Eight Great Reasons to Buy Guns (As If You Needed Them)

By Richard Klein

Two common mistakes that many pro-Second Amendment people make when talking about guns and anti-gun laws are 1) complaining (to fellow gun owners), or 2) preaching to the choir. So I pledge that I won’t do any complaining complain here and I won’t preach to you about why so ‘n so law is ridiculous. Instead, I want to share a few thoughts on guns that may help in taking on the forces that oppose the Second Amendment and everything it stands for. I buy guns for a variety of reasons and here are some of the reasons why . . .

GUNS ARE AN INVESTMENT

I buy guns because I view guns as an investment– a means of preserving wealth for a future need. Over the long haul, guns kept in good repair will appreciate in value, especially in the case of quality firearms. Moreover, as the anti-gun busybodies try to act to ban guns and related gear, the net effect is that the investment value inevitably increases.

They’re also an easily transported investment. I buy them because guns maintain value, an open, active market exists and that market isn’t “quoted.” The absence of a quoted market means that a skilled trader can turn a profit by making careful trades. I consider myself as a skilled trader, and hence I enjoy a commodity that isn’t quoted, as a quoted market takes all the fun out of swaps and trades.

Another plus is that they’re frequently bought and sold on a cash basis – as opposed to checks, credit cards, and other paper trails. Believers in guns and in the Second Amendment are a superstitious lot at best, and they don’t take lightly to leaving paper trails for governmental and regulatory snoops and busy bodies to sniff out.

GUNS ARE FUNCTIONAL

I buy guns because guns are tools that can be called upon to do a job. Tools are unique to mankind, as very few other creatures make and use them.

I buy guns because having guns permits me perform a public service. I can help in my own way by ridding the world of a stray coyote, a rabid dog and even deer that contribute, as silent killers, to the untold number of deer-vehicle accidents and resultant damages and even deaths.

I buy guns — and hone my skills with them — because a gun in hand is the fastest response to a violent threat to me or my family.

And I buy them because I enjoy hunting. Hunting serves as a touchstone or mechanism for me to tell that I’m still alive and able to function.

GUNS ARE AN ART FORM, SOMETHING WITH BEAUTY AND GRACE

I buy guns because guns represent – and are – works of art. In short, they are beautiful to look at.

I buy guns because they’re physical and geometric in nature, and stimulate the right side of my brain.

I buy guns because guns instill in me a sense of history. By holding a Model 1875 “Trapdoor” I can envision riding with Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders or General Custer. By holding a flintlock, I can dream of being alongside Daniel Boone. By holding an M-1 Garand, I become immersed in the history of WWII. By holding a single action army, I can envision being alongside Wyatt Earp.

GUNS ARE INHERENTLY TIED TO SPORTS AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

I buy guns because firearms, and the proper handling and marksmanship associated with them, represent a life sport. As a life sport, I can keep agile mentally and physically – even as my body ages. Contact “ball” games like football and such are strictly for the younger set.

I buy guns because they keep me thinking in an alert and “condition yellow” mode. This is in contrast to so many in our society who are best described as “fat and happy.” The “fat and happy” are often oblivious to the predators lurking among us in the shadows waiting for a ripe pigeon to stumble along. In short, I don’t consider myself an easy mark – and it’s my familiarity with guns and self-defense that hones my skills.

GUNS ARE INHERENTLY POLITICAL

I buy guns because guns allow me to make a political statement. There are two types of people in this world – those who believe in the worth and dignity of the common man and those who believe that man should be subservient to an elite. I believe in the former, and my ownership of guns is the embodiment of that belief.

I buy guns because doing so makes my life easier and less complex. As an illustration, I own and drive several heavy vehicles, one being a 15-passenger van.  In short, numerous “charitable” groups ask from time to time for permission to borrow my van. An amazing thing happened – I put a pro-gun bumper sticker on the van – and now the usage request rate has dropped. It’s amazing how a little sticker can help separate the wheat from the chaff.

GUNS BRING ME HAPPINESS

I buy guns because in doing so, I can create family traditions and heirlooms to pass onto future generations in my family.

I buy guns because I can work with young people and say, “I respect and trust you, so here is this rifle for you to use and use wisely.” In contrast, the nanny state and the status of children as non-people is preserved and never challenged by those who will never trust a child or young person. I taught my daughter and my son how to shoot. I am now teaching my grandson, age six, how to shoot. Working with a youngster is a rite of passage – something sorely needed in our society of fake this and fake that.

I buy guns because being skilled with them the marksmanship that comes from practice brings consequences to the forefront. Computer geeks can bang away at their computers, for example, with little harm ever coming to anyone or even themselves. But in using firearms, one learns that actions have consequences – serious consequences. Bullets aimed and discharged can’t be “deleted” or taken back.

I buy guns because I’m taught valuable lessons in the process. I am constantly reminded of the meaning of words such as “parabola” and “oxidation.” Guns embody many elements of chemistry, physics, optics, metallurgy, manufacturing, economics, knowledge of human anatomy, human kinetics, and mathematics. Moreover, modern firearms, and their evolution, are a result of materials, knowledge, and invention, combined with the laws of physics.

Even though foolish legislators and would-be do-gooders eternally try, the laws of physics can’t be repealed and man’s knowledge base as well as man’s inherent ability to invent can’t be squelched. A spinning projectile – whether it’s a football or a speeding bullet — can be stable in flight whereas a non-spinning projectile is less stable and thus less accurate. I learn about, and am constantly reminded of, the laws of physics and man’s ability to be creative. The materials and knowledge requisite to the making of guns are just too prevalent in our world to ever be banned or legislated out of existence. By buying guns, I get my daily education – and I remain competitive.

I buy guns because I like guns. I like the idea of fondling guns, as handling them brings me pleasure. I admit that I’ve had a longstanding love affair with firearms, but it’s legal, moral and non-fattening. Also, that love affair doesn’t interfere with the other love affairs in life.

I buy and like guns because doing so permits me to have a social life. I find gun owners to be very down to earth, generally intelligent, open, non-judgmental and friendly. In short, I feel very relaxed, safe, and comfortable around fellow gun owners. I can hardly say the same about my closet liberal friends who are astounded when they find out that I like guns.

I buy guns because they serve as amplifiers of my voice. In short, I can speak very softly and yet people still hear me quite well, especially when those persons – those meaning harm to me – know or even sense that I’m armed and have the will to defend myself. I buy guns because I learned early in life that one should never take a knife to a gun fight.

GUNS INVOKE REALITY

I buy guns because they invoke reality. Gun owners, in my view, are realistic people.  Conversely, those who fear and loathe guns, in my view, end up living a fantasy life like that of Chicken Little where they end up jumping at every turn, fearful of every shadow.

GUNS DEFEND FREEDOM AND THEOLOGY

I buy guns because I believe that it’s my civic duty to do so. An insidious cancer is spreading in our society under the guise of “the theory of passive resistance.”  Sarah Brady and her followers who espouse that theory, for example, believe in the phrase, “Give them (thugs, rapists, and terrorists) what they want.” Disarming ourselves, individually or as a nation, won’t make our enemies any less evil nor any less intent on inflicting harm on us.

Nehemiah advised his workers (when rebuilding the wall under considerable opposition) to be armed with sword at side. Many unscholarly people like to quote the Bible and in particular the part about “thou shall not kill.” These people are misinformed and dangerous. The translation from Hebrew is better said as “you shall not commit murder.”  In that context, murder means to venomously hate someone, as if to wish the person dead or subject to great misfortune.

When we use forearms to defend ourselves, we are preserving life, not committing murder. Ownership of a firearm is in no way associated with hatred of people. God-fearing gun owners who believe in the Second Amendment don’t want anybody dead – we merely want to be left in peace and free to pursue happiness – with our families and within our communities.

A version of this article originally appeared at gunssavelife.com and is re-printed here with permission.

98 Responses to Eight Great Reasons to Buy Guns (As If You Needed Them)

  1. avatarThomas Paine says:

    amen!

  2. avatarAharon says:

    Good comprehensive post. Helping to rid America of the excess deer population that contributes to deer-vehicle accidents and fatalities is a noble humanitarian act. If it but saves one human life it is worth it.

  3. avatarCameron S. says:

    My favorite point is that of reality. Two of the most “real” days of my life were the days of my first successful hunt and the day I first carried.

    Oh, and the pleasure point. Every new gun I get makes me smile for weeks :)

    • avatarMike S says:

      Same here. No experience in my life has made the reality of my existence clearer to me than taking my first buck.
      Its only equal could be the moment I realized I had met my future wife.

  4. avatarPaul says:

    Bravo!

  5. avatarإبليس says:

    Our (fire)arms protect freedom from theology.

  6. avatarCyrano says:

    “There are two types of people in this world. Those with guns and those who dig. You dig.”

    TGTBTU.

    Don’t let the government be the only ones with guns.

  7. avatarBilly says:

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/breaking-confirmed-wal-mart-is-not-going-to-order-any-more-ammo/

    Not sure if this is true or not, haven’t verified it for myself, but I just found this.

  8. Brilliant! This parody borders on the genius of Stephen Colbert. I love how you’ve created this character. I can actually see him as a real person.

    One of my favorite quotes is this one:
    “I buy guns because doing so makes my life easier and less complex. As an illustration, I own and drive several heavy vehicles, one being a 15-passenger van. In short, numerous “charitable” groups ask from time to time for permission to borrow my van. An amazing thing happened – I put a pro-gun bumper sticker on the van – and now the usage request rate has dropped. It’s amazing how a little sticker can help separate the wheat from the chaff.”

    I can just see the selfish arrogance bleeding from this prose.

    “Those who fear and loathe guns, in my view, end up living a fantasy life like that of Chicken Little where they end up jumping at every turn, fearful of every shadow.”

    Masterful use of irony here. I love how the voice doesn’t even recognize how it is actually the man who is obsessed with being armed at all times who fears danger at every corner and is ever ready to pull a gun on something. I also like how he doesn’t even recognize that though he is well-knowledgeable about the Old Testament, and accuses those who follow the passive resistance of Jesus of not knowing the Ten Commandments, he himself does not even consider the New Testament. Brilliant reference to the Pharisee’s spiritual plight in this character.

    If this guy were real, I would feel extremely sorry for him, especially if he was so insecure that he felt he needed to point a gun at people to have his voice listened to, and that he feels he doesn’t have friends in people who don’t own guns. I think it works as a great microcosm for America. Well done. You should seriously think of a career in satire.

    • avatarPaul says:

      Caleb — do they have a concept of ‘freedom’ on your planet? If so, how do they protect it?

    • avataraaronintx says:

      Wrong site buddy.

    • avatarSilver says:

      “If they are after my property, I would most certainly rather them live and take it than die and me keep it. If they are after my wife and child, I will do what I can to stop them [with a baseball bat].” From this guy’s blog. Should tell you all you need to know about him.

      I pity your family.

      • avatarChris from Iowa says:

        My crappy work computer won’t allow me to open it but I probably don’t need to. I expected to find a bunch of bleeding heart protectionist hoodoo about how he doesn’t need a gun because the police have a phone number.

        I pity his family too. If he plans to bring a bat to a gun fight when a meth head breaks in looking for stuff to sell for his next fix, he will be dead long before said meth head decides to have some “private time” with his wife/kid before leaving. What a sad sad state of mind to have. Me? I’d rather have as many of the odds in my favor as possible in that situation.

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        Ash or aluminum?

    • avatarAharon says:

      You should think about a career as a mortician. The corpses wouldn’t laugh at you for being an ignorant troll.

    • avatarAharon says:

      http://calebcoy.wordpress.com/

      Your blog’s entries or posts just ramble on and on don’t make any sense. I think you’re jealous of the author of this post since he is an adult man and is willing to deal with the harsh realities of this world. Keep drinking that morally superior kool-aid.

    • avatarfoggy says:

      Caleb, your blog reads like very poor satire.

      Good luck defending yourself with your baseball bat.

  9. avatarChris from Iowa says:

    “When we use forearms to defend ourselves, we are preserving life, not committing murder.”

    Would these forearms be the bare arms that I keep hearing so much about lately?

    ;)

    • avatarRandy Drescher says:

      That was fineswine,s bare arms, nothing I want to see again. One more episode from her like that & I’m calling for a return of the Salem Witchcraft trials, Randy

  10. avatarRalph says:

    I buy guns because I like them. I also buy guns because they piss off people that I don’t like. The more they hate me, the better I like it, and the more I like my guns.

  11. avatarJesse Nelson says:

    Guns don’t bring me happiness… they actually make me sad…

    Sad because I can’t afford the ones I really want!

  12. They do have a concept of freedom on my planet. It was bought and paid for by one person, ever. It is all the freedom I will ever need and those who came before me carrying this freedom accomplished all they ever dreamed of accomplishing with it, whether they rotted in prison, were tortured, or fed to lions. So yes, we do have a concept of freedom on my planet. I invite you to taste of it.

    • avatarSilver says:

      coughvictimcomplexcough

      I’m sorry that I don’t find self-righteous satisfaction in being a “free” victim, or moral superiority in self-imposed oppression. I’ll stick with traditional freedom, thanks, the kind which is practiced by good, moral people who realize that if everyone selfishly took the passive route to peace, there would be no peaceful people left.

    • avatarإبليس says:

      I’ve read your blog and admire your pacifism. Please continue to practice the Good Word.

      • avatarDQ says:

        Why does a pacifist have a bat next to a bed, I thought they’d never retaliate and just turn the other cheek? Shouldn’t he allow the offender do conduct his business of robbing and hurting people of the house?

    • avatarRandy Drescher says:

      Sorry, When the believers heard “drink the Kool Aid” that was all they ever needed to know & the last thing they knew. I appreciate the invite & “taste test”, I’ll stick with organic juices, though, Randy

    • avatarChris says:

      Caleb, you seem to want to go more on the biblical side of this debate and state that it is not right to defend oneself or family in a way that would harm another, so I figured I would post a bit of scripture for you to think on.

      Exodus 2:2-3
      If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

      Proverbs 25:26
      Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.

      Luke 11:21
      When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe;

      Where a lot of people like to reference against self defense are scriptures such as:

      Romans 12:19
      Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

      Romans 13:4
      For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

      Matthew 5:38-39
      “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

      If you read the full context in which it is written, each of these passages were speaking of vengence after the fact, not preventing or defending yourself during a theft or assault. It is a common misconception when people read these verses alone and do not take the full context of what is being discussed.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Caleb Guard, a lot of non-Christians have tasted that kind of freedom and found it bitter.

    • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

      I would respect the courage of your conviction if:

      1) it was just you involved and no children depended on you. I don’t agree with your ideas, but you have to at least respect someone that is willing to die for their beliefs. That may go for your wife, too. But to offer up your kid, who isn’t old enough to make an informed choice in the matter…that I can’t respect. I wouldn’t shoot someone over a TV either, but I’d damn sure do it to protect my daughters. Though, at the ages 12 and 15 they are pretty quick and have better eyes than the old man. They would probably get a shot off before I did.

      2) You are willing to employ violence, just not with a gun. More people are killed with bats (and similar blunt objects) each year than with rifles and shotguns, by a long ways. You are going to wail on someone with a bat under a stressful situation and hope it doesn’t kill them? You aren’t thinking this through.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      ” It was bought and paid for by one person, ever.”

      Are you the previous owner?

  13. avatarKvjavs says:

    Maybe it’s just me, but the entire article is appearing on the front page.

  14. avatarLow Budget Dave says:

    The dumbest argument that gun nuts always make is that you know what your opponents are thinking, and that Brady just wants to disarm you so the government can push you around, or so you will be defenseless against criminals.

    This is wrong for about 50 different reasons, but I will stick to just two: First, you do not know what Sarah Brady believes. (Or if you do know, and you are intentionally misrepresenting it, then you are a liar.)

    Second, the government will always have the ability to push you around, no matter how many guns you own. If you don’t believe this, try not paying a parking ticket that you feel was unlawful. When they ask you why, tell them that you are heavily armed. Let me know how well that works out.

    • avatarRandy Drescher says:

      sarah brady said there is never ever any reason to shoot someone. I can wrap my mind around that, can you? Randy

    • avatarIng says:

      The name of her organization — the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence — says everything about what Sarah Brady and her ilk believe.

      The fact that it’s only “gun violence” they want to prevent says a lot about them. They’re projecting blame for human acts onto an inanimate object; they view guns as magical murder machines that turn people into criminals; they think criminals will actually obey the Brady brand of law, despite the fact that criminals, by nature, don’t obey laws; and their policies, if fully enacted, would make instant criminals of 150 million peaceful, law-abiding people.

      • avatarRandy Drescher says:

        That is well said, I would only elaborate that there are no bad people in their world, as you said, only ones that happened upon an “evil” gun, Randy

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          See. There is no need for them to speak for themselves. Randy knows everything, and can speak for them.

        • avatarRalph says:

          Ignore Low IQ Dave. He’s just tr0lling. Things must be slow at McDonald’s today.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          It is always good to hear from Ralph, whose idea of debate is name-calling. I but you were captain of the debate team.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          ralph, i quickly found out that he has piss poor reading comprehension.

          im not surprised to say the least. gun grabbers should be so blessed to have a illiterate dolt on their side.

    • avatarfoggy says:

      I know that Sarah Brady believes in the Almighty Dollar.

      Just look over her history, she would not be wealthy if she were not a crusader for gun prohibition. Exploiting her husband’s injury is the best thing that ever happened to her from an economic standpoint.

      • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

        Foggy: By that same standard, the school shooting is the best thing to ever happen to the NRA.

        • avatarIng says:

          In some ways, it might be. They gained a lot of new members, that’s for sure.

          On the other hand, if it wasn’t for the crowd of idiots using this tragedy as an excuse to disarm millions of people who didn’t shoot any children and don’t want to shoot anybody, there wouldn’t be so many people feeling the need to join the NRA right now.

    • avatarDQ says:

      The original intention would be to decrease violence in society. Data has proven that AWB and strict gun laws in some states have no correlation, in fact, violence tends to be much higher in cities with strict gun laws compared to suburbs and rural areas with little to no gun laws.

      Can you guarantee that the government won’t be corrupt like Mexico, Venezuela, or Russia in then next few decades? Without a weapon are you willing surrender yourself to be a victim of violent crimes like the citizens of the UK?

      • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

        DQ: I know what you are saying. I just don’t think that guns will be much use against a corrupt government. Corrupt governments usually don’t take on their citizens Syria-style with tanks and mortar. Corrupt government usually co-opt the church, feed a tide of racism to turn people against each-other, and then use secret programs to spy on anyone who is anti-government.

        Quite frankly, our government is already so divided that they could not do any of this very well.

        Even if the government does eventually turn, and start coming at us with tanks, I don’t think guns will do much good there, either.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          so what exactly is the solution for a corrupt government that is killing its citizens? harsh language? what if voting and speaking to your representatives no longer works? what then?

          and like i said before, we lost the iraq and afghan wars. we had tanks, precision artillery, stealth bombers, drones, and satellite imagery. they bled us dry financially and mounted the bodies high enough to make the advantages of military intervention in future conflicts questionable to say the least.

          we are not at the crossroad to decide whether to employ violence or not. i doubt that will be necessary.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          WLCE, I don’t know that you can have the argument both ways. I don’t think you can claim that owning a gun is in defense of personal liberty, and then advocate not using it.

          Certainly there are some people who just want to be left alone, but that is not how society works. You cannot refuse to pay taxes, for example, in the name of being left alone.

          You can refuse to relinquish your gun, as is your right. But you cannot support “a second American Revolution”, as some on this board do, and still call yourself a patriot.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “WLCE, I don’t know that you can have the argument both ways. I don’t think you can claim that owning a gun is in defense of personal liberty, and then advocate not using it.”

          and there you go with the dualistic “you either use it or you dont” mentality. you know where i stand. im not sure why it is so hard for you to understand.

          “Certainly there are some people who just want to be left alone, but that is not how society works. You cannot refuse to pay taxes, for example, in the name of being left alone.”

          yes, that is how a liberty loving society works. your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. is that so difficult to understand?

          and you are bringing up taxes, a entirely different can of worms with the IRS.

          “You can refuse to relinquish your gun, as is your right. But you cannot support “a second American Revolution”, as some on this board do, and still call yourself a patriot.”

          bullshit. youre still clinging to the dualism with a touch of jingoism. your country right or wrong huh? will you still support a government that tortures, imprisons, and murders its own citizens? you really have no idea what is going on do you?

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          WLCE: I actually do understand where you are coming from. Maybe I over-simplified my point in order to post it on the board. I understand that the American government does torture people. John Yoo wrote a memo for the OLC that said that the President can torture pretty much anyone that he considers to be prisoners of war, and is not bound by the War Crimes Act.

          The Bybee memo was later repudiated, but Yoo got a significant raise and promotion, leading most people to the conclusion that the US still considers torture to be acceptable.

          One of the many downsides of using torture on your political enemies is that you can no longer claim to be the “good guy.” People who chose to arm themselves against the United States usually point to torture at Guantanamo (and other places) as justification.

          In this respect, gun owners have a valid paranoia. They believe that if the government comes to take their guns away, the government will first smear ther reputations by accusing them of “terrorism”, and will then enjoy wide public support for the messy act of retribution.

          This is not just a Ruby-Ridge-in-1992 style fear, this is the way all governments do business. No government ever admits to its soldiers that the “enemy” is just an ordinary bunch of dudes. Instead, they accuse the enemy of horrific crimes, and then attack in force.

          Would the U.S. military been gung-ho to invade Iraq if they knew that Saddam had not WMD’s, and no means to get any? Doubtful.

          Similarly, when the government sends troops to wipe out local militia movements, they are not going to tell the troops that the local militia is just a bunch of 2A lovers who want to be left alone. Instead, they are going to get them fired up on whatever the most recent atrocity is in the news, and then blame a militia for it.

          By the time the truth comes out, if ever, the members of the militia will be long dead.

          Sorry if that is such a long-winded explanation, but some of my earlier notes seem to be misunderstood, maybe due to my lack of detail.

          Anyway, I understand that it is a vastly complex issue, and I understand that neither side can claim “God and the Flag”. The only point I was making is that open warfare against the United States is a type of suicide.

          I am not saying that it is unjustified, because some people place an absurdly high value on the trivialities at the very start of the “slippery slope”. It sounds like those are not your vlaues, but everyone gets to draw their own line, and many people on this board have drawn the line at 100-round magazines.

          To me, this is absurd. I care so little about magazines over 8 that I wouldn’t cross the street to defend this particular right. Same for silencers, same for the AR-15. Same for gun shows.

          Now if the government starts confiscating guns, then I will most likely vote against it. But here’s the thing: The government isn’t going to do that.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          well good. it seems that we have a understanding.

          i will agree with you there. Any government that can sell the war in iraq is capable of nearly anything.

          To me, these blatant examples of oppression and corruption are indefensible and a republic that does not maintain its principles deserves to not exist in the first place. to elaborate on that, i would rather the country split apart than stand united continuing malice around the world, contradicting the very values which we brag about supporting.

          “I am not saying that it is unjustified, because some people place an absurdly high value on the trivialities at the very start of the “slippery slope”.”

          with justifiable reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions

          people should be afraid of governments.

          “To me, this is absurd. I care so little about magazines over 8 that I wouldn’t cross the street to defend this particular right. Same for silencers, same for the AR-15. Same for gun shows.”

          and i can understand having that opinion. ours differ there. I support magazines of all shapes and sizes, silencers (to combat hearing loss), and gun shows.

          “Now if the government starts confiscating guns, then I will most likely vote against it. But here’s the thing: The government isn’t going to do that.”

          Im not paranoid about the government confiscating small arms but i respect the historical examples in which this has happened. that is my motivation for supporting the 2nd amendment. i find it asine that we continue to repeat the same mistakes over and over again as a species.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      “Second, the government will always have the ability to push you around, no matter how many guns you own.”

      yes so your solution is to be disarmed without the capability to resist blatant aggression against the Constitution? thats pretty stupid to put it lightly.

      “If you don’t believe this, try not paying a parking ticket that you feel was unlawful. When they ask you why, tell them that you are heavily armed. Let me know how well that works out.”

      …nobody is arguing against parking tickets. that is a giant red herring if there ever was one. there is a huge difference between being given a parking ticket and having your properly unjustifiably seized or your right to free speech molested.

      • avatarIvy Mike says:

        Not paying parking tickets will get your property seized.

      • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

        WLCE: The parking ticket was just an example, but it applies to all your other rights too. You think your guns are what give you the right to free speech? I doubt it. As we have seen, people without guns get every bit as much free speech as people with guns.

        You think your guns are what keep the government from confiscating your property? Again, I doubt it. If the government suddenly turned on everyone and started confiscating people’s property, your guns won’t help you there either.

        Think about all the “drug dealers” that had their property confiscated. Did their guns help them?

        In America, if your lawyers don’t do the job, your guns won’t either.

        • avatarBrad says:

          And therein lies the difference between you and us. You would give up your property and your freedom in exchange for your life. I would rather die than be rather be a slave. So please put your faith in lawyers and the government as you always have and leave the rest of us to defend our homes as we see fit.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Brad: I have always agreed that people should have the right to defend their homes. The only thing I think people should reconsider is who they believe they are defending themselves against.

          Mugger, Burglar, general purpose bad guy: Guns are a good defense.

          Government, tanks, lawyers: Guns not so effective.

          I think people on the board need to distinguish between rights and reasons. We have the right to own guns. The logical reason is for self-protection and the protection of our families.

          The other reasons, like: “We may need to form a new country called “NRA-istan”, and defend it against UN stormtroopers.” That is just bad fiction.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “WLCE: The parking ticket was just an example, but it applies to all your other rights too. You think your guns are what give you the right to free speech? I doubt it. As we have seen, people without guns get every bit as much free speech as people with guns.”

          A parking ticket is not even in the same sport type of what were talking about in regards to civil liberties. stop bringing this into the conversation. driving is a privilege not a right.

          you are not tracking even one footprint of what i am saying. private firearms are meant as a means of the population to prevent our government from becoming a fiefdom or from slaughtering its own citizens, as evidenced in medieval europe (which was a compelling reason why the founders included it).

          The burden of drawing a line in the sand lies with the population and the 2nd amendment provides a means of overthrowing a true tyrannical government, not immunity from persecution. you are thinking in terms of current events (which obviously doesnt warrant a insurrection). the 2nd amendment is intended for realistic, historical, hypothetical examples.

          you may think the idea of the united states transforming into a tyranny is preposterous, but historical evidence provides such a scenario is anything but impossible.

          “You think your guns are what keep the government from confiscating your property? Again, I doubt it. If the government suddenly turned on everyone and started confiscating people’s property, your guns won’t help you there either.”

          In a hypothetical situation with rampant property seizure, imprisonment, and needless systematic killing of private citizens, yes, arms do provide a means of resistance against the instruments committing those terrible acts. I, for one, prefer to give myself a fighting chance on a fools gambit rather than just give up and hope for the best (which is utterly pathetic).

          if you think small groups of comparatively ill-equipped and ill-trained fighters are ineffective against powerful armies, try reading about the warsaw ghetto uprising sometime.

          that is just one example. i can provide plenty all day long.

          “Think about all the “drug dealers” that had their property confiscated. Did their guns help them?”

          a non sequitur if there ever was one, making such a comparison invalid. im not talking about current events. im talking about a hypothetical oppressive scenario in which the 2nd is designed to counter.

          “In America, if your lawyers don’t do the job, your guns won’t either.”

          Well, you might want to tell that to the private citizens’ lives that were saved by private firearms ownership last year (and the subsequent years before)…im sure they would disagree with you.

          I dont care, quite frankly, that you somehow think the 2nd amendment is invalid in our modern times. you cannot be more incorrect. history has a nasty habit of repeating itself and america is no different than any other failed society and empire throughout history. it will make the same mistakes and we are collapsing from the same paradoxes and mistakes that have crumbled all great societies.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “Government, tanks, lawyers: Guns not so effective.”

          i disagree. youre not exactly a expert in asymmetric warfare are you?

          neither are the other gun grabbing historical revisionists.

        • WLCE: “Asymmetric warfare” is the fancy name for guerrilla tactics. Or, in the case of undeclared war, “terrorism”. So, for example, you are using the DC sniper as your role model, as opposed to Lincoln.

          If you are saying you can take on the government using guerrilla tactics in order to avoid legal action, I doubt it will work. What you are proposing is a new civil war, based on the concept that treason and murder is justified in any case where the government denies your application to buy a silencer.

          You might be able to recruit a bunch of people to move to your compound and wear your uniforms, but it would surprise me. I could be wrong, of course, but I just don’t see background checks as unconstitutional.

          Even if they were, it seems like my preferred course of action would be voting. Certainly, I would give voting a try before I gave up on the Constitution.

          But if you are going to start flying planes into buildings, I should warn you: What you are proposing is not generally considered to be “patriotic.”

        • avatarWLCE says:

          just in case my last didn’t post,

          if that is all that you got out of my last comment dave, that i support flying planes into towers and support the DC sniper, you are a nincompoop. functionally illiterate.

          re-read my comments again. Im fine with background checks. Im fine with paying parking tickets. jesus christ with two hookers on a sybian!

          i believe in non-violence and non-violent passive resistance, but am not naive enough to believe that those two things will work 100% of the time. Its not time to pick up a rifle and i doubt that time will come at all. its still a wise idea to be prepared for such a eventuality in the near future.

          ive established the justifications for a population using force. i dont know why that is so hard to understand. and compounds? a left leaning libertarian would not get along so well in the compounds youre talking about.

          btw, the president we need now is jefferson…not lincoln.

          if you are going to respond back, try and figure out my points first before you just shoot off with the electrons. you will save both of us the time and quite frankly im losing hope that you will eventually understand the points im trying to convey.

          in the meantime, piss off. i have more intelligent people to discuss these topics with. not some pseudo-liberal trying to pass on his “enlightenment”.

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        “and there you go with the dualistic “you either use it or you dont” mentality”

        We can agree that the argument is dualistic; for it to be otherwise (as you seem to believe), I’m gonna need you to lay out what the other options are. Half-kill? Quarter kill? Negative kill? C’mon, Brahma, LAY IT OUT.

        • avatarDave says:

          William,

          I think it is fair to say that, in some cases, people are better prepared to defend themselves with a gun than they would be if unarmed. But this is an argument for individual rights, not an argument that applies to everyone in the country. If everyone were armed, then you would actually be less safe, not more.

          When you sell a man a gun, for example, his ability to respond to certain situations improves, but only if all else is equal. If you sell him a gun, but also sell every other person in the country a gun, you create many more situations where the gun is needed. You also create thousands of situations where the gun will not help you.

          On the 4th of July, for example, where we are ironically celebrating our independence, many people no longer venture outside at night because of the number of falling bullets. Selling guns to people without testing their ability to use them responsibly does not improve your total level of protection, but in many cases, makes it worse.

          The same is true of tyranny. A government that requires background checks is no more likely to infringe on your rights, unless you are counting “the right to own unregulated guns” as your most important right.

          Most people do not. Most people prefer to have the government enforce rights like: “The right not to have all your life’s savings stolen by the bank.” Even in that case, odds are that if the government does not protect you, your guns won’t either.

          The same is true of my neighborhood. I have much more to fear from the random person arming up and shooting people by accident than I have to fear from an armed gang that decides to take the place over. But even if an armed gang does decide to take over, odds are that the local police will discourage them a lot more than I will.

  15. avatarLance says:

    Good read. Yep gun make most of us happy and enjoy the fun they bring.

  16. avatarIvy Mike says:

    The translation from Hebrew is better said as “you shall not commit murder.”

    You are correct.

    If only evangelical Christians would apply the same honesty to the word “virgin,” which actually is better said “young woman.”

    Because if you’re looking for reality, literalistic Holy Ghosts magically impregnating young girls ain’t it. [Besides, if she didn't consent to the act, then the Holy Ghost raped Mary.]

    “To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.”

    ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

    • avatarIng says:

      Interesting… So Thomas Jefferson was on the same track as the Mormons, then. (Or maybe they were on his.)

      They’re all about the spirit as refined substance; to them, the three-in-one everything-everywhere-all-and-nothing Trinity is a weird abstraction. God, Jesus the Savior, and the Holy Ghost exist as a separate, divine trio with defined roles, and they have actual bodies that have been refined into a purity beyond the comprehension of mortals.

      I’m not religious, so I have no real stake in it beyond academic/literary interest, but to me this is the only sensible way to look at it, both logically and in terms of what the Bible actually says. How can humanity be created in God’s image (Hebrew “tselem”: shape, figure, shadow) if God is made of nothing?

      Eh, what? Was somebody saying something about guns?

      • avatarIvy Mike says:

        Not Mormon. Unitarian.

        “I trust there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian.” ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Waterhouse, June 26, 1822

        And yeah, good point there. If god is nothing…well, hey I know a few people “made in his image” in the cranial department. LOL!

        But we are all created in The Gods’ image (Elohim is plural) if Gods is a teleological representation of evolution, physics, cosmology…

        That’s the way I take it.

    • avatarMister Fleas says:

      What the blank does that have to do with the article, kook?

      • avatarIvy Mike says:

        I support the complete 2A. You don’t. You think I’m a kook.

        And if you could read, you’d see the article referenced religion. And guns and religion are often closely correlated, “bitter clingers” to guns and religion and all.

        You need to get your gear squared away before you go spouting off like a stupid Leftist, mac.

    • avatarKirk says:

      Virgin, in the Bible, means ‘pure’, or ‘undefiled.’ Rev 14:4 “These are they who have not been defiled with women, for they are [young women].” really?

      Thomas Jefferson a pretty smart guy, usually. He also literally took a razor blade to the New Testament to get rid of any reference to the supernatural. For him to claim that ”immaterialism” crept in at some later date is intellectually dishonest. He ignores verses such as John 4:24 “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truthfulness.”

      and

      2 Timothy 3:16 “All aScripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,”

      You can’t pick and choose verses and still call yourself a Christian. The Bible is a packaged deal.

  17. avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

    Great article. I’d ask why WOULDN’T you by guns. Reasons for me:

    1) Wife wants new appliances
    2) Wife controls budget
    3) I’m SOL

  18. avatarWLCE says:

    “God-fearing gun owners who believe in the Second Amendment don’t want anybody dead – we merely want to be left in peace and free to pursue happiness – with our families and within our communities.”

    the same goes for agnostic, non religious people like myself. I think any sensible human being wants to be left in peace and free to pursue happiness. the problem is that there are those that have a lust for power. they will burn everything and everyone to just have more of something or to have more followers.

    • avatarRalph says:

      WLCE, you summed it up pretty much it right there — the people who want to control us can’t even control themselves.

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      I concur.

      And I might add that if “God is Love,” then “God-fearing” is contradictory, considering this author’s viewpoint:

      “There is no fear in love.” ~1 John 4:18

      • avatarWLCE says:

        i agree 100%. why would a “all knowing and all powerful” god succumb to such pathetic human emotions like jealousy?

  19. avatarScott says:

    Unfortunately one of the main reasons many people buy guns these days is that they (you?) think that the world is actually going to end. Disaster/meteor/plague/economic collapse / whatever.

    That is a sad reason to be motivated. In fact it’s more than sad, it’s harmful – see Sandy Hook.

    And the world is not going to end. If and when a disaster hits my area I will be out there helping people, my wife and kids will be too. People on this site? Holed up with a gun pointed down the street for the “scary gangs and criminals”.

    Yes I support more stringent ownership requirements.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      stick your head in the sand, itll be okay (dumbass).

      you obviously havent heard of peak oil and the fiat currency paradigm…

      i dont normally attack people for their beliefs, but lives depend on good information. yours isnt

    • avatarjwm says:

      Why would i have to worry about gangs or criminals. Scott? They’ll have your wife and kids to distract them from me.

      And yes that was a cold thing to say. Consider it a wake up call for your families sake.

  20. avatarpat says:

    The second amendment helps make sure that US citizens dont become Pelvic Ashtrays full of their ashes.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      but apparently its “impossible”. gun grabbers think the US is a all knowing, all enlightened society that will never succumb to the trends of tyranny…despite EVERY major power in human history doing so. LOL. despite us being only 236 years old. Despite infringements upon civil liberties already taking place.

      poor dolts. when will they ever learn?

      • avatarpat says:

        Not only that, but several regions are simply a disaster away from finding out just how worthless ‘Big Gov’ is when the chips are down and a beater car full of gang banging thugs smashes into their garages. The new “seven bullet” rule in the police state of NY will show them just how fast they run out (pop pop pop…pop pop pop…and the last pop for yourself), and how stupid and worthless the state can be.

        • Pat: As many people have pointed out on this board, it doesn’t take long to change magazines. If you are defending your home, you have a tactical advantage that spree-killers don’t: You can shoot defensively from a pre-planned location.

          More to the point, the new law does not limit the number of magazines you can own, nor the number of guns. Since you are (theoretically) at home, you are not constrained by the need to carry all your arms and ammo.

          If you are planning for the worst case scenario, which you seem to be, my advice is to buy two guns. Or go ahead and buy 46 of them. Keep a few in every room so you can fight trench warfare against armed gangs of liberals. No one is stopping you.

        • avatarpat says:

          Nobody…..NOBODY is INSANE enough to only have seven rounds in their weapon…..in their OWN HOME. You can be stupid enough to hope that your wife or loved one is not so panicky to shoot up those precious 7 and then have to fumble around with a reload while the guetto bangers laugh at her before killing her. You are portraying a calm, cool way the event could play out, rather than the dark, shakey, quick situation it could (remember murphy’s lay) be.
          You stupid libtards can go ahead and play with multiple mags because some America hating leftist told you so. Think before you post.

        • Pat: Just because you need a hundred rounds to defend your house does not mean it is Constitutionally protected.

          If you can’t defend your house properly, it isn’t the gun, it’s you.

  21. avatarJames says:

    Believers in guns are a superstitious lot . . .

    Like believing 13 is unlucky? No, we are not. We value guns for all the reasons mentioned, but we are not superstitious. We are afraid of our government and the bad guys for good reason ( that is redundant, isn’t it? ), and have taken appropriate steps to handle that fear in an entirely rational and thoughtful manner.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.