Defensive Carry banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
527 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
Far more die from medical malpractice than from guns or drowning and Obamacare will just make that worse. This administration does NOT care about the kids, they just care about the control in order to convert the USA into a Socialist Utopia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,628 Posts
I can't echo what everyone else is saying enough. Control. Control. Control.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,571 Posts
I disagree, though slightly...

Firearms are designed for more than to punch holes in paper (entertainment). They are a lethal tool. Used properly, to stop a threat, to stop tyranny, to kill enemies, perhaps to put food on the table.

Ladders are also tools, yet many people die from falling from them... but that is not their designed function. But accidents happen.

Swimming pools are entertainment/recreational equipment. No part of their design function is to stop a threat, stop tyranny, put food on the table, or any of the other design functions of a firearm. But accidents do happen.

There are "attractive nuisance" laws in many locales, requiring the securing of a pool from passersby (especially minors) who might use the pool and have a fatal accident.

Lethality, moreover, efficient lethality, is THE design function of a firearm. Human lethality is the design function of everything greater than .22 caliber, but it will do for that (human lethality) in a pinch.

The very reason that we have the right to keep and bear arms is to protect ourselves, with efficient lethality if need be. While the second amendment says nothing about hunting, it also says nothing about recreation... It's purpose is to assure the protection of "We the people."

The ability to protect ourselves from others who intend us deadly harm with other lethal weapons or disparity of force, protection from starvation by our ability to use them to put food on the table, to protect our country from foreign invaders, and finally, in the Gravest Extreme, to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, when no other option is available, is what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

It is protection. Protection is the purpose of the Second Amendment. And, it is the peaceful use of the arms that right guarantees us. It is not designed to allow us to use those arms offensively, only defensively... Hence, laws against insurrection, murder, assault, etc.

There is a fine line between offensive and defensive as regards to "protecting one's self" from a tyrannical government.

If, for example, you heard that in the neighboring county, the feds were confiscating people's arms by force, with no legal basis... and you confirmed this through other reliable sources, and you know they are coming your way with the same intent... Would you and your like-minded neighbors be right to attack the feds? or would you be more right to defend yourselves from the feds?

You certainly won't be throwing swimming pools at them either way... You'll be using your guaranteed right to bear arms... You might not be doing so legally, but.... You decide...

Regardless, swimming pools and other devices (not firearms) are not designed to most efficiently kill, stop threats, etc. with a degree of lethality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
I'll start by saying that I hope the OP and all do not take this the wrong way. I most certainly understand the sentiment and the arguments over deaths caused by things non-firearm related, drownings, drunk drivers/alcohol, salt/heart attacks, and the disinterest in the government to attack those areas with the same zealousness that they are going after the Second Amendment. My issue, and many may think it is minor, is the "smiley" that is used in the title of this post. A smiley face in the title of a post calling attention to young children losing their life sends the wrong message, IMHO. We are foolish if we think that this website isn't read by people who don't share our views as an effort to gain ammunition against us in this fight. We must maintain composure and compassion or we are no better than those who would like nothing better to see us fail. Again, my apologies if this is out of line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,304 Posts
We are foolish if we think that this website isn't read by people who don't share our views as an effort to gain ammunition against us in this fight. (snip) Again, my apologies if this is out of line.
No, you're not out of line. I also spend time in left-oriented forums where the gun restrictions issue is still an exceptionally hot topic and I am one of a small group who oppose the anti views. Some of them have found me to be a sufficient threat as to search me out in other places, such as this forum, in an effort to find dirt to discredit me with. I can assure you that that the antis are reading forums like this one, but for different reasons.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,938 Posts
LoneStar, your comment is not out of line at all, and I appreciate your sensitivity. However, I'll disagree in a gentlemanly way and simply suggest that a degree of sarcasm was directed at the "government solutions" being offered. Those of us who value our gun rights along with all the others protected by the Constitution are fed up with the hypocrisy and duplicity thrown at us from the highest levels of government. If the Administration was truly concerned with saving children's lives, universal background checks would be instituted for drivers' licenses, driving with unrestrained children in a car would be a Federal offense, and sales of alcohol, bicycles and 5-gallon pails would be subject to periodic limits and waiting periods.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Really appreciate the response Gasmitty. Disagreement is the cornerstone of democracy. :smile: Completely agree with your points though and that this entire fight really has absolutely nothing to do with actually saving children's lives. This one just hit home because I've had multiple friends lives touched by very young children drowning in their pools. We have a 6 YO daughter and a 16 month old son and that is the sole reason we have chosen not to build a pool in our back yard. Maybe one day in a few years when our youngest is older.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,628 Posts
Well, once you're born, you start dying. I guess the feds had better start funding that from happening too. Oh wait...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
They'll go after assault pools next.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,987 Posts
When 20-30 drown in a pool on the same day, he'll ask for a vote.

As horrible a Newtown was, it was an anomally, a freak occurance, and your children are in much more danger everytime you load them into the car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
527 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I'll start by saying that I hope the OP and all do not take this the wrong way. I most certainly understand the sentiment and the arguments over deaths caused by things non-firearm related, drownings, drunk drivers/alcohol, salt/heart attacks, and the disinterest in the government to attack those areas with the same zealousness that they are going after the Second Amendment. My issue, and many may think it is minor, is the "smiley" that is used in the title of this post. A smiley face in the title of a post calling attention to young children losing their life sends the wrong message, IMHO. We are foolish if we think that this website isn't read by people who don't share our views as an effort to gain ammunition against us in this fight. We must maintain composure and compassion or we are no better than those who would like nothing better to see us fail. Again, my apologies if this is out of line.
Lol, it took me a long time to get what you said, the smiley is there by mistake, I do not use them.

This thread was just another fact to point out about control.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,692 Posts
Just read a news story that claimed over 40% of adults (21+) text while driving.
Thousands die each year due to distracted drivers.
CDC - Distracted Driving - Motor Vehicle Safety - Injury Center
It seems fair and reasonable to bring up these stats (and those of pools drownings, etc.) since the current push for gun control is premised upon the goal of saving lives (especially the lives of children). "...if it will save only one life" (Pres. Obama)
Whether a child is killed in a violent car wreck or in shooting...they're gone. Accident or crime...lives are lost.
The targeting of firearms by 'the big government crowd' is clearly driven by an agenda that's a lot bigger than public safety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,987 Posts
The only safe thing to do is ban texting altogether. Clearly targeting offending drivers is not the answer to the problem.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top