# Start Here > Guest Forum >  Regarding the 2nd Amendment...

## Fourteen

Good afternoon.

Before I ask my question, I think I should explain myself a bit. I have lurked RPF for quite some time now. I would probably label myself something of a Social Conservative and economic Libertarian, and I agree with a lot of things that are said here, namely Free Market economics, the 2nd Amendment, and so forth. I have some disagreements with some of the things said here (and by Dr. Paul himself), but that's not what I'm here for. 

Anyway, earlier today I was reading an article regarding how certain areas of the country have various problems. The comments section veered into basically how Chicago had significant violence problems. Naturally, Conservative/Libertarian posters supported the availability of firearms for self defense, and criticized the city's gun control laws, and how they did nothing to stop the violence.

However, a liberal's comment struck me. I don't have it in front of me, but it basically supported gun control. He suggested that violent acts with hand grenades were rare. The implication from this was that if guns were treated the same as hand grenades, gun violence would be rare.

I'm an ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment, but this statement... puzzled me. What are your thoughts? 

Thank you in advance.

----------


## presence

in the past 100 years, far more people have been killed by their own government than by criminals or even warfare.   Step one before democide is disarmament, every time.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'm not sure why one would use a hand grenade to engage in a violent crime anyway.  Unless one was simply looking to commit mass murder, which is a minority of gun deaths.

I would recommend staying away from utilitarian arguments and focusing on the moralities of the question.  Is it morally OK to put a gun to someone's head in order to force them to give up their guns?  I don't think so.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

Greetings Fourteen,

  nice thoughts - could you please contaminate your friends with these?

  Your username suggests you are 2 young 2 vote... 

  Well, you can still make an impact!  Talk to people that can and your peers who will soon be able to!

  Good for you!

-t

----------


## tod evans

Do a search on "flashbang" here and see what miracles the LEO's can do with non-lethal explosives...

In order for this country to work as I believe the founders intended government and her employees should not be better armed than the populace.

----------


## presence

> He suggested that violent acts with hand grenades were rare.





> Do a search on "flashbang" here and see what  miracles the LEO's can do with non-lethal explosives...












_keyword:  Alecia Phonesavanh_

As a mather of fact, the last time I remember any hand grenades used in the US, it was a government goon shake and baking baby bou in a botched midnight "drug raid" / witch hunt; no drugs were found.



What are the odds?


No worries though... it was a witch suspect; "no humans involved"

----------


## Fourteen

> Greetings Fourteen,
> 
>   nice thoughts - could you please contaminate your friends with these?
> 
>   Your username suggests you are 2 young 2 vote... 
> 
>   Well, you can still make an impact!  Talk to people that can and your peers who will soon be able to!
> 
>   Good for you!
> ...


Errr... my username really has nothing to do with my age. I'm certainly old enough to vote. And I plan on doing so for a while.

----------


## TheTexan

> in the past 100 years, far more people have been killed by their own government than by criminals or even warfare.   Step once before democide is disarmament, every time.


The trick is to simply love your government, and you'll usually be ok.

Usually.

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm an ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment, but this statement... puzzled me. What are your thoughts? 
> 
> Thank you in advance.


Hand grenades? Seriously?

For a very long time,, and even in my youth,, Dynamite was commonly available.. And some folks had hand grenades,, but few actually.

Dynamite was used in a few crimes,,, but very few and very rare,, even though it was commonly available.

Fully Automatic Machine guns were at one time commonly available.. but crimes were rare. And since they have been tightly registered and limited in supply,, I only know of one ever being used in a crime.. And that was by a Police officer.

It really goes back to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.. It was not primarily for crime prevention,, though that is a secondary benefit.
It was intended to keep the Government in Check,, and to overthrow it, if and when necessary. 
It was there to protect "the people" from the Government.

----------


## Kotin

there is very little practical use for grenades... for self-defense or even commiting robbery or theft of any kind.. sounds pretty silly and unrealistic..

carry pistols are very handy and very practical. so are rifles and shotguns... all depends on the situation but a grenade is just not comparable and whoever made the leap did not understand firearms and had very little common sense(which is becoming less and less common)

----------


## KCIndy

> It really goes back to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.. It was not primarily for crime prevention,, though that is a secondary benefit.
> It was intended to keep the Government in Check,, and to overthrow it, if and when necessary. 
> It was there to protect "the people" from the Government.


THIS!  

I really wish more people understood this.

----------


## staerker

> there is very little practical use for grenades... for self-defense or even commiting robbery or theft of any kind.. sounds pretty silly and unrealistic..
> 
> carry pistols are very handy and very practical. so are rifles and shotguns... all depends on the situation but a grenade is just not comparable and whoever made the leap did not understand firearms and had very little common sense(which is becoming less and less common)


 That argument holds just as much weight as the "assault-rifle" speech.

Both are very practical. If they weren't, they wouldn't be used in combat around the world.

----------


## Kotin

> That argument holds just as much weight as the "assault-rifle" speech.
> 
> Both are very practical. If they weren't, they wouldn't be used in combat around the world.


wow.. once again.. I am seeing very little common sense. 

seriously?

offense/defense in a warzone and self-defense in a regular town or city in america are polar opposites... how is that not clear??? 

go carry a grenade around concealed and ask yourself if it is really practical while defending yourself in the wal mart parking lot.. because it really is not.. I cannot believe I have to spell this out...

what an asinine comment.


a one-time explosive device is just as practical as a pistol with a 12 round magazine??? FAIL!!!!

----------


## Dr.3D

> wow.. once again.. I am seeing very little common sense. 
> 
> seriously?
> 
> offense/defense in a warzone and self-defense in a regular town or city in america are polar opposites... how is that not clear??? 
> 
> go carry a grenade around concealed and ask yourself if it is really practical while defending yourself in the wal mart parking lot.. because it really is not.. I cannot believe I have to spell this out...
> 
> what an asinine comment.
> ...


Myself, I prefer a front and rear claymore belt.   Can't miss that way.

----------


## Acala

Violence is a software problem, not a hardware problem.  You cannot stop people from hurting each other by trying to limit their tools.  People were murdering each other in frightening numbers before guns had even been invented.  The only things guns have changed is giving physically weaker people an even playing field.

----------


## KCIndy

> Good afternoon.
> However, a liberal's comment struck me. I don't have it in front of me, but it basically supported gun control. He suggested that violent acts with hand grenades were rare. The implication from this was that if guns were treated the same as hand grenades, gun violence would be rare.
> 
> I'm an ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment, but this statement... puzzled me. What are your thoughts? 
> 
> Thank you in advance.






> there is very little practical use for grenades... for self-defense or even commiting robbery or theft of any kind.. sounds pretty silly and unrealistic..
> 
> carry pistols are very handy and very practical. so are rifles and shotguns... all depends on the situation but a grenade is just not comparable and whoever made the leap did not understand firearms and had very little common sense(which is becoming less and less common)



My first thought was along similar lines.  The "hand grenade killings are really rare!" argument can only be made by someone who doesn't understand firearms and has likely never so much as fired a gun.

As strange as it may seem to the novice, there are some damn good reasons why hand grenades aren't used in killings, and probably wouldn't be even if one could buy grenades by the case on every street corner.  


Let's look at the disadvantages.  For the sake of argument, let's look at a grenade vs. a pistol:

1.  A grenade is only effective as far as you can throw it.  A reasonably skilled shooter can hit a man-sized target at 50 yards.

2.  A grenade gives you one - exactly one - attempt at a kill.  Even a lowly revolver is going to give you six times as many attempts.

3.  Cost and ability to reuse.  I'll admit I have no idea what a grenade costs, but I'm guessing they're probably not cheap.  And one you use it, it's gone.  With a pistol you make one initial investment, and after that you're just paying for the ammo.

4.  Portability.  Even a fairly large pistol can be carried with some discretion, depending on the type of holster and location on the body.  But imagine trying to hide a hand grenade.  Then imagine trying to carry five or six of them discreetly.  "Is that a grenade in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?"  

5.  With a bit of practice, a shooter can become very accurate and very deadly.  Unless you're a pro baseball player, your 100th grenade toss is likely to be as erratic as your first.  And God help you if you have a tendency toward "Butterfingers" syndrome!  

6.  Unintended consequences!  Per the "butterfingers" scenario above, I'm guessing it would be a lot easier to accidentally injure oneself with a grenade than with a pistol.  A bullet ricochet is bad enough, but if one makes a weak toss with a grenade, or it bounces off the target back toward the tosser, or if it's a "bobble" and rolls back downhill...  Well, just ask Wile E. Coyote how that feels! 

Those are just off the top of my head.  I'm sure there are better reasons I'm missing entirely.  

Anyone else want to add a suggestion?

----------


## Fourteen

> Hand grenades? Seriously?
> 
> For a very long time,, and even in my youth,, Dynamite was commonly available.. And some folks had hand grenades,, but few actually.
> 
> Dynamite was used in a few crimes,,, but very few and very rare,, even though it was commonly available.
> 
> Fully Automatic Machine guns were at one time commonly available.. but crimes were rare. And since they have been tightly registered and limited in supply,, I only know of one ever being used in a crime.. And that was by a Police officer.
> 
> It really goes back to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.. It was not primarily for crime prevention,, though that is a secondary benefit.
> ...


To be clear, I rejected the liberal's hand grenade comparison as nonsensical. For whatever reason, it threw me for a loop, I guess. 

In any case, thank you all for the feedback.

----------


## TheTexan

> wow.. once again.. I am seeing very little common sense.


I agree.  A hand grenade ban is a common sense measure for the safety of the State, e.g. for the children.  Just think of the children.  Common sense.

If in such a situation were to arise where a large armed street gang were to become aggressively violent against you, just call the police; they have the grenades that you need, and will be happy to help you.

Its just common sense.

----------


## staerker

> wow.. once again.. I am seeing very little common sense. 
> 
> seriously?
> 
> offense/defense in a warzone and self-defense in a regular town or city in america are polar opposites... how is that not clear??? 
> 
> go carry a grenade around concealed and ask yourself if it is really practical while defending yourself in the wal mart parking lot.. because it really is not.. I cannot believe I have to spell this out...
> 
> what an asinine comment.
> ...


Received negrep from Kotin: "lieast [ sic ] intelligent comment i have seen on here in some time.. yikes."

Lol.

I am not worried about defending myself in a Walmart parking lot.

Again. Your argument is analogous to the "assault rifle" argument.

----------


## KCIndy

> To be clear, I rejected the liberal's hand grenade comparison as nonsensical. For whatever reason, it threw me for a loop, I guess. 
> 
> In any case, thank you all for the feedback.



You're welcome, and most of all, welcome to RPF!  (even if you have been lurking for a long time!)  I hope you'll register and jump in and join the fun!

----------


## KCIndy

> I am not worried about defending myself in a Walmart parking lot.


I hope you're not counting on the police to show up and protect you.  Seriously, I really hope that's not where you're placing your trust.

----------


## staerker

> I hope you're not counting on the police to show up and protect you.  Seriously, I really hope that's not where you're placing your trust.


No? Random comment, given my stated position.

I simply am not worried about that situation.

----------


## oyarde

> Good afternoon.
> 
> Before I ask my question, I think I should explain myself a bit. I have lurked RPF for quite some time now. I would probably label myself something of a Social Conservative and economic Libertarian, and I agree with a lot of things that are said here, namely Free Market economics, the 2nd Amendment, and so forth. I have some disagreements with some of the things said here (and by Dr. Paul himself), but that's not what I'm here for. 
> 
> Anyway, earlier today I was reading an article regarding how certain areas of the country have various problems. The comments section veered into basically how Chicago had significant violence problems. Naturally, Conservative/Libertarian posters supported the availability of firearms for self defense, and criticized the city's gun control laws, and how they did nothing to stop the violence.
> 
> However, a liberal's comment struck me. I don't have it in front of me, but it basically supported gun control. He suggested that violent acts with hand grenades were rare. The implication from this was that if guns were treated the same as hand grenades, gun violence would be rare.
> 
> I'm an ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment, but this statement... puzzled me. What are your thoughts? 
> ...


I should be able to purchase grenades and dynamite .

----------


## Cleaner44

> Good afternoon.
> 
> Before I ask my question, I think I should explain myself a bit. I have lurked RPF for quite some time now. I would probably label myself something of a Social Conservative and economic Libertarian, and I agree with a lot of things that are said here, namely Free Market economics, the 2nd Amendment, and so forth. I have some disagreements with some of the things said here (and by Dr. Paul himself), but that's not what I'm here for. 
> 
> Anyway, earlier today I was reading an article regarding how certain areas of the country have various problems. The comments section veered into basically how Chicago had significant violence problems. Naturally, Conservative/Libertarian posters supported the availability of firearms for self defense, and criticized the city's gun control laws, and how they did nothing to stop the violence.
> 
> However, a liberal's comment struck me. I don't have it in front of me, but it basically supported gun control. He suggested that violent acts with hand grenades were rare. The implication from this was that if guns were treated the same as hand grenades, gun violence would be rare.
> 
> I'm an ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment, but this statement... puzzled me. What are your thoughts? 
> ...


The problem isn't _gun_ violence, the problem is violence.

When people in China slaughter each other with machetes, that doesn't devastate a family any less.

I want less violence in the world and gun possession is one of the best defenses against violent people.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Anyway, earlier today I was reading an article regarding how certain areas of the country have various problems.



Please repost this article.

----------


## Fourteen

> Please repost this article.


Errr... it won't let me post links if I'm not a member. It's from ijreview, and The name of the article is:

"Which of the 7 Deadly Sins Are People Committing the Most in Your State? These Maps Will Show You."

----------


## Dr.3D

> Errr... it won't let me post links if I'm not a member. It's from ijreview, and The name of the article is:
> 
> "Which of the 7 Deadly Sins Are People Committing the Most in Your State? These Maps Will Show You."


http://www.ijreview.com/2014/09/1748...ins-committed/

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Errr... it won't let me post links if I'm not a member. It's from ijreview, and The name of the article is:
> 
> "Which of the 7 Deadly Sins Are People Committing the Most in Your State? These Maps Will Show You."


I did not see anyone in the comments section making the comment you stated regarding hand grenades.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Good afternoon.
> 
> Before I ask my question, I think I should explain myself a bit. I have lurked RPF for quite some time now. I would probably label myself something of a Social Conservative and economic Libertarian, and I agree with a lot of things that are said here, namely Free Market economics, the 2nd Amendment, and so forth. I have some disagreements with some of the things said here (and by Dr. Paul himself), but that's not what I'm here for. 
> 
> Anyway, earlier today I was reading an article regarding how certain areas of the country have various problems. The comments section veered into basically how Chicago had significant violence problems. Naturally, Conservative/Libertarian posters supported the availability of firearms for self defense, and criticized the city's gun control laws, and how they did nothing to stop the violence.
> 
> However, a liberal's comment struck me. I don't have it in front of me, but it basically supported gun control. He suggested that violent acts with hand grenades were rare. The implication from this was that if guns were treated the same as hand grenades, gun violence would be rare.
> 
> I'm an ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment, but this statement... puzzled me. What are your thoughts? 
> ...




I won't hold my breath waiting on an answer to my question about why there is nothing in the comments section about grenades.  

Your entire post actually looks like it came off the troll template.  Come back and troll when you're less than 100% predictable.  LOL.

----------


## staerker

> I won't hold my breath waiting on an answer to my question about why there is nothing in the comments section about grenades.  
> 
> Your entire post actually looks like it came off the troll template.  Come back and troll when you're less than 100% predictable.  LOL.


Why does it matter? The question has been asked, whether it came from another website or not.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> The question has been asked, whether it came from another website or not.



Except it's not a real question.  It's an anti-gun argument that is within a made up story.







> Why does it matter?


It would matter if someone is really trying to promote a message.  

Not every person who reads the original post will read the second post (maybe, for example, it would be only 90%).  Not everyone who reads the original post and the second post would read the next post (maybe that number would be 80%). Each succeeding post means a smaller and smaller percentage of readers. 

Posting a thread in a forum is not really the best way to promote an argument, so maybe the OP was just doing something personal and does not care.  If however, you're promoting a message, then you want to be the person behind the original message.  You don't want to be the commenter or the replier.  You want to be the article writer or the Youtube creator.

There are many people who will have viewed a viral video with several million hits.  Very few people however, are reading comment number 1,762.

----------


## Fourteen

> I did not see anyone in the comments section making the comment you stated regarding hand grenades.


It's listed under the Facebook comments, a man named Nathan to be exact. You'll have to click on the "View More" button to see the the actual comment. His exact post is: "Then why aren't more crimes committed with hand grenades?"

Rest assured, I'm not here to troll.

----------


## pcosmar

> Rest assured, I'm not here to troll.


Well that's cool then. We have a 2nd Amendment sub forum as well as Personal Security and Defense sub forum.
Join in the discussions.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> It's listed under the Facebook comments, a man named Nathan to be exact. You'll have to click on the "View More" button to see the the actual comment. His exact post is: "Then why aren't more crimes committed with hand grenades?"
> 
> Rest assured, I'm not here to troll.



That is where I looked.  I see one comments section with 229 comments (217 when I first looked).  I don't see the comment to which you refer.


Edit: I just saw it after making this comment.  Seems I had to click on something else within the comments.  Please excuse this Luddite.  My apologies to you and your comment.

----------


## Fourteen

> That is where I looked.  I see one comments section with 229 comments (217 when I first looked).  I don't see the comment to which you refer.
> 
> 
> Edit: I just saw it after making this comment.  Seems I had to click on something else within the comments.  Please excuse this Luddite.  My apologies to you and your comment.


Not a problem. I'm not much of a tech man myself.

If I haven't been clear so far, I do support the 2nd Amendment, I do support the right to self defense, and I do reject what the liberal commenter said.

----------


## Deborah K

> It's listed under the Facebook comments, a man named Nathan to be exact. You'll have to click on the "View More" button to see the the actual comment. His exact post is: "Then why aren't more crimes committed with hand grenades?"
> 
> Rest assured, I'm not here to troll.


Welcome.

His question begs another question:  Why aren't more crimes committed with knives?

Which is what would happen if guns were banned.  As Acala has accurately pointed out, it's not the weapon of choice that is the issue, it's the propensity for violence.

But Peter nails it:




> It really goes back to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.. It was not primarily for crime prevention,, though that is a secondary benefit.  It was intended to keep the Government in Check,, and to overthrow it, if and when necessary. 
> It was there to protect "the people" from the Government.

----------


## Fourteen

When liberals (statists) try to convince people that banning weapons will lead to less violence, I find it absurd. Look at our prison system:

For the sake of clarity, let's pretend that you're in prison for assault or armed robbery or something. Your life behind bars is heavily monitored and you're allowed very, very little privacy or freedom of any kind. Of course, you can't have a weapon. Despite all of this, inmates still find ways to attack each other. 

The lesson is that no matter how heavily a group of people is controlled, people will always find a way to attack each other. Banning guns will only harm innocent people.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> When liberals (statists) try to convince people that banning weapons will lead to less violence, I find it absurd. Look at our prison system:
> 
> For the sake of clarity, let's pretend that you're in prison for assault or armed robbery or something. Your life behind bars is heavily monitored and you're allowed very, very little privacy or freedom of any kind. Of course, you can't have a weapon. Despite all of this, inmates still find ways to attack each other. 
> 
> The lesson is that no matter how heavily a group of people is controlled, people will always find a way to attack each other. Banning guns will only harm innocent people.


Very good point.

I went overboard in the other post.  I'm getting paranoid lately.  Sorry about that.

----------


## osan

> However, a liberal's comment struck me. I don't have it in front of me, but it basically supported gun control. He suggested that violent acts with hand grenades were rare. The implication from this was that if guns were treated the same as hand grenades, gun violence would be rare.
> 
> I'm an ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment, but this statement... puzzled me. What are your thoughts?


How much thought does this assessment require?  Not much, IMO.  That "liberal" is either ignorant, an idiot, or is selling something.  The so-called logic of the statement is rife with error.  If guns were treated like hand grenades... what in hell does that even mean?  If elephants were 1940 Hudsons...

I am afraid your perplexity evades me.  What is it that "struck" you about the comment?  It obviously was not the rank FAIL represented there.  What else of note is there?

----------


## Fourteen

> How much thought does this assessment require?  Not much, IMO.  That "liberal" is either ignorant, an idiot, or is selling something.  The so-called logic of the statement is rife with error.  If guns were treated like hand grenades... what in hell does that even mean?  If elephants were 1940 Hudsons...
> 
> I am afraid your perplexity evades me.  What is it that "struck" you about the comment?  It obviously was not the rank FAIL represented there.  What else of note is there?


Honestly, I probably gave the comment/commenter more credit than it deserved. I should not have taken the bait.

----------

