Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Connect with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Read up on the latest product reviews
  • Make new friends to go shooting with!
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

Glock Talk is the #1 site to discuss the world’s most popular pistol, chat about firearms, accessories and more.

Freedom of speech and guns

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by iluv2viddyfilms, Jul 4, 2011.

  1. Freedom of speech is very important and I think that people should be open minded. Freedom of speech goes toward listening and allowing the conversation of ideas that don't reflect your own. On Independence Day I think it is important to acknowledge that we have freedom of speech - in written, spoken form, etc.

    In exercising mine I'm going to offer a counter viewpoint on guns and question some common pro-gun arguments.

    1. Guns are a constitutional right:

    Well the second amendment says the right to bear arms... well regulated militia. The question becomes as to how to define arms. What is the definition of "arms" Could have the framers guessed fully and semi-automatic weapons? At the times arms meant long rifles and muskets that were singleshot muzzle loads. I wonder if the founding fathers would have seen the necessity in having AR-15s and AK-47s? Also what is the purpose to having the right to bear arms... to protect the people against a tyranical government? In this case should the amendment pretain to whatever weapons the government has. Should people have nuclear bombs and fighter jets?

    2. Guns are needed.

    A. Guns are needed to hunt: Hunting is a hobby not a necessity... in our culture today we can find food at the grocery store. Hunting is recreation which is a contradition to the word "need."

    B. Guns are needed for protection: Actually if someone wants to hurt us, we are likely going to be hurt whether we have a gun or not. Since we are not the aggressor we do not have the knowledge of the attack and guns make attacks very quick. 99.9999 percent of the population will go through life without ever having to use a gun for protection or needing to.

    C. Guns are a right: But really why? Why does one human being have a right to own an item that is purely designed to take the life of another?

    D. Guns are a hobby: True. Can't argue this... which is why I have guns, but still I could find other hobbies.

    3. Criminals get guns illegally.

    Most guns used by criminals are from lawful purchases. Whether they are stolen from people who bought them legally or are gotten through the straw-purchase. Firearms companies do not manufacture guns for criminals, but law obiding citizens. The fact is that any gun used in a crime was ORIGINALLY purchased in legal fashion. Also more demand for guns by people like us at Glocktalk, help criminals have easier access to them.

    4. If not guns, the bad guys will kill with other weapons.

    True, but what other weapon can give a 150 pound man an advantage over a 300 pound man. What other weapon can give 1 man an advantage over 30 men? Guns do not make people able to kill, they make it EASY and ACCESSABLE to kill.

    5. If everyone had guns the badguys wouldn't dare commit crimes or murder.

    Well most gun deaths are self-inflected. Suicide is the most common form of gun death in America. And in most shootings the perpetrator is suicidal, so fear of death (or other guns) is not a factor. For a law-abiding citizen that logic would make sense, but criminals don't always use logic.

    6. A gun is a tool.

    True, but what other tool has a sole purpose in taking the life of a human being? Yes a car can kill, a chainsaw can kill, and a hammer can kill. A car has the purpose of transportation. A chainsaw has the purpose of sawing through lumber. A hammer has the purpose of driving in nails. A gun has the purpose of killing or the threat of killing.

    7. If guns were made illegal, only the criminals would have guns.

    True, but only a very very small percentage of them would, as 99-percent of guns used in crime are originally purchased legally. Most criminals would not have guns because guns would not be in circulation. It's common sense.

    Just a few thoughts.

    By the way I'm probably going to go shoot my new Colt series 70 1911 with some friends next weekend. :tongueout:

    Happy Independence Day!
  2. tous

    tous GET A ROPE!

    Jan 7, 2001
    Plano, Texas, Republic of
    How long have you been channeling Josh Sugarman?

  3. What do you think of my points? I'm a gun owner, but honestly deep down I cannot find a good reason why I should be entitled to them. To me it's really a hobby, an interest, and appreciating them as someone might appreciate a muscle car than can go 150 mph and 0-60 in one second, but would not have a real practical reason to do so.
  4. G-Lock808


    Aug 17, 2009
    Mid Pac.
    malarkey, but you're entitled to your opinion.
  5. TheJ

    TheJ NRA Life Member Lifetime Member

    Jan 24, 2011
    IMO it's about the people having the right to defend themselves against others, the government and/or a SHTF type of situation. This doesn't mean everyone needs to have access to nuclear arms but the government isn't suppose to have anything even approaching a monopoly on deadly force.
    Just because many may see hunting as recreation doesn't mean everyone does or that everyone should be made to. The government should NOT be able to make things illegal based on the fact that it could be sourced from others.
    False premise. 99.9999% of the protective value of firearms is that they are present and could be used not they they necessarily are "used" (fired) to protect. There are no statistics kept as to how many crimes were prevented because the possibility of the perspective victim possessing a firearm.
    See protection reason stated previously.
    The government should not deny it's citizens ANY pursuit of happiness without a ridiculously compelling reason.
    Chances are anything used in a violent crime was originally obtained legally.. I don't understand the point of saying that. However, your logic is an example of what economists would call a fallacy of composition. If your logic held water then prisons would be nice safe places where there are no murders and violent crimes minimal...

    Incorrect, all they do is equalize things. You are looking at this from the wrong perspective. How would a 110lb woman defend herself against a 300lb male aggressor? Without guns her options are very limited. Should she have the right to not live in fear?
    Again... See my previous statement on the fact that we have no idea how many crimes were prevented because the perspective victim was armed or thought to be armed. My guess is the figure would dwarf the gun suicide rate.

    Again, you are looking at this the wrong way. As a tool, it's a tool for defense. It's typically take few lives compared to how many lives it does/has saved.
    Again, guns save untold lives and prevent untold crimes. So you are only looking at one small sliver of the equation and seeing what you want to. Guns primarily don't take lives and cause crime the actually saves lives and prevent crimes.
  6. BailRecoveryAgent

    BailRecoveryAgent Rude Member

    Aug 2, 2010
  7. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

    Rights come from God.

    I guess it's too bad you can't ask the folks under the Nazis in Germany or Stalin or the Warsaw Ghetto how that "no Second Amendment" thing worked out for them.
  8. G36's Rule

    G36's Rule Senior Member

    Dec 1, 2001
    Spring, TX.
    Don't feed the troll people.
  9. Baba Louie

    Baba Louie

    Sep 6, 2001
    While I disagree with that which you say, I'll defend your right to say it.

    You and I have not lived thru a govt that has stripped the arms from the people, kept them cloistered within their own seiged city (or without) and actually fired upon them killing more than a few. I hope.

    Others within this land have had that joy. That sorrow.

    T'was determined that shall never happen again, so the govt was expressly limited in that regards, and yet, they cannot help themselves to determine that "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means reasonable regulations. A $200 tax stamp here, only govt agents can own these or those, the plainly stated "fact" that it's the US citizens fault bad things happen across the border...

    Your hobby. My passion. Better men and women than I (and you?) have died protecting same.

    Feel free to speak your mind, your beliefs, even tho I cannot see why you feel entitled to them...:supergrin:

    Have a safe Independence Day.
  10. I must admit I hate these threads but I'll just throw in my two cents on this issue.

    I have heard this lame argument over and over and it is always put forth by people with conveniently short memories. Beyond the Constitution itself, there is a significant amount of writing by the framers that details much of what they had in mind..

    Now when it comes to the infamous "oh well back then they had flintllocks and blackpowder guns, they never would have supported an AK47" , that is completely incorrect.

    Attempt for a moment to understand that this country... the USA was BORNE out of a revolutionary WAR. The people who fought and died for freedom did so from what they perceived to be an oppressive government. The 2nd Amendment isnt for a moment, about what KIND of gun or arms you can own, it is the basis that those who crafted the language knew that a government could only be kept in check and people could only be free when the people themselves were armed. That arming by definition would technically be at whatever level was necessary to keep a governement in check and not oppress the people. So the answer is.. the framers simply wanted the people to be as powerful as the government.. be it with a revolver, an AR15 or a nuclear sub.. That is the nature of the amendment and that is what it stands for.

    This stupid gibber gabber about what "kind of weapon" is ok or isnt, isnt something that the Bill Of Rights contemplated since it doesnt/didnt matter to the founding fathers. Its a freedom from oppression thing.. not a "what kind of gun/arms are you allowed" thing. The "kind of weapon" argument is simply for those that would attempt to limit others and garner power (antis).

    To elaborate on this issue, I have had the debate also that the founders couldnt have possibly imagined what modern weaponry is, and if they did, theyd do things differerntly.

    I disagree wholeheartedly with this, as do others who read the Constitution.. The founding fathers were amazingly forward thinking... If you dont think so, read the 9th Amendment of our Bill Of Rights. It basically says "People will retain unenumerated rights". What that means is that the founding fathers were so cognicent of the fact that they couldnt anticiapte everything and anything, that they wanted to say "anything we've missed gets caught up in this catch all". They KNEW they didnt know everything and or could have thought of everything the future held so they basically said that people have rights beyond what they anticipated in the Constitution itself. This goes to the thinking of the 2nd Amendment.. the founding fathers werent dumb enough to believe that they could anticpated or know everything in the future as the 9th Amendment details... and as such they didnt make the 2nd Amendment, "The Right To Bear Arms, as long as they arent too dangerous, shall not be infringed"
  11. NeverMore1701

    NeverMore1701 Fear no Evil Platinum Member

    Jun 25, 2004
    Amarillo, Tx
    I think they're made and shared by idiots. You've been spouting this crap for a while now, and you're not in the most receptive board on the 'net to such nonsense. You're either trolling or just plain silly, and either way no one here takes you seriously.
  12. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    Jan 16, 2005
    Obviously, others will respond to each of your faulty or false premises. Ignoring the facts to create a liberal dreamworld seems to be your central theme.

    As to your constitutional righht argument, you should probably be aware that the constitution, as interpreted by the supreme court (the final say on the subject) says you are wrong.

    The obvious flaw with your 150 lb. man/300 lb. man argument about alternative weapons is clear on its face - it only has merit if the guy with the gun is the bad guy. Otherwise, it becomes "what is the only weapon that allows your 100 lb. grandmother to defend herself againsty a 300 lb. male criminal.' Obviously, not a good argument for your side.

    Read over that again and see if you really think any of those arguments has merit. They aren't even internally consistent - recognizing in 1 argument that a gun can be used in self defense, yet claiming in another that it is only useful for hunting, then in yet another saying its only purpose is to kill people.

    Finally, if you believe what you have written, and you own guns, as you say, you seem have a serious, serious psychological issue from a layman's perspective (i.e., "I own guns but I believe they are only useful for killing people and I label the person with the gun a criminal"). In short, are you a liar, or a nutcase?

    If you really can't think of a reason to own guns, I guess everybody from Thomas Jefferson to Ronald reagan to the majority of the supreme court must not be as smart as you. Having seen many of your posts, I am well aware that isn't the case.
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2011
  13. NeverMore1701

    NeverMore1701 Fear no Evil Platinum Member

    Jun 25, 2004
    Amarillo, Tx
  14. Rizzo

    Rizzo Garbage Day!

    Jun 10, 2008
    Godless country
    Films, between this thread and that bravado thread (I'm not using my CCW, I'd just do exactly what a BG wants)... have you ever considered moving to England? Serious question. That whole country pretty much sides with your, um, views about guns.

    DARKSHADOW My Work Hobby CLM

    Aug 10, 2005
    Imagine if commiting crimes was illegal, then criminals would stop commiting crimes. Genius!!! :rofl:
  16. Really? You can't find why your entitled? Try the Second Amendment .. that's what entitles you.. the people who fought and died to protect that right were doing it long before you were a sperm, and long before you lived under the blanket of freedom that allows you to write your foolish drivel.

    The Bill of Rights doest talk about hobbies or material diversions like sports cars and the fact that you lump them together speaks volumes about your respect for our Bill of Rights, Constitution or the USA.:whistling:
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2011
  17. No I have not considered moving to England. I own guns, but besides that moving to a country based on one voting issue seems ridiculous. Perspective.
  18. Good point, but isn't the most basic fundamental purpose of any government of human beings - in theory - is to protect the citizens? In this case while a government may not have a monopoly on deadly force, shouldn't they at least regulate it in protecting citizens from each other?

    True, I agree.

    This is the same principal in countries keeping nuclear weapons. The Cold War idea... not violence, but the threat of violence. I have a problem with that in that it shows that there is a need to use the threat of violence. Of course I'm also realistic and understand some people will not respect your right to life. That would be nice if there were statistics that showed how many crimes are prevented because of legal civilian gun ownership... sadly a statistic like that would almost be impossible to come up with.

    So the fact that America has the highest incident of gun deaths and crimes is not a compelling reason? What would be a compelling reason then?

    So you're saying that all criminals who use guns in their crimes either steal them directly from the manufacterer or the dealer? WRONG.

    True, it's a double edged blade in that the gun can be used to make things unequal or equal depending on the situation. Good point.

    Guns increase the capacity to kill. Period. But as we both know a statistic about how many lives are saved because of guns will never exist, but we do know how many deaths occur each year in the US at the hands of firearms or those who wield firearms.

    Compare the US gun death rate per 100,000 people to other countries.

    We are in the top 10 and this includes many third world countries. Also notice how the death rate was 15.22 in 1993 a year before the assault weapons ban. Then in 2004 10 years during that period the rate went down to 10.2 That's a third decrease of gun deaths. I hate to say it, but based on those statistics the Brady Bill Assault weapons ban could be seen as effective in preventing firearms deaths. Of couse I know there are other factors.
  20. TheJ

    TheJ NRA Life Member Lifetime Member

    Jan 24, 2011
    The government CAN'T protect us from everything and in trying to do so would only further endanger us. The whole "I carry a weapon because carry a cop is too heavy" concept...

    Seriously.. Prisons are a prime example, no guns will NEVER mean no murder or violent crimes. To believe otherwise is fantasy. You may not like the fact that weakness invites attacks but it is a truth as old as life on earth. You're going to have to get over it.
    There isn't one. Again, you are completely dismissing the lives saved and violent crimes prevented by the presence of guns in the possession of good guys. Additionally, go back and see my prison example.. gun deaths are practically zero and yet murder and violent crime is still very common.

    No in fact it said just the opposite. And that practically any thing used in violent crime was likely originally legally purchased. So what? Should we stop selling kitchen knives because they have been used to kill so many? Using your logic you stated previously, we could just buy stuff precut.

    You completely dismiss the fact that Less guns may equal less gun crime but that doesn't equal less murder/violent crimes/etc. People who want to kill and commit violence will still be perfectly capable of doing so. Additionally though, less guns and less legal access means many law abiding citizens will be less equipped to defend themselves from the violence. Also bad guys knowing the good guys don't have guns means there is far less deterrent to prevent crimes. You talk as if no gun deaths mean no deaths. That just isn't so.