ASD/ AS and firearms...DO THEY MIX??

Post Reply New Topic

This is correct. The Second Amendment was written to address the need for states to have armed local Militia to protect people's freedom. Unfortunately it's been perverted by the gun lobby to include unlimited rights for every mentally unstable individual to own and use any type of dangerous weapon they feel like for what ever purpose wish. Which has nothing to do with the original intent to have armed Militia to defend freedom. Anyone who thinks owning a hand gun promotes freedom is just delusional.

I voted 'yes'. I was in the military for 7yrs, and always did pretty well during 9mm qualifications. The GMs even 'drafted' me to help train others. (I was an electronics tech). Now, hubby and I have a safe full of firearms.

The writers of the Second Amendment intended for it to keep the government in check. They intended for the people to have the same weapons held by the government. Firearms bans and restrictions (applied to law-abiding citizens!) are unconstitutional for this reason. Not that the constitution matters to our government anymore...

Even though the government has become too powerful for the public to fend off these days, I still sleep better knowing that I can protect my household against intruders who would do us harm. What boggles my mind is that some people who have been attacked, robbed, and raped, or have lost someone close to them that way, still don't believe in owning weapons for personal defense. What connections have to be missing inside someone's head to think that way?

While we're throwing out figures, 98% of incidents where a gun is drawn are ended without shots being fired. Just having a gun in a sticky situation can save your life, even if you don't end up using it.

Well, if that is the point, good luck with your handgun. It wouldn't pierce the armour of a pre-WWI armoured car, let alone a modern APC, so you might want to purchase some anti-tank missiles.


Maybe they think it is better to surrender their purse or television set rather than force the robber to be desperate, with bad consequences to both? Maybe they don't know if they would be the one actually firing the gun, if it came to it? And maybe -- maybe -- they would rather avoid it be accidentally misplaced and discharged?

I've been shooting guns for as long as I can remember. I have several target shooting awards and I got my sharpshooter certification in the Airforce.

I love collecting and shooting guns. I own 9 of them.
I always keep them locked up. In other words, I don't feel the need to use one for home protection. It's too easy to not recognize someone at night and mistake a friend for an intruder.

Glad to see this thread is still going on... I'll say it again: If someone doesn't believe in owning firearms, then don't buy one... But don't impose your will on others. And as Blasty said,nthe 2nd amendment is intended to keep the citizens safe from a corrupt government, and this was the final finding by the US Supreme Court recently.

The gun ownership disagreement is the same as any other Liberal attempt to remove rights from people... They buy these little greenie cars, then drive them rudely in the left lane to hold up traffic and force others to go slower to save gas or whatever. If they don't like bug gas-guzzling vehicles to feed the economy and reward the hard-working who buy them, then buy a Prius and coast along at 28 mph IN THE SLOW LANE while I roar past; speeding if I so choose to risk a ticket.


Charles

If a someone protects themselves from a dangerous intruder have they not just promoted their own personal freedom? With a handgun you can hunt, spend time with friends and family shooting and reloading (bonding and teaching responsibility) and defend yourself, family and friends. These are huge steps in self reliance and the more self reliant you are the more free you are.

The AR-15 has been villainized but it is just a rifle. Typically people have hunted with firearms developed by the military. The 223 round has less potential to over penetrate making it a good home defense round but is perfectly adequate for deer sized game. The AR-15 is easy to shoot, accurate, reliable and adjustable to people of different size so everyone in the family can use the same gun. So if someone wanted one rife for hunting and defense that anyone in the house can pick up and adjust to fit their stature then the AR-15 is a good choice.

Guns are like nuclear weapons. The problem is not about not wanting to own one, it is about not wanting the other to have one -- for one's personnal safety.

Take away all the firearms in the world and you'll be just as scared of someone owning a sword or bow.

Slippery slope fallacy there with equating a firearm to a nuclear weapon; a nuclear weapon can instantly kill hundreds of thousands of people and a further hundreds of thousands in the fallout, whereas a firearm in the hands of a capable shooter is generally no more than tens to low hundreds depending on the type. These latter events are outliers though. So are the use of nuclear weapons, but they're both beside the point.

Guess it depends on where you get your statistics, how they're defined and what year they came from (for example legal shooting and accidental shootings don't necessarily result in death). This argument is pointless anyway because the vast majority of Defensive Gun Uses do not involve shooting the gun; simply producing it is enough to make the bad guy turn around and run. So the real question is how many murders, rapes, assaults, etc are prevented by guns, not how many bad guys are killed.

I'd just like to add something that I adore: A firearm makes a woman an equal to a man.

A lone mother with an old .410 gauge single shot shotgun (which will never be banned in any country), has nothing to fear from any attacker in her home if she knows how to use it.

That's just awesome.

Suicide is more likelly to suceed with a gun.


Automobiles are usefull as a mean of transport; guns only use is to kill, nothing else, they conceive as a mean to kill.

Same here. I have no intrest in having or using a gun. At all. I find guns icky and scary and don't want to be near them.

However, I don't see why it would be worse for an aspie to have a gun that an NT. Each to their own.

The folks in Europe don't seem to have a problem without a gun. In fact many European countries lead the US in suicide. You know the old saying, if at first you don't succeed try try again.



They're also used to transport drugs, sex slaves, explosives.... Obviously not all transportation is bad but some is. The problem is that you're stuck in the view that all killing is bad. Hunting and self-defense are legit in my book.

Firearms are able to provide food, which is equally as valid as driving to the grocery store; the chance of dying on the way to the grocery store is far higher than shooting a deer. Also, there's no need to drive to work; just live closer to work.

Don't you just love logic?

I wasn't equating it, I was comparing it. I should have said "guns are to individuals what nuclear weapons are to countries".

And by the way, just about any sensible pre-firearm government had restrictions on who could have weapons too (especially swords, since they were also a show of status).