Why do we need guns?...

JoshLowry said:
It has been working this way.

Here are our highest repped users: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/memberlist.php?order=desc&sort=reputation&pp=30

All high quality liberty lovers.
Click to expand...

And I would gladly turn over some of my "rep" to Gunny and RPH to put them at the top.

Glenn and Mike are the two people here that I feel, more than anybody else, have really "gone above and beyond the call of duty" in the work of spreading liberty in a real world way.

Not to take away the efforts that others have made, of course, but these two men are really "walking the walk".
 
Anti Federalist said:
Glenn and Mike are the two people here that I feel, more than anybody else, have really "gone above and beyond the call of duty" in the work of spreading liberty in a real world way.

these two men are really "walking the walk".
Click to expand...

I agree!

I'd love to hand out past rep for past activism, but it'd be impossible to do it fairly.
 
JoshLowry said:
I agree!

I'd love to hand out past rep for past activism, but it'd be impossible to do it fairly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that would be a herculean task, for sure.

I rep them both when the system lets me.

I still haven't figured out what exactly has to happen before you can give rep to the same person again.

Is it time, or number reps or posts or what?

In fact I think I owe RPH one.
 
Why do we need guns?...

Because the enemies of Liberty have them. They will and do use them.

Honest men bear arms in defense, of themselves and of others.
Criminals and tyrants use them for aggression.

Without guns,(Arms) honest men are defenseless against armed aggressors.
 
pcosmar said:
Why do we need guns?...

Because the enemies of Liberty have them. They will and do use them.

Honest men bear arms in defense, of themselves and of others.
Criminals and tyrants use them for aggression.

Without guns,(Arms) honest men are defenseless against armed aggressors.
Click to expand...

good points.

Why do we need guns?...

I think this questions kind of misses the point. Guns exist in reality, whether we "need" them or not. Now, the only way you're going to get a gun owner to give up their private property is to send men after them with guns... so how can anyone say that people don't have a right to have guns?

How the hell do they think "gun control" will be enforced? WITH GUNS.

Most gun owners are responsible and the last thing they would ever want to do is use their gun on a human. However the "gun control" advocates are literally asking men with guns to go and use their guns on other people.
 
Last edited:
We need guns because those are the tools bequeathed us by the founders of this country to keep its government under control. QED
 
Pericles said:
We need guns because those are the tools bequeathed us by the founders of this country to keep its government under control. QED
Click to expand...

That's the typical argument that the "gun control" people expect. It's easy for them to argue against, because the founders were just flawed men like all men are. The reason gun ownership is the rational and moral position, is not because anyone said so...

You can't take peoples guns away, without sending men after them with guns.... Hold to that logic, and they will have no choice but to fold their hand. The cognitive dissonance may cause them to get angry with you, but the observers will see you as the logical one.

You gotta back them into a corner with sound logic, in order to destroy their arguments.
 
Last edited:
ClayTrainor said:
That's the typical argument that the "gun control" people expect. It's easy for them to argue against, because the founders were just flawed men like all men are. The reason gun ownership is the rational and moral position, is not because anyone said so...

You can't take peoples guns away, without sending men after them with guns.... Hold to that logic, and they will have no choice but to fold their hand. The cognitive dissonance may cause them to get angry with you, but the observers will see you as the logical one.

You gotta back them into a corner with sound logic, in order to destroy their arguments.
Click to expand...

Ah but Clay, those men using the guns to take the guns away from the other people have been authorized to do so by the government.


........ Just throwing it out there what some clown is going to say back. People seem to believe the government has special powers that make it able to do things ordinary citizens (the mundane) should not be able to do.
 
Suppose you were a gun-control person. If I gave you gun (as a present) would you go out and kill people ? I doubt it. Therefore I don't see why somebody should be denied to the right to acquire property through just means.
 
Dr.3D said:
Ah but Clay, those men using the guns to take the guns away from the other people have been authorized to do so by the government.


........ Just throwing it out there what some clown is going to say back. People seem to believe the government has special powers that make it able to do things ordinary citizens (the mundane) should not be able to do.
Click to expand...

Correct, and that is exactly the line of thinking of the species of tyrant which infests the circle of my acquaintance. The well reasoned argument that we instinctively understand makes no difference to them. They believe a ban to be effective over time even without force, as eventually the gun owners will die, and the next generation will have been properly educated to despise such implements of violence. For some reason, there is an acceptance of such weaponry being in the hands of police and military (presumably only as long as those institutions remain under the control of their "betters").

I like to attack that line of thinking in the following manner. When I was on active duty, I had the authority to order the issue of any weapon in the Army inventory except nukes. Now, as a civilian, whether or not I should have access to a handgun is a matter of debate. At what point was I no longer qualified to have access to weapons? This eliminates the "training" excuse, and moves the issue exactly where it belongs - control.

Once we let the debate be about "need" rather than "rights" we surrender the main point. It is not about my requirement to justify a "need" for a gun, drive a Mercedes, own a 8000 sq. ft. home, or have a girlfriend who wears a D cup. It is about rights and the concept of liberty to which we are the inheritors of a tremendous legacy.

Free citizens own the means of their defense, and thus maintain control of the state by controlling the means of war, while slaves are disarmed, and live at the pleasure of their masters.
 
Last edited:
Dr.3D said:
Ah but Clay, those men using the guns to take the guns away from the other people have been authorized to do so by the government.
Click to expand...

This is a likely response... I'd follow up with something like...

"Okay, so we both agree that there are at least some people who should be be able to have guns. I believe no one should have the right to initiate the use of guns on other people, and you believe some people should have the right to initiate the use of guns on other people. Is this fair to say? Why or why not?"

That'll really fire up their cognitive dissonance. :D

........ Just throwing it out there what some clown is going to say back. People seem to believe the government has special powers that make it able to do things ordinary citizens (the mundane) should not be able to do.
Click to expand...

It's a fair point. It's not likely you'll convince the gun control advocate of anything, but so long as you dismantle their argument with sound logic, undecided observers will see who is being rational and who isn't. It's highly likely that you'll make the gun control advocate frustrated and angry, and as long as you stay calm and rational, he's gonna look pretty dumb. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Occam's Banana
NY dem: states should ban corporations from selling guns
Replies
9
Views
920
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
Why We Need a Weak President
Replies
0
Views
434
PAF
PAF
PAF
We Need a New System, Not a New President
Replies
3
Views
2K
acptulsa
acptulsa
Anti Federalist
Whoopi Goldberg: ‘We Need to Know’ What Guns Americans Own
Replies
11
Views
864
AngryCanadian
A
Matt Collins
Rand and Booker introduce anti-asset forfeiture bill
Replies
0
Views
817
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Back
Top