me believe that personal ownership of guns was in fact what was meant in the constitution: Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.", Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950) Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." "Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. Patrick Henry: "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169. "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jul 22, 2009 1:14:09 GMT -5
No way, I could totally take out a tank with my hunting rifle. Anti-personnel rockets, too. Yeah. It's not like our military has ever had problems when trying to occupy territory held by people who don't want them there, having little more than second-hand military hardware and cleverly devised explosives. Oh wait... I was also recently convinced by this argument. I was all "Well if we can't have tanks and anti-aircraft missiles, we're fucked at resisting the government which was the intent of the ammendment" and my friend was all "Iraq" and I was all "O yeah."
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Jul 22, 2009 1:39:14 GMT -5
Never underestimate guerrilla warfare. I can think of several quite deadly weapons I can make in my home right now.
|
|
|
Post by Hades on Jul 22, 2009 1:42:57 GMT -5
Never underestimate guerrilla warfare. I can think of several quite deadly weapons I can make in my home right now. And probably more than a few after a quick google search.
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Jul 22, 2009 1:55:47 GMT -5
Everyone talks about guns for defense, but they have their flaws. If an assassin comes while you're asleep, you're screwed. You could shoot a friend/family member all-too-easily. And a bullet can travel through walls and hit someone in a different house.
If I was paranoid, I'd do something crazy. I'd have a pet wolf, a katana, and a hidden camera system. This way, the wolf wakes me up, I get in position near the wall with my katana, with the camera system looking at the hall to my room. There's something on the wall, a picture maybe, that acts as a point of reference. So I see the intruder clearly on the monitor, and as he's at that point of reference, I can stab through the wall right into him. He never stood a chance!
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Jul 22, 2009 2:50:16 GMT -5
Holy shit that was stupid of him. I didn't exactly word that properly. It was my friend who was waving the gun around not his dad. But it's his dads gun.It was my friend who had it and being a dumbass. Although I'm more afraid of the dog he had than the gun. Atleast after the trigger was pulled and all I heard was a click I'm a little less jumpy. While the bigass mean as Hell dog took a chunk out of my pant leg and damn near my leg. Was it pointed at you when he did this? I don't quite recall. But I do remember a click and being told to relax as the gun hasn't been cleaned or loaded in over 10 years. I think it's safe to look back on this event and reilize that I was scared shitless and that's about it. Can't really get mad at the guy as I've known him for 7-8 years and being mad at people just isn't my thing.
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Jul 22, 2009 2:56:53 GMT -5
Depends on the store. Mine, being a store that's only a few years old sells ammo, but doesn't sell the guns themselves. Some of the more backwoods stores still have them, though. Yeah, mine still sells ammo. It was funny when they used to sell guns, because they'd escort a gun owner out of the store before giving them their gun and ammo. Like there was anything stopping someone from just walking back in the store if they really wanted to kill someone. We once had a "sniper" up on the roof. I say "sniper" because he was using a shotgun, from what the papers said. But somehow, while a guy could get to the roof, nobody would ever think of just walking back into the store. What the hell was he trying to accomplish with that? I may not know much about guns as some of the other people here but if he's on a roof trying to kill people with a shotgun he's not gonna do a very good job. Unless he was using deer slugs then that's another story.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jul 22, 2009 5:03:57 GMT -5
Yeah. It's not like our military has ever had problems when trying to occupy territory held by people who don't want them there, having little more than second-hand military hardware and cleverly devised explosives. Oh wait... I was also recently convinced by this argument. I was all "Well if we can't have tanks and anti-aircraft missiles, we're fucked at resisting the government which was the intent of the ammendment" and my friend was all "Iraq" and I was all "O yeah." However, I note that the case of Iraq would be different. The military isn't trying to kill citizens, which is what makes it difficult. If the military were part of an oppressive regime, looking to stamp out all resistance to it via its own citizens, would it really hold back from raining down the bombs?
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 22, 2009 6:27:33 GMT -5
I was also recently convinced by this argument. I was all "Well if we can't have tanks and anti-aircraft missiles, we're fucked at resisting the government which was the intent of the ammendment" and my friend was all "Iraq" and I was all "O yeah." However, I note that the case of Iraq would be different. The military isn't trying to kill citizens, which is what makes it difficult. If the military were part of an oppressive regime, looking to stamp out all resistance to it via its own citizens, would it really hold back from raining down the bombs? Most likely yes for a few reasons. Why wipe out those that support you along with those that don't. And, what good would it do for them if they level entire places they plan to have later or require for certain things like say, a town near an oil refinery.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Jul 22, 2009 7:49:49 GMT -5
Yeah. It's not like our military has ever had problems when trying to occupy territory held by people who don't want them there, having little more than second-hand military hardware and cleverly devised explosives. Oh wait... And the American military being in America is totally the same as attempts to secure Iraq and Afghanistan, places most of the military types knew nothing about. IEDs are nice and all....
|
|