Summations Only

So now fists count as arms. Good. That means the 2nd ammendment doesn't mean shit about guns since fists count as arms. Well, i looked and could not find it. Since you still refuse to actually link it, even though I asked, I will say you are lying and making the figure up. You could prove us all wrong and link your source. Does lying about what people say please you or something? Where have I ever made this statement? Remember: fists are human appendages, not weapons. YOU call them weapons. No.

The search function on that site coupled with me manually searching still yields no results. Has anyone else found what crash was referring to? I've even tried a google search.

So should we have police everywhere? Should every public venue, no matter the size, be patrolled by the police?"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"

Or the third option: "I don't give a fuck about protecting you, my gun is to protect ME. If something bad happens to you, you should have had your own gun".

The way I see the point trying to be made is thus: someone who doesn't have the sense to determine that they are incapable of using it for it's intended purpose likely isn't the kind of person that would be a gun carrying sort of person. People that go the length (typically) are the kind who are most likely to think they CAN use it effectively. If not, what we would have is just a bunch of people that want to wear a gun as a fashion statement, or people who think the presence alone of a gun serves as enough protection that they don't have to actually use it. If you are cognizant enough to say to yourself "here is a situation where the firearm at my side would save lives, but I am incapable of using it effectively, so I will flee instead", why would you have that gun on your person in the first place? Why would you have gone to the lengths to acquire the gun carrying permit (provided you are not in a state that allows any random person to walk around with a gun. Texas jumps out, but I don't know for certain)? What purpose does carrying a gun in public serve if you know you won't use it or if you are aware that you, and those around you, are safer if you keep it holstered?If I circle jerk my own argument, I will say that, to me, at that point the conceal/open carry becomes nothing more than an exorcise of what you feel are your rights, as opposed using those rights for a useful purpose.I would rather not have a bunch of untrained John Rambo wannabe's roaming the streets with loaded guns on their hips waiting for what they perceive to be a threat so they can discharge that weapon and put MY life in danger because they only know enough weapon discipline to point the barrel away from their own face.Secondly, it is difficult enough for trained police officers and military personnel to determine if they should draw and/or fire their weapon so we should not even consider that untrained or barely trained (the courses required for concealed carry in WI, for example, can hardly be considered training. I would call it "class that shows you just enough so you don't shoot yourself the day you get your gun") civilians have the fortitude to use a firearm in public and not pose more of a threat to innocent people than is necessary.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Can you list the similarities between NSA spying and gun control (if you've already done this earlier in the thread, please point it out because there is no way I am digging through this long ass thread)? I fail to see how the two are similar enough to warrant using one as a gauge for the other. The only similarity I see is that the gov't is involved and doing a poor job. It seems like you are using the NSA shit to appeal to emotions.it's an honest question that seems to be dripping with antagonization, but I assure you I don't mean it that way.

It's coming from you continuing to mention the NSA wiretapping. I want to know what parallels you are drawing. You're talking, I'm asking. You're talking, I'm asking.

You realize the NSA is not the federal government, right? And you realize there are no citizens that are wishing for the NSA to do anything under the name of liberty, right? It is the NSA that is claiming to do what they do in the name of liberty.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

They are under the jurisdiction of the Feds, but are not a federal agency. Why don't you use your distrust of the department of agriculture to bolster your argument? While I don't disagree, I still fail to see how it relates to gun control. Is someone suggesting you hand over personal information to the NSA to obtain a gun? I assure you Facebook and Google have more dirt on you than the feds do. Are you even using a VPN right now? Or is using a VPN giving up your liberty?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Good eye. I was wrong. I (wrongly) looked for NSA instead of National Security Agency. How much do you really know about the NSA? Do you think they just now started collecting your data since Edward Snowden? You've probably already explained, but do you think every person in America under every circumstance should be able to buy a gun just like they would buy a pack of hot dogs? If you don't think it matters, why the hell do you care about the NSA (hint: you should if you actually know something about the NSA)? What information are you worried about the NSA obtaining from you? What information are you worried about the FBI getting from you? If you are legally entitled to a gun, then no information you provide should be a problem, right? Or is there something in your history that may show you to not be someone that should be owning a gun?
(note: I am NOT using the argument "if you have nothing hide, why are you worried? That line of reasoning is pure shit) What I am actually getting at is: the information you would need to provide is already available and should not be incriminating, provided that it is not actually incriminating. If it is, then maybe you shouldn't have that gun anyways. I am not sure what sort of information you think is going to be required that is so terrible to give up. You file taxes, right? Would a background check be more or less intrusive than what is necessary for taxes? More or less intrusive than the info an emplyer gets on you for a potential job?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

That sounds like a reddit comment. Unsourced and hyperbolic. I thought we had higher standards here?

Well, that IS the story we are fed time and again in school and "documentaries" on TV. The whole basis of American Pride is that "we the people" defeated the evil redcoats. A bunch of farmers with muskets ran around the forests of Maine guerrilla style murdering The Brits.

And to an extent that will still be true. however, my point was that the fantasy about the revolution was that our side was just a mish mash of country folk that kissed their spouse goodbye, musket in hand (their huntin' gun that they just used that mornin' to shoot a deer) and walked onto the battlefield. It was the fact that they were armed that allowed them to rebel successfully. [off topic]Indeed. The actual history varies greatly from the history American kids are taught in high school. However, I am unsure if it really differs from how other countries view history. Any insight from a German on how Hitler is discussed? Maybe someone from Japan on their role in WWII? American history ALWAYS paints us as the good guys. How many people think we were all peachy keen with the Native Americans? [/off topic]My history is as bad as I claim it to be, but think about who armed them. it should be no coincidence that even though they were armed, it was insufficient. The same way that even if every tom dick and harry American has a deer shooter, it won't matter one iota when/if Uncle Sam decides it's time your freedoms are toast and diplomacy isn't sufficient. Is your little ruger going to take down a Sherman tank? Maybe your AR-15 can dent that Black Hawk. How is your M9 going to pierce that soldiers kevlar?

So guns are for threatening teenage boys for doing what teenage boys do? Threatening teenage boys? You want GUNS for threatening TEENAGE BOYS? Here is an idea: do a better job raising your daughter so she isn't hiding boys in her room against your permission. Better yet, don't try and enforce YOUR morals on the rest of society. Even better: come join us in the 21st century where sex isn't evil and kids know the consequences and are prepared, not scared.Are guns toys to you? Are they not dangerous weapons that should be respected? No, you want to wave them around at kids so they stay away from your daughter.I just want to be clear: do you advocate shooting a teenage boy just for sleeping with your daughter? That "crime" is punishable by death?Score one for the anti gun crowd if that is your reasoning.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

The difference between you, and people like you (or me) and jar, and people like jar when actual disaster strikes is: they want to shoot people they see as threats instead of helping people, whom they also see as threats. "I've got my own shit, fuck you go get your own shit or I'll shoot you"Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.