8 Likes
I don’t need more guns. I need more ammo.
14 Likes
Remember DickTracy and his wrist radio? Now you watch is a phone, heart monitor etc. When I started working our company computers took up a whole floor and didn’t have a thousandth the capability of my cell phone. Star Trek communicators where fantasy, again, now look at your phone. Now look at the evolution of laser weapons. The day’s coming in the not too distant future when anyone with a good electronics background will be able to turn out handheld lasers that will exceed Any thing a modern firearm can do. The anti gun crowd will some day be wishing we could go back to fighting something that fired a small projectile with limited range and capacity. I can’t wait to see their faces when this becomes a reality.
6 Likes
There are anywhere between 300 and 400 million guns in this country. If they are able to confiscate 1 million guns every year, it would take them 3 to 400 years to confiscate all the guns. Do you really think they are going to confiscate our guns? They are just trying to annoy us, and it seems to be working.
2 Likes
Well, the Brits tried that one once. It’s the trying that is the issue, but if the laws and bureaucracy are bad enough, that will keep many people from excercising their rights. The proof of that is in the states that have Byzantine firearm laws - ownership in those states is far lower than in free states.
4 Likes
I would imagine they they have less firearms because they have less criminal gun violence. That is the goal.
1 Like
And that is incorrect and not the reason. It is as I stated due to their making ownership difficult and expensive. When firearm laws are liberalized, firearm ownership increases.
2 Likes
By laws being liberalized I assume you mean laws that make firearms illegal. That would only work where there is no criminal gun violence or grave bodily harm. How many guns there are has no bearing on criminal gun violence unless the guns are used against criminal gun violence or grave bodily harm.
1 Like
By definition, laws can only restrict what citizens can do, not allow them to do anything. By default, we are allowed to do anything we want, as free people, unless it’s specifically restricted by a law. Firearm possession is the same. The constitution clearly lays out that “the people” have an un-infringable right to keep and bear arms. It does not give the government the ability to grant that right, it tells the government they can’t restrict the right that exists outside the government. Therefore, liberal gun laws have to be laws that are unrestrictive, or liberal, meaning there are few infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.
It is not safe to say that people in states that have low firearm ownership are that way because they aren’t needed for self defence; because it’s so safe to live there. California and Illinois make it extremely difficult to keep and bear arms, yet have some of the most dangerous cities in the country.
People there don’t have guns because the laws are too restrictive, making it almost impossible to meet the requirements to legally keep and bear arms. The result is only criminals, who illegally bear arms, are armed. Crime rates there go up, because criminals know the likelihood of getting shot by someone defending him/herself is very low.
5 Likes
Liberally unrestrictive.
2 Likes
Exactly!
4 Likes
Liberalized, as in less restrictive, not more restrictive. Liberal, belief in individual rights, freedom and liberty.
3 Likes
So guns laws don’t have to be liberalized where there is no gun violence.
1 Like
Personally, I don’t think buying more guns is the solution.
Best Buy more ammunition!
It also pays to be organized!
8 Likes
Uh, yes, they do if they are infringing on our inalienable rights. Crime or no crime is not a valid reason for restricting our rights. The government has no power nor authority to restrict our RKBA - as it is written, “shall not be infringed.”
Unfortunately, every state, as well as the federal government, has enacted unconstitutional laws that do infringe on our rights. We have been fighting against this since the beginning.
5 Likes
Well, even in an ideal world where there was no voilence, I would still want my guns for hobby / sport shooting, hunting, and defense against dangerous animals. My guns aren’t just for self defense against criminals and violence. And, I’d for sure still not want the government telling me what I can and can’t own.
5 Likes
If they are infringing on our inalienable rights it is because we are letting them. When people don’t feel threatened those rights are redundant. Do you think I may be onto something. Of course it matters what those infringements are and if people object to them or not. I will never give up my right to hunt. I would never give up my right to protection. If I didn’t need to protection.I wouldn’t need the right. At least not in the constitution. Unfortunately we are not to that point YET.
1 Like
That depends on what you mean by government. If you mean by the people for the people. I think we need some form of agreement of what thing are not acceptable? If you mean those people that just want to know what you are doing all the time so they can make sure you are living up to their standards, I agree with you.
1 Like
I’m all for just laws that are truly by the people and for the people. If we did still have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, we would all be far better off, and probably wouldn’t even be having this conversation, because we wouldn’t concieve of things getting to the point they are now.
4 Likes
I am getting ready to go buck hunting as we speak. The main reason I carry a gun around my house is coyotes to protect my dogs and chickens.
2 Likes